AARoads Forum

A King County Superior Court judge dismissed a speeding ticket, ruling that the School Speed Limit signs in question are too wordy.

The signs indicate a school speed limit of 20 mph, but are accompanied by two supplemental signs "when children are present" and "or when flashing" (an amber light is atop the sign).  The judge noted that Washington law requires that the signs comply with the MUTCD, which allows one supplementary sign or the other, but not both.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/judge-tosses-speeding-ticket-in-school-zone-over-wordy-city-sign/

Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 16, 2017, 11:38:20 PM
A King County Superior Court judge dismissed a speeding ticket, ruling that the School Speed Limit signs in question are too wordy.

The signs indicate a school speed limit of 20 mph, but are accompanied by two supplemental signs "when children are present" and "or when flashing" (an amber light is atop the sign).  The judge noted that Washington law requires that the signs comply with the MUTCD, which allows one supplementary sign or the other, but not both.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/judge-tosses-speeding-ticket-in-school-zone-over-wordy-city-sign/

Now this judge has certainly done her homework (and precedent does help!).  Not too many in the enforcement and/or judicial fields would actually read the MUTCD of their own volition!  There would actually be a simple solution:  just employ the flashing light, which would be activated during the hours/days the school is actually in session.  Unfortunately, there are some out there in traffic planning land who conceive of their job as making urban driving in general as onerous as humanly possible; "piling on" the codicils and requirements is one of the preferred methodologies to do so within technical grounds -- "stealth" enforcement.  Glad someone's calling BS on the practice, and has legal support for their position.

Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

I think speed limits in general are too strictly enforced anyways.

Quote from: Bruce on July 17, 2017, 03:33:49 PM
Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

Sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- essentially the "garbage can" school of policy manifested.  Obviously, the concept here goes well beyond simple neighborhood safety; most of us have little if any problem with 20mph or so being applied to neighborhood streets.  But a whole city -- particularly one that exists today?  Please!.  If you want to disrupt commerce and hobble business within said city (possibly within an anti [or at least non]-capitalist/consumer scenario), this might be one of the more effective ways to accomplish that.  Now -- if you were starting from scratch -- and could garner the consensus of the populace (likely limiting that population to the like-minded), that's another story; one could institute utopian communitarianism (or whatever it would be termed) down to the point of engaging in that onerous approach to the driving public (many of whom who probably would opt out in any case).  But to retrofit it to an existing city?  Not a chance in hell -- any party trying might gain an initial audience -- even an official one -- but the level of opposition would render such a concept DOA!  It would be humorous to see an attempt to render Lake City/522 a 20mph facility (although it often achieves that or worse during peak hours!); the same could be said for virtually any arterial in any part of town.  But then, the concept outlined is functionally the elimination of all arterials, downgrading them to localized streets.  I suppose a co-concept is hyperlocalization -- social/commercial activities effectively confined to one neighborhood -- the ultimate in bounded rationality! 

I wouldn't mind seeing a layout of such a city concept -- even theoretically imposed on an existing city such as Seattle, Portland, or any other that comes to mind.  But it's strictly a fictional exercise; not something that's going to become prevalent in the metropolitan lexicon.

Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:19:41 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 17, 2017, 03:33:49 PM
Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

Sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- essentially the "garbage can" school of policy manifested.  Obviously, the concept here goes well beyond simple neighborhood safety; most of us have little if any problem with 20mph or so being applied to neighborhood streets.  But a whole city -- particularly one that exists today?  Please!.  If you want to disrupt commerce and hobble business within said city (possibly within an anti [or at least non]-capitalist/consumer scenario), this might be one of the more effective ways to accomplish that.  Now -- if you were starting from scratch -- and could garner the consensus of the populace (likely limiting that population to the like-minded), that's another story; one could institute utopian communitarianism (or whatever it would be termed) down to the point of engaging in that onerous approach to the driving public (many of whom who probably would opt out in any case).  But to retrofit it to an existing city?  Not a chance in hell -- any party trying might gain an initial audience -- even an official one -- but the level of opposition would render such a concept DOA!  It would be humorous to see an attempt to render Lake City/522 a 20mph facility (although it often achieves that or worse during peak hours!); the same could be said for virtually any arterial in any part of town.  But then, the concept outlined is functionally the elimination of all arterials, downgrading them to localized streets.  I suppose a co-concept is hyperlocalization -- social/commercial activities effectively confined to one neighborhood -- the ultimate in bounded rationality! 

I wouldn't mind seeing a layout of such a city concept -- even theoretically imposed on an existing city such as Seattle, Portland, or any other that comes to mind.  But it's strictly a fictional exercise; not something that's going to become prevalent in the metropolitan lexicon.

I agree.  NYC has done something similar with a citywide 25 mph speed limit and it really limits the ability to travel around the city if people follow it.  Even though there are signs that say "photo enforced" all over the place people know that by state law the cameras can only be in front of schools. 

