From
The Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-sees-nations-biggest-drop-in-solo-car-commuters-as-transit-walking-surge/):
Quote
In 2018, just 44% of the 444,000 Seattle residents who were employed drove alone to work on a typical day, according to the latest census data. That's a huge decrease since 2010, when a solid majority (53%) of Seattle's workers were solo car commuters.
Seattle's 9 percentage-point drop is easily the largest decline among the 100 most-populous U.S. cities since the start of the decade. And we now have the sixth-lowest percentage of drive-alone commuters among those 100 cities. The lowest is New York, where only about 23% of commuters drive alone.
Good news, to be sure – but we still have a lot of folks driving themselves to work in Seattle. Even as the percentage plummeted, there was still an increase in terms of raw numbers, because the population grew so much in this period. The total number of drive-alone commuters was 197,000 in 2018, which is a 9% increase since 2010. In comparison, the total number of working Seattle residents increased more than three times faster, at a rate of 31%.
One other mode of commuting declined among Seattle residents: Carpooling. Slightly less than 7% of us share the drive to work with other people on a typical day. Once a popular way to save gas money and improve traffic congestion, enthusiasm for carpooling has stalled, both locally and across the country.
But all the other alternative methods of transportation have increased, and none more impressively than transit. More than 23% of workers who live in Seattle took public transportation to work most days in 2018, which is a 5 percentage-point increase since 2010. And 2018 marks the first year that more than 100,000 Seattle residents used transit to get to work on a typical day.
But all the other alternative methods of transportation have increased, and none more impressively than transit. More than 23% of workers who live in Seattle took public transportation to work most days in 2018, which is a 5 percentage-point increase since 2010. And 2018 marks the first year that more than 100,000 Seattle residents used transit to get to work on a typical day.
https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1197529264662417408
Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling... We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around.
Stupid hippies
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
Probably has more (at least I think so) to do with geographic constraints making building difficult which is a common problem shared with cities like San Francisco and New York. I'm sure all those folks driving alone from Stockton would gladly live near their job in the Bay Area if there was somewhere affordable to put them
The road infrastructure is deterring drivers because it's well beyond its capacity and there is no easy way of solving the problem. At the same time, as the article states, we are rapidly improving the transit situation to make it a more attractive (and smart) option, and it's working. The model of just slapping on some bus lanes and running more trips is something that every American city should be following.
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?
Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:26:12 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?
This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.
Quote from: Bruce on November 24, 2019, 09:23:57 PM
The road infrastructure is deterring drivers because it's well beyond its capacity and there is no easy way of solving the problem. At the same time, as the article states, we are rapidly improving the transit situation to make it a more attractive (and smart) option, and it's working. The model of just slapping on some bus lanes and running more trips is something that every American city should be following.
That depends, in the newer cities that were built with automotive traffic in mind that seems to be mostly unnecessary. Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas tend to be able to plan out their patterns along new highway corridors. Seattle was pretty much already on it's way to be built to capacity by the time the era of freeways hit. Having to commute from places like the Kitsap Peninsula doesn't exactly bode well for the prospects of the area not becoming another San Francisco Bay. The buses and trains really seem to be the only option left that will make a difference unless some serious red tape is cut on some big time new bridgework. But then again, that might just force urban sprawl more out into areas like Kitsap more than it already is occurring now.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 24, 2019, 09:28:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:26:12 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?
This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.
Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe. Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:
1. In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2. If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit. Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.
The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services. Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently. That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate. It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 09:38:19 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 24, 2019, 09:28:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:26:12 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?
This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.
Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe. Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:
1. In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2. If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit. Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.
The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services. Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently. That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate. It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.
The bus stop spacing problem is a huge issue politically, because the most vocal minority of users will rail against having to walk further. Can't be helped when the sidewalks leading to most bus stops are also either non-existent or so poor that they can cause injury.
The money-no-object solution is to run multiple tiers of services, which a few places have done (including my own county's pre-BRT). A local route that makes very frequent stops and enables transfers to a faster skip-stop service that stops every few blocks or maybe every mile, and then on top of that true express options that make very few stops. Of course all three tiers would need to be frequent enough to actually attract and retain riders, at a minimum of 15 minutes on weekdays.