Narrow residential streets should be low speed.  20 MPH.  But streets with multiple lanes are thoroughfares and should be used for travel at an appropriate speed, generally 35 or 40 for a city arterial.  If the major streets do not have a higher speed limit, a lot of traffic will be encouraged onto the side streets.  Keep the traffic on the main streets with higher speed limits. There is no reason that Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, a street with service lanes (to keep local traffic away from the main traffic), no parking on the main lanes, and 3 wide lanes in each direction, should be the same speed as a classic NYC narrow street with parking on both sides and double parking.

Quote from: Bruce on July 17, 2017, 03:33:49 PM
Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

I think that's a little extreme. Holland, having (arguably) the best examples of urban infrastructure design anywhere in the world, has many long, wide straight roads. It's all a matter of accommodation -- with separation.

Also, keep in mind that Rainier Ave, before being "redesigned", was one of the least-straight roads in Seattle, yet it was by far the most dangerous.

I do agree that streets with lowered limits need to be redesigned. I drive around Seattle all the time for Uber, on many of the roads that have had their limits lowered. No one goes anywhere near the new limits. This is for two reasons: 1) there is hardly ever any enforcement, and 2) the roads were meant to accommodate higher speeds than those posted, so logically people ignore the artificially low limits.

I may be in the minority, but I think 20 MPH is good for residential streets. Especially with all the children playing outside, as well as senior citizens trying to cross safely.

Leaving aside the extremist political opinions of the uneducated, back to SLs. 

First, ANY victory for a motorist over the traffic cop in a court is great.  Far too many traffic court judges are rubber stamp kangaroo court judges unworthy of respect.  It is good thing.

Second, anybody who wants to redesign streets to slow traffic does not understand what streets are for.  Generally it is just do-gooders trying to social engineer OTHERS to live their lives in a manner they do not wish to.

Lastly, school zone limits IN SOME PLACES are vastly too low.  In my part of the country, there are plenty of schools where 100% of students are taken on a yellow bus to school,  No student walks to school.  Further these schools are fenced in and whatever outdoor activities exist, which is to say recess, is done behind that fence 100s of feet from a road.   Traffic cop scum use these places as speed traps and in most states the penalty for such infractions is higher than even the ordinary random tax.  In such a scenario, there need be no reduction in the SL whatsoever.

I'm fine with 20 or 25 in school zones and residential side streets. I get annoyed with some small towns that place the elementary school directly on the main highway instead of a side street. That practice invites conflicts regarding safety, noise, pollution and traffic flow. "Won't somebody think of the children?"

Quote from: mrsman on July 17, 2017, 11:58:53 PM
I agree.  NYC has done something similar with a citywide 25 mph speed limit and it really limits the ability to travel around the city if people follow it.  Even though there are signs that say "photo enforced" all over the place people know that by state law the cameras can only be in front of schools.

I'm pretty sure that somewhere around 3/4 of NYC is within a "school zone" as defined by the law.  The city wants to change the law to cover the entire city in the "school zone", raise the cap on the number of cameras, and allow the cameras to run 24/7/365.

Quote from: mrsman on July 17, 2017, 11:58:53 PM

Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:19:41 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 17, 2017, 03:33:49 PM
Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

Sounds like the tail wagging the dog -- essentially the "garbage can" school of policy manifested.  Obviously, the concept here goes well beyond simple neighborhood safety; most of us have little if any problem with 20mph or so being applied to neighborhood streets.  But a whole city -- particularly one that exists today?  Please!.  If you want to disrupt commerce and hobble business within said city (possibly within an anti [or at least non]-capitalist/consumer scenario), this might be one of the more effective ways to accomplish that.  Now -- if you were starting from scratch -- and could garner the consensus of the populace (likely limiting that population to the like-minded), that's another story; one could institute utopian communitarianism (or whatever it would be termed) down to the point of engaging in that onerous approach to the driving public (many of whom who probably would opt out in any case).  But to retrofit it to an existing city?  Not a chance in hell -- any party trying might gain an initial audience -- even an official one -- but the level of opposition would render such a concept DOA!  It would be humorous to see an attempt to render Lake City/522 a 20mph facility (although it often achieves that or worse during peak hours!); the same could be said for virtually any arterial in any part of town.  But then, the concept outlined is functionally the elimination of all arterials, downgrading them to localized streets.  I suppose a co-concept is hyperlocalization -- social/commercial activities effectively confined to one neighborhood -- the ultimate in bounded rationality! 

I wouldn't mind seeing a layout of such a city concept -- even theoretically imposed on an existing city such as Seattle, Portland, or any other that comes to mind.  But it's strictly a fictional exercise; not something that's going to become prevalent in the metropolitan lexicon.

I agree.  NYC has done something similar with a citywide 25 mph speed limit and it really limits the ability to travel around the city if people follow it.  Even though there are signs that say "photo enforced" all over the place people know that by state law the cameras can only be in front of schools. 

Narrow residential streets should be low speed.  20 MPH.  But streets with multiple lanes are thoroughfares and should be used for travel at an appropriate speed, generally 35 or 40 for a city arterial.  If the major streets do not have a higher speed limit, a lot of traffic will be encouraged onto the side streets.  Keep the traffic on the main streets with higher speed limits. There is no reason that Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, a street with service lanes (to keep local traffic away from the main traffic), no parking on the main lanes, and 3 wide lanes in each direction, should be the same speed as a classic NYC narrow street with parking on both sides and double parking.

I did a little more research and it seems that the new speed limits for arterials in Seattle are only effective in the center city.  So while residential streets are reduced to 20 mph citywide, only arterials in the central area are reduced to 25 mph.  See the link below for a map of center city arterials.

http://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2016/11/07/your-new-vision-zero-speed-limits/

Quote from: Bruce on July 17, 2017, 03:33:49 PM
Make it simple like the rest of Seattle: all street limits down to 20 mph, and then redesign the streets to accomodate that speed. No more straightaways through the middle of a city.

Hell no! I can think of several streets in Seattle where even the 30mph speed limit is too slow. For example, Sandpoint Way north of Magnuson Park should be 35, not 30 up to where it turns into 125th. It was at one point a state highway after all (SR 513 prior to 1991) and if it didn't have a ton of driveways, could easily be mistaken for a typical two lane highway.

Having tons of driveways would make it a decent candidate to be slowed if anything.

The urban street is not just for driving. It is a place where people walk and cycle, and those two modes should take precedence since it's much easier to accommodate more of them than more cars.

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

OT:

Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:44:09 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
OT:

Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:44:09 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Less and less people like mass transit. Ridership has been decreasing around the US since the 60s (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13453). It makes no sense to continue subsidizing a mode of transportation whose ridership has been decreasing for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so thanks to more consistent--and lower--fuel prices as a result of fracking being a thing, causing Saudi Arabia to actually have to make their oil prices lower to compete with us. Also, this continued reduction in public transit usage is also thanks to services like Uber and Lyft. A coworker of mine always takes a Lyft car home from work, despite the fact that it's more expensive than the bus.

And why should our city be so dense? I don't think it should be any denser. I really have NEVER understood all the hate for suburbs. They're a lot quieter, the lack of the grid means that people actually drive on residential streets more slowly, and the lack of density means that traffic is better.

I think the main reason why I hate the war on cars so much is because it takes away my freedom to go wherever I want, whenever I want. I love being able to be just an hour away from the peace and solitude of God's beautiful creation that is a river along the Cascade Mountains. :D

Quote from: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:04 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
OT:

Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:44:09 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Less and less people like mass transit. Ridership has been decreasing around the US since the 60s (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13453). It makes no sense to continue subsidizing a mode of transportation whose ridership has been decreasing for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so thanks to more consistent--and lower--fuel prices as a result of fracking being a thing, causing Saudi Arabia to actually have to make their oil prices lower to compete with us. Also, this continued reduction in public transit usage is also thanks to services like Uber and Lyft. A coworker of mine always takes a Lyft car home from work, despite the fact that it's more expensive than the bus.

Page 4 of the link, within your link (of the APTA data), shows King County Metro and Sound Transit's ridership way up. The rest of the US is welcome to grow however they'd like.

Quote from: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
And why should our city be so dense? I don't think it should be any denser. I really have NEVER understood all the hate for suburbs. They're a lot quieter, the lack of the grid means that people actually drive on residential streets more slowly, and the lack of density means that traffic is better.

We can't build road networks fast enough to keep up with growth (amongst other things -- keep reading). Higher density areas reduce the demand on the roads, because you don't need a car to do every little task.

If every single person that moved to Seattle, moved to the 'burbs and bought a car, our traffic would be catastrophic. 24/7 gridlock. Luckily, Seattle grows up instead of out, so (potentially) people don't need to live 45 miles from where they work.

FWIW, the quicker we get denser, the more affordable the housing. Housing is expensive around here because there isn't enough of it. High-density neighbourhoods can cram thousands of people into a couple of blocks. Suburbs? A few dozen per block, maybe. You do the math. Suburbs are very wasteful. It wouldn't be a big deal if Seattle wasn't growing, but it is -- rapidly. We gotta play it smart.

Quote from: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
I think the main reason why I hate the war on cars so much is because it takes away my freedom to go wherever I want, whenever I want. I love being able to be just an hour away from the peace and solitude of God's beautiful creation that is a river along the Cascade Mountains. :D

Well, you gotta get your priority's straight first, mate. You could have had both in the 50s, but lane-miles-per-capita has dropped dramatically since then. Unfortunately for us (depending on how you look at it), land, and the price of it, has gotten scarcer and more expensive. There's nowhere to build new roads, and expanding our current roads is expensive right off the bat due to expropriation costs. Never mind the actual construction costs!

I suppose the question is why focus all our growth on big metro areas in the first place?  Why have everyone move to the Seattle area when there are plenty of smaller cities with room to expand without creating gridlock.  Detroit has plenty to empty space.  Let's have growth there.  Let's have growth in the small towns that have been losing people for decades.  IMO the big metro areas are big enough already.  Honestly, I find many of these places too big for my tastes.  About the size of Rochester/Buffalo/Syracuse is my ideal.

Nobody is "focusing" growth on big metros, big metros are growing because there's where growth occurs, due to a more productive economy.

High-productivity industries like tech and finance benefit from being where other firms in that industry are located, due in part to the need to be where skilled labor (e.g. college graduates) are.