Quote from: Bruce on November 24, 2019, 09:53:19 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 09:38:19 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 24, 2019, 09:28:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 24, 2019, 09:26:12 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?
This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.
Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe. Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:
1. In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2. If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit. Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.
The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services. Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently. That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate. It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.
The bus stop spacing problem is a huge issue politically, because the most vocal minority of users will rail against having to walk further. Can't be helped when the sidewalks leading to most bus stops are also either non-existent or so poor that they can cause injury.
The money-no-object solution is to run multiple tiers of services, which a few places have done (including my own county's pre-BRT). A local route that makes very frequent stops and enables transfers to a faster skip-stop service that stops every few blocks or maybe every mile, and then on top of that true express options that make very few stops. Of course all three tiers would need to be frequent enough to actually attract and retain riders, at a minimum of 15 minutes on weekdays.
By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is. Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options. Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail. Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 08:54:07 PM
Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling... We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around.
To be fair, a lot of the water around there is so deep it's just not practical or possible to build a bridge unless you want to shell out a zillion dollars on building a floating bridge.
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
That seems like a rather...ignorant thing to say. There's nothing wrong with using less cars and transporting more people. It helps save on emissions and makes places suck less. But, unfortunately, you're always going to have detractors with knee-jerk responses like this that criticize anyone who actually cares about the environment as "pussies" or "hippies", etc etc. Same mentality of rolling coal in a giant pickup truck while lambasting folks who drive efficient cars or use public transit.
Quote from: index on November 24, 2019, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 08:54:07 PM
Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling... We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around.
To be fair, a lot of the water around there is so deep it's just not practical or possible to build a bridge unless you want to shell out a zillion dollars on building a floating bridge.
Quote from: Brian556 on November 24, 2019, 09:07:35 PM
Stupid hippies
That seems like a rather...ignorant thing to say. There's nothing wrong with using less cars and transporting more people. It helps save on emissions and makes places suck less. But, unfortunately, you're always going to have detractors with knee-jerk responses like this that criticize anyone who actually cares about the environment as "pussies" or "hippies", etc etc. Same mentality of rolling coal in a giant pickup truck while lambasting folks who drive efficient cars or use public transit.
If I recall correctly there are depths of 600 feet even at the narrow point between Discovery Point and Bainbridge Island?...that would fall under one of those geographic challenges. In the case of somewhere like San Francisco Bay the depth is much shallower which allows for much more ease in bridge building.
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 10:34:04 PM
By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is. Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options. Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail. Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?
A lot of the poorer outlying neighborhoods (particularly North Seattle and southern West Seattle) lack sidewalks, since they were built in the early post-war boom and annexed shortly afterwards...long before ADA mandated access. The sidewalk backlog would cost hundreds of millions to build out. There are also the issues posed by the topography, since walking an extra two or three blocks can involve hillclimbs or random obstacles (like ravines and unsafe arterials).
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 10:34:04 PM
By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is. Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options. Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail. Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?
A lot of the poorer outlying neighborhoods (particularly North Seattle and southern West Seattle) lack sidewalks, since they were built in the early post-war boom and annexed shortly afterwards...long before ADA mandated access. The sidewalk backlog would cost hundreds of millions to build out. There are also the issues posed by the topography, since walking an extra two or three blocks can involve hillclimbs or random obstacles (like ravines and unsafe arterials).
So in a sense one might say that Seattle is the king of sidewalk related accidents?...at least in an ironic historic sense. I couldn't fathom any city in the first world replicating raising the streets of downtown and expecting the general public to pay for sidewalks. Those stories about people falling 10-30 into what is the Seattle Underground certainly are interesting to say the least.