To put it another way, Detroit is dirt cheap...a start-up company could easily lease an office for a fraction of what it costs in Silicon Valley or Seattle, yet Seattle and Silicon Valley are where the action is. That's because that's where the talent is.

Hence, Silicon Valley and Seattle will continue to grow, the only question is up (density) or out (sprawl). Small towns like Rochester, short-of a major industrial shakeup or flat-out relocation subsidies, have dim prospects for growth. Again, if you're an investor or college graduate, what's the draw?

Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile.

If efficiency is a measure of how economically we use our land, it takes only a basic understanding of [geometry? physics?] to understand that public transportation is, by far, the best use of space. Buses and trains carry far more people per square foot than a vehicle with a single occupant.

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

No, wealthy people who live in cities spend gobs of money on a parking spot near their house. "Poor people" don't own cars (if they can help it). Hence, public transportation.

That said, you do make our point in your post, there. The whole idea of public transportation is to make it easier to get around without a car. Public transportation, however, only really works well in dense areas.

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 01:39:31 PM
Nobody is "focusing" growth on big metros, big metros are growing because there's where growth occurs, due to a more productive economy.

High-productivity industries like tech and finance benefit from being where other firms in that industry are located, due in part to the need to be where skilled labor (e.g. college graduates) are.

To put it another way, Detroit is dirt cheap...a start-up company could easily lease an office for a fraction of what it costs in Silicon Valley or Seattle, yet Seattle and Silicon Valley are where the action is. That's because that's where the talent is.

Hence, Silicon Valley and Seattle will continue to grow, the only question is up (density) or out (sprawl). Small towns like Rochester, short-of a major industrial shakeup or flat-out relocation subsidies, have dim prospects for growth. Again, if you're an investor or college graduate, what's the draw?

You speak as if it's destiny or inevitable or something like that, when it reality it's due to economic incentives created by a combination of the government and large corporations.  I won't go into too much detail to keep this thread from getting political.  Suffice it to say, if employee loyalty and on the job training were valued like they once were, there would be no need to be "where the talent is" (and honestly, the "talent" only lives in places with such horrid traffic congestion and rents because that's where the jobs are); companies would recruit from the local students as they graduate college, train them up, and foster their career.  I don't believe that it's impossible to go back to that world, as long as we put our minds to it.

I honestly don't see the attraction of mega cities.  I can't stand crowds.  Not one bit.  I hate dealing with traffic congestion on a daily basis too.  Rents are WAY too high.  What I pay for a nice one bedroom here wouldn't even get me a closet in a more major location (can't stand living with roommates either, I honestly don't see how anyone can live with anyone else except perhaps a spouse or their parents and not go insane within a month), and I'm still sick of having to walk out of my apartment to do laundry (can't afford a place with in-unit laundry, though I will admit the majority of the annoyance is when I get back from traveling and just want to take off my uncomfortable clothes and shut out the world but have to do laundry first).  NYC strikes me as an endless urban expanse - interesting to visit, but the energy just rubs me the wrong way after a while.

I DO understand wanting to be near everything and have a short commute, but I don't think downtowns need only exist in megapolises, and the latter is actually a major reason why I prefer smaller areas - it's easier to have a short commute to work if the area near work isn't too expensive or inconvenient for car ownership.  Smaller cities thrived until just a couple decades ago.  It wasn't magic or fate that caused the decline.  We built the current world.  And since we built it, we can change it.  We just have to be motivated to.

Most of your post sounds like largely your own preferences, which are not irrelevant, but the market (e.g. investors) are just looking to see what the best return on investment is.

My state, Virginia, has desperately tried for decades to reinvigorate rural and small-town Virginia, but nobody wants to work there and companies won't invest there without heavy subsidies. I think your state, New York, as a similar issue and tries to tackle it with a corporate subsidy fund (https://esd.ny.gov/doing-business-ny)

However, there's only so much you can do to influence the market. Just because you personally don't like or see the attractions of big cities doesn't mean that others, or investors, don't.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
OT:

Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:44:09 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Not with the mentality bicyclists have.  I saw a bicyclist blatantly run 5 stale reds in a row in Ballard and ultimately caused an accident.   Seattle has inferior bike enforcement and facilities.  (However, this was on Leary and the Burke-Gilman bike trail is literally a block parallel to the street though). 

I'm fortunate that I can walk to work.  My work gives out a bonus for green commuting.  I live close to SR-99 and I-5 in Wallingford, so I have convenient access to get out of the city too so I use my car to visit suburban friends and go on hikes/camping. 

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:39:27 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Not with the mentality bicyclists have.  I saw a bicyclist blatantly run 5 stale reds in a row in Ballard and ultimately caused an accident.   Seattle has inferior bike enforcement and facilities.  (However, this was on Leary and the Burke-Gilman bike trail is literally a block parallel to the street though).

I don't think the behaviour of a few cyclists necessarily has anything to do with the benefits of cycling as a whole. Cycling is a still a very economical mode of transport. I'm disappointed that they caused a collision, though. Collisions involving cyclists generally only harm the cyclist, but they can occasionally involve more than one car.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:39:27 PM
I'm fortunate that I can walk to work.  My work gives out a bonus for green commuting.  I live close to SR-99 and I-5 in Wallingford, so I have convenient access to get out of the city too so I use my car to visit suburban friends and go on hikes/camping.

I think that kind of lifestyle is reflective of many of the city's residents. I'm not sure how many people in Seattle own cars (I'd guess the vast majority of those outside of the OCC and areas north of that), but building infrastructure that supports more than one mode of transport is the goal. Cars can still be a part of the mix. They just shouldn't be the main mode for all trips.

Seattle has inferior transportation enforcement, period. So many single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes (passing by parked patrol cars that should be making bank); tons of cars in the clearly marked bus lanes; and of course, cyclists and cars blowing through reds and stop signs, ignoring pedestrians. I've been nearly hit a few times in the last few weeks because I stupidly expect drivers to follow basic traffic laws.

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
I suppose the question is why focus all our growth on big metro areas in the first place?

Because we live in an era of hyperconsolidation. When a handful of large companies dominate most major industries, it naturally follows that a handful of large cities dominate the country's economic potential.

Quote from: Bruce on July 21, 2017, 09:40:38 PM
Seattle has inferior transportation enforcement, period. So many single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes (passing by parked patrol cars that should be making bank); tons of cars in the clearly marked bus lanes; and of course, cyclists and cars blowing through reds and stop signs, ignoring pedestrians. I've been nearly hit a few times in the last few weeks because I stupidly expect drivers to follow basic traffic laws.

Essentially all larger cities have this problem -- unless the particular jurisdiction in question is willing (or politically able) to kick the tax base upwards to pay for a dedicated and comprehensive traffic-enforcement unit (trust me, that idea's been bandied about in more than one venue!) a high percentage of traffic infractions will go unseen and unreported, much less unpunished!  That's one aspect of urban/suburban life that will likely always significantly lag the overall growth rate.   

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

Keep in mind, I established the "Ravera Criteria" for electric cars back in the 1980s. I *WANT* to buy an electric car. My list basically said "It has to be able to be my only car and has to be able to do what every gas car can do". I didn't say how it had to accomplish those criteria.
What has happened, 35 years later, is that three of my 5 criteria are solved. The big two that are left are "range better than a 1970s era VW bug that can be replenished for less than the cost of filling up a Ford F-150 series pick up in the time it takes for a good bowel movement" and "costs less than a 3-year old 3-series BMW".

Quote from: michravera on July 28, 2017, 12:38:52 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

People chose to live in the suburbs because they had cars, and it was cheaper. Why live in the smelly, loud city, at a rather steep expense, when you could just as easily live 50 miles away in a suburb, and commute to work on the highway? Unfortunately, everyone subscribed to this lifestyle, and over time, our highways got wicked crowded, and now people are moving back to the city because there's just no way to realistically improve traffic flow while a city is growing (which is the case for almost all US cities 'cept Detroit).

Cities are being made "car-hostile" because cars cannot handle the growth that cities require. Only public transit can truly handle the growth. That's why you see bus and HOV lanes replacing general-purpose lanes (it's more efficient overall), bus priority signals, etc. It's also the reason that you see pedestrian access and cycling infrastructure improvements: both of these modes of transport work brilliantly with public transport. It's essential that we build out our public transit, walking, and cycling network so that cities can handle the growth that is being asked of them. You may not like this growth (vdeane), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
... and over time, our highways got wicked crowded...

You live on the West Coast. Why are you using that word?

Quote from: 1 on July 28, 2017, 05:48:31 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
... and over time, our highways got wicked crowded...

You live on the West Coast. Why are you using that word?

My mother is from the Northeast.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM

Quote from: michravera on July 28, 2017, 12:38:52 PM

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM

Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

People chose to live in the suburbs because they had cars, and it was cheaper. Why live in the smelly, loud city, at a rather steep expense, when you could just as easily live 50 miles away in a suburb, and commute to work on the highway? Unfortunately, everyone subscribed to this lifestyle, and over time, our highways got wicked crowded, and now people are moving back to the city because there's just no way to realistically improve traffic flow while a city is growing (which is the case for almost all US cities 'cept Detroit).

Cities are being made "car-hostile" because cars cannot handle the growth that cities require. Only public transit can truly handle the growth. That's why you see bus and HOV lanes replacing general-purpose lanes (it's more efficient overall), bus priority signals, etc. It's also the reason that you see pedestrian access and cycling infrastructure improvements: both of these modes of transport work brilliantly with public transport. It's essential that we build out our public transit, walking, and cycling network so that cities can handle the growth that is being asked of them. You may not like this growth (vdeane), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

I have nothing against public transportation and use it whenever it makes sense to my mission. What doesn't make sense are the following:
1) Roads that don't actually go anywhere. It is fine to have a block or nine where motorized vehicles aren't permitted during the work day. But, not having a road that permits one to get to the other side of the city unimpeded is suicide. Especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco that will have to deal with earthquakes and tsunami.
2) Roads that actually do go somewhere with unsynchronized traffic signals. There is no point in posting a thoroughfare for 45 MPH when you will have to stop every 3 blocks. Even if most vehicles today expel cleaner air than they take in, there is no point in making people wait.
3) Not separating vehicular traffic from other traffic when they both get in each other's hair in dense areas. Reroute the bus. Build a pedestrian walkway. Go over or under. Connect buildings via skyways. Get the bikes off of the street (onto bikeways) or have them observe vehicular traffic laws.