Either way it's interesting to see some of the annexed parts of the city pose such a challenge to the parts most people see on a visit. West Seattle in particular doesn't really resemble much of the rest of the City. It's no wonder since it incorporated at the turn of the 20th Century before being annexed. Is any part of Ballard affected by poor pedestrian access? The main streets seemed to be pretty well designed but I recall the neighborhoods were kind of wonky when we visited family last year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
If I recall correctly there are depths of 600 feet even at the narrow point between Discovery Point and Bainbridge Island?...that would fall under one of those geographic challenges. In the case of somewhere like San Francisco Bay the depth is much shallower which allows for much more ease in bridge building.
Exactly. Bainbridge, Vashion...other islands; they're not far away but there's a legit chasm between the shorelines. The options are basically:
A) floating bridge;
B) underwater tunnel akin to the Channel Tunnel (with 3-6 mile approach tunnels);
C) floating tunnel (SFT);
D) suspension bridge with mile-high support columns; or
E) ferries.
My guess is that a proper ferry system is the best option for more than a couple reasons: 1) they're massively cheaper than a bridge, 2) fares recover about 70% of the yearly operating costs, 3) it keeps vehicles from flooding into the city anymore than the already are, 4) they limit the desirability of development in areas that really don't need to be developed anyway (Bainbridge, Vashon), and 5) the ferries are part of our identity (there are few more iconic shots than Elliott Bay with a ferry skipping across it).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.
The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.
IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.
While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)
Quote from: 1 on November 25, 2019, 08:36:05 AM
While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)
Geography really helps, for Seattle.
I've resigned myself to having two major cities on each coast (Seattle and San Francisco, New York City and Boston) unavoidably car-unfriendly, and try to avoid driving there. Portland OR, not quite.
To me, the battle between roads and transit is a simple matter of scarcity. I view the issue not that one or the other is underfunded, but that the entire multimodal system is woefully underfunded (to a greater extent than is realized from the narrow view of just maintenance) to prevent a truly comprehensive approach to infrastructure improvement that allows both roads and transit to be progressed as needed. In short, tax the rich.
As an aside, I am not persuaded by the argument that transit should be pursued simply because it encourages denser development. For one, at least when I was in grad school and that mantra was becoming prevalent, the evidence to support it was pretty shaky. For another, it ignores the fact of our cultural preferences, especially in regards to the needs of families (i.e., a lot of us choose not to live stacked upon each other and especially chafe at having to live above noisy businesses). As I've said time and time again, those that promote dense development seem to have the focus on the individual rather than family units -- to the point where large families are dismissed as outliers and even irresponsible (some dark social engineering ideas can come into play in this regard).
Rather, I do wonder if this whole rivalry between roads and transit has actually been concocted by those that want to direct funding to less worthy areas and if transit and DOTs and the like could have a more united front when it comes to transportation funding overall.
With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever. My suspicion is that the toll facilities and so-called "congestion tax" may have something to do with it.
Quote from: oscar on November 25, 2019, 08:55:56 AM
Quote from: 1 on November 25, 2019, 08:36:05 AM
While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)
Geography really helps, for Seattle.
I've resigned myself to having two major cities on each coast (Seattle and San Francisco, New York City and Boston) unavoidably car-unfriendly, and try to avoid driving there. Portland OR, not quite.
The thing with Portland compared to all the other cities is that at least my own personal experience it actually does remain a way more functional road based city. I think a lot of the heat Portland gets for being transit friendly comes from the fact that it tore up the freeway alignment of US 99 to build the Tom McCall Waterfront Park. I'd argue Portland probably is way more livable city having a large park than a redundant freeway that was more or less duplicated by I-405.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.
The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.
IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.
Regarding the HSR in California it really is polarizing. Probably best thing that could have been done was chose a coastal route that connected San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles. Forcing the HSR through San Joaquin Valley just ending up stirring the agricultural folks since they largely didn't want it. I'd argue that building a smaller HSR between Oakland' and Sacramento would have had more merit that could have shown it was useful as commuting toll. Spur lines would have been easier to sell if there was an interurban model already functioning. The trouble in California is that the urban and rural crowds have almost total view points on almost everything. While there are more people living in urban areas there is a far stronger rural presence than in California than most probably assume. It probably doesn't help that cities have historically prayed upon rural regions of the state (Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy come to mind) for infrastructure