I could go on. The idea is to solve problems as the state of nature presents itself rather than just to say "we will do it this way and you will have to adapt or die".

Quote from: SP Cook on July 18, 2017, 11:04:19 AM
Lastly, school zone limits IN SOME PLACES are vastly too low.  In my part of the country, there are plenty of schools where 100% of students are taken on a yellow bus to school,  No student walks to school.  Further these schools are fenced in and whatever outdoor activities exist, which is to say recess, is done behind that fence 100s of feet from a road.   Traffic cop scum use these places as speed traps and in most states the penalty for such infractions is higher than even the ordinary random tax.  In such a scenario, there need be no reduction in the SL whatsoever.

School speed zones are not just for reducing vehicle-pedestrian collisions.  The lower speed allows more opportunities for the surge of traffic leaving or arriving to enter or exit the thru street.

Now that this thread has completely morphed into a discussion of urban planning philosophy, the only thing left to be added is the following:  while there's a certain school of thought that points toward densely-packed central cities as the "wave of the future", so to speak, the fact remains that under current economic circumstances those area are and will continue to be the costliest in which to live (expressed in $$ per occupied square foot).  All but the top few percent of earners can afford anything more than run-down downtown apartment -- and even those are now going for a premium in areas of relative economic vitality.   Newer "dense" housing -- apartments, condos, townhouses, row houses, etc. -- are sized to accommodate people with a reasonable modicum of belongings -- usually 800+ square feet, including bathrooms and kitchen space.   Very few developers are willing to recreate the 300sf "tenements" of the past (at least outside NYC), despite entreaties to do so by some urbanist writers anticipating a "post-consumer" movement that has yet to materialize; in most venues there's no market for these save fully subsidized public housing. 

The continued appeal of suburbs and exurbs is and has been markedly lower housing costs (of course, largely offset by commute expenses) -- but where essentially all housing in generally salable areas falls into the "expensive to the point of unattainable" category (which describes most of the Bay Area!) -- that differential has been exacerbated; a newer 2500sf home in the San Jose area sells for about $2M; a similar house in Brentwood or Discovery Bay, considered the "outer edge" of the Bay Area, comes in about 40% of that, while out in Manteca or Modesto it's down to  15-20% for a house of similar size on a similar lot configuration.  The differences are so stark that the cost of commuting -- both in time and dollars, spread out over time as it is, is thought of as at least tolerable given the circumstances.  And while the pay scale endemic to the localized technology industry is generous compared to other businesses, it's not such enough to allow all but top management to reside near their employment.  In fact, one of the "perks" of these firms -- particularly those who regularly "poach" management personnel from other regions, is that they will partially subsidize roomy 1500sf+ condos for a couple of years for their recruits while those folks amass the requisite down payment toward a local "mini-mansion"; this is deemed particularly useful for new management coming with intact families -- as opposed to collegiate recruits, who are usually more unencumbered and are able to at least initially tolerate somewhat smaller living quarters.     

Firms -- particularly thriving ones -- prefer to locate in areas with a lot of amenities considered attractive to potential employees -- meaning, on this coast, San Diego, L.A., the Bay Area, Seattle, and, to a slightly lesser degree, Portland.  All those areas have one thing in common -- huge/outsized housing costs; and all have spawned suburban and exurban outgrowths to accommodate the influx of population needing more moderately-priced accommodations.  What it will take -- at least IMHO -- is for viable firms in the fields experiencing growth and expansion to consider alternate locations with a reasonable amenity level (e.g. Fresno, Bend, the WA Quad Cities) for any expansion (particularly firms in the information -- or other-- fields not needing high level of material transport between facilities).  However, this needs to be accompanied by some coordination of development between the target regions and both the business and developmental entities to deploy housing inviting enough to attract a broad spectrum of potential residents -- while avoiding those choices that on one hand require significant downsizing on the part of those residents and on the other require undue amounts of land (i.e. -- no tiny condos only attractive to the masochistic or self-loathing, and no suburban properties that can double as horse ranches!).  The idea here is to start with as clean a slate as possible -- and do the employment/housing/commute equation as effectual as possible from the beginning.  Of course, attractive public transport (clean buses on a consistent schedule, shuttle rail, etc.) would be necessary to complete the package.  But it'll take a change of attitude at both the corporate and civic level to even get this notion off the ground.         

Quote from: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Less and less people like mass transit. Ridership has been decreasing around the US since the 60s (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=13453). It makes no sense to continue subsidizing a mode of transportation whose ridership has been decreasing for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so thanks to more consistent--and lower--fuel prices as a result of fracking being a thing, causing Saudi Arabia to actually have to make their oil prices lower to compete with us. Also, this continued reduction in public transit usage is also thanks to services like Uber and Lyft. A coworker of mine always takes a Lyft car home from work, despite the fact that it's more expensive than the bus.

Apparently Seattle and King County are an exception, as they just passed the third and largest transportation bond issue to build another 62 miles of light rail, costing $54 billion, 53.9% voting yes to 46.1 voting no. https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/11/09/sound-transit-3-approved-king-pierce-snohomish.html

It's understandable that people would vote for such an expensive issue when you see how awful city traffic is and how little chance there is for relief through new freeways or expressways.  The line that's completed so far is carrying a lot of riders and offers by far the most efficient way of getting into downtown in the morning or afternoon.  10 minutes from UW to downtown is typical even at 4:00 on a weekday, that could easily take an hour on surface bus or taxi, or even longer by private car if you include parking.

Light Rail in Seattle makes sense. What's the typical length of train? Two or three cars?

Quote from: Bickendan on August 01, 2017, 08:45:20 PM
Light Rail in Seattle makes sense. What's the typical length of train? Two or three cars?

Typically two to three. But I'm sure I've seen four or five cars before.

Light rail trains are a maximum of four cars, each 200 feet long. Currently, they only run in two or three car trainsets due to fleet size constraints; a hundred new trainsets are scheduled for delivery from 2019 to 2022.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 21, 2017, 11:54:29 PM

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
I suppose the question is why focus all our growth on big metro areas in the first place?

Because we live in an era of hyperconsolidation. When a handful of large companies dominate most major industries, it naturally follows that a handful of large cities dominate the country's economic potential.

Problem is that huge quickly becomes unsustainable.
Many economic systems are described with equations which have solutions describing infinite growth - and those systems collapse once outside limits  on growth come into play. I wonder when big urban areas would see that...

Quote from: Bruce on August 02, 2017, 10:37:29 AM
Light rail trains are a maximum of four cars, each 200 feet long. Currently, they only run in two or three car trainsets due to fleet size constraints; a hundred new trainsets are scheduled for delivery from 2019 to 2022.

I'm guessing that Seattle's LR has significantly higher ridership than does San Jose's VTA LR system, which even in peak hours rarely runs trains with more than two cars.  Occasionally the "trunk" Santa Teresa-Mountain View line sees 3 cars, but that's usually limited to Friday evening schedules, when "dinner" traffic coincides with the commute, or instances where there are Sharks or 49ers games (that line passes by both venues).  Off-peak, a single car often suffices for the level of usage. 

Portland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.
Minneapolis-St Paul regularly runs three car trains on their lines, though that used to be two back when they only had one line.

We should probably move this to Seattle's Mass Transit thread, but whatever.

Seattle was smart to build a tunnel in the 1980s for buses that was long enough to support four-car light rail trains. So every station is ready for it.

The light rail only ran two car trains from 2009 to 2016 because of the lack of turnback space at the north end of the 1980s tunnel; the northern extension to the University of Washington allowed for three and four car trains to be used, but there's only enough traincars to support a handful of three car trains on weekdays (with high frequencies) and all three car trains on weekends (at lower frequency).

Once the next extension opens in 2021, along with the new trainsets, we'll be seeing four car trains every day. Link already has about 72,000 daily riders, and it's expected to increase to 280,000 by 2030.

Thanks for the clarification, Bruce!

Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 18, 2017, 01:18:46 AM

Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

What could be done, even in Portland, is to "stutter-step" the loading/unloading of riders, using 4-car trains, with the entire train stopping twice, addressing two cars at a time.  That's the singular issue with the configuration of light-rail carsets -- the inability to walk between the individual units (done for the sake of deployment flexibility) like on a traditional subway system, which requires extra-long platforms to accommodate a multiple-unit trainset.  Down here in San Jose the stations (more often than not located in street medians) accommodate 3-car sets; on special occasions such as hockey or football games, they'll have 4-5 car special trains before and after game time, employing just that "stutter-step" method -- but stopping at selected stations only (unlike regular commute practice).     

Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM

Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 18, 2017, 01:18:46 AM

Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

What could be done, even in Portland, is to "stutter-step" the loading/unloading of riders, using 4-car trains, with the entire train stopping twice, addressing two cars at a time.  That's the singular issue with the configuration of light-rail carsets -- the inability to walk between the individual units (done for the sake of deployment flexibility) like on a traditional subway system, which requires extra-long platforms to accommodate a multiple-unit trainset.  Down here in San Jose the stations (more often than not located in street medians) accommodate 3-car sets; on special occasions such as hockey or football games, they'll have 4-5 car special trains before and after game time, employing just that "stutter-step" method -- but stopping at selected stations only (unlike regular commute practice).     

What are the advantages of doing that compared to running an extra train? It definitely kills intervals, and probably throughput.  One less driver is the only advantage I can see, and even then that one operating the train gets more duty hours than running normal train...

Stutter-step wouldn't work in Portland because their city blocks cannot accommodate trains that long. The stutter-step system might work for heavy-rail metro systems, like the Bay Area's BART or Vancouver's Skytrain, where you can more cheaply acquire "passenger" car-sets that don't have driver accomodation. But Portland and Seattle use the more traditional light rail setup of having each car have a driver seat on either end. This means that every car you buy has driver accommodation, so there's no advantage in linking the cars together -- you may as well just run more trains with higher frequency.

This is hardly the most efficient setup (you can't walk between cars, for one). But it's the card we dealt ourselves, so we have to deal with it now. Portland is screwed with its downtown core limiting its train size, so they'll always have two-car trains. But I've heard rumblings that Sound Transit (Seattle's metro operator) may consider more traditional metro setups with traversable cars. But no official word just yet.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 18, 2017, 01:34:14 PM
Stutter-step wouldn't work in Portland because their city blocks cannot accommodate trains that long. The stutter-step system might work for heavy-rail metro systems, like the Bay Area's BART or Vancouver's Skytrain, where you can more cheaply acquire "passenger" car-sets that don't have driver accomodation. But Portland and Seattle use the more traditional light rail setup of having each car have a driver seat on either end. This means that every car you buy has driver accommodation, so there's no advantage in linking the cars together -- you may as well just run more trains with higher frequency.

This is hardly the most efficient setup (you can't walk between cars, for one). But it's the card we dealt ourselves, so we have to deal with it now. Portland is screwed with its downtown core limiting its train size, so they'll always have two-car trains. But I've heard rumblings that Sound Transit (Seattle's metro operator) may consider more traditional metro setups with traversable cars. But no official word just yet.

Yeah -- I forgot how short some of downtown Portland's city blocks actually are!  Seems to be the one place where the trolley format functions more efficiently than standard LR!   It's likely the reluctance to deploy multiple trains of 2 cars per is largely due to the aggregate cost of additional train operators being on the clock; much of LR's purported efficiency is the ability to move large numbers of commuters with minimal labor costs (albeit with heavy up-front capital costs!).  That's often touted when bus-versus-LR discussions are taking place, with LR's appeal lying in the potential for long-term savings, regardless of short-term track and equipment outlays.  When L.A.'s LR/subway system was being formulated, the equivalency was a 4-car (2 x 2) LR train could accommodate the passenger load of 6-7 standard buses or 4-5 articulated buses; it was the cost of one operator versus 4 to 7 for the equivalent capacity buses that sold Metro on the concept. 

That being said, after the initial L.A. LR lines were deployed, the concept itself came under fire from both the bus drivers' union and an ad hoc activist grouping centered in south-central Los Angeles advocating for lower-income transit users (they labeled themselves the "Bus Riders Union").  They claimed that the new-found regional emphasis on LR was advantageous primarily to longer-distance commuters (the original line, passing through South Central, connected downtown L.A. with Long Beach) but gave short shrift to the areas through which it traveled (echoes of the original '60's/'70's arguments against urban freeways).  A class-action suit was filed, with the outcome being that bus service increases (more grid-pattern bus routes at closer frequencies) in that area were court-ordered; furthermore, MTA was required to purchase 532 new buses -- and hire over 200 new bus drivers -- to satisfy the new service requirements (a "side" complaint addressed within the suit was that older buses were often deployed in lower-income areas, with greater incidents of breakdown as well as increased particle pollution -- hence the large ordered number of new units).  But what MTA did -- and well within the language of the law -- was to funnel many of the new routes to the LR stations in the area, so residents had to use LR to go to downtown or south to the coastal areas.  The north-south bus routes, which were largely in place prior to the court order (L.A.'s grid pattern is rectangular, with the larger distances between blocks on the E-W axis; there were and are relatively few through N-S streets) were quite inefficient, stopping every few blocks; a trip downtown (8-11 miles) often took 45 minutes to an hour -- whereas with LR, once on the train it was about 10-15 minutes to Washington Blvd. just south of downtown, where the line "jogged" west for a couple of miles before turning north and going underground into the subway; one could access several downtown shuttles along that E-W stretch. 

Portland -- or Seattle for that matter -- doesn't have the 25-odd radial miles of dense urban development that L.A. has; their systems were developed in proportion to what was "on the ground" in both venues.  To that end, Portland's density dissipates into spread-out housing by the time I-205 is reached eastward -- or anything beyond the west hills (e.g. Beaverton, Hillsboro).  It was probably decided early on that 2-car trains were sufficient to address the projected ridership, whereas with Seattle, bounded as it is by water, displays considerably more density, particularly with the core area arrayed on a N-S axis between the water boundaries; the planning there was for longer trains to more efficiently serve those regional characteristics.                               

20mph is insanely slow, but really safe imo for residential areas. In Fircrest coming in from i5 to University Place that road is so slow adding in the red lights.

Quote from: Soucinyu on August 19, 2017, 08:07:48 PM
20mph is insanely slow, but really safe imo for residential areas. In Fircrest coming in from i5 to University Place that road is so slow adding in the red lights.

Which road are we talking about?

Going to UP from I-5, you'd use either 16 towards Fircrest (using Regents Blvd), 16 towards Jackson Blvd (then south), or South 56 St. Either way, there's no straight shot from I-5 to UP via Fircrest without using 16.

I seem to recall that Regents Blvd from Orchard towards UP is pretty slow. Maybe that's what you're talking about? You don't get to it via I-5, though. You'd use 16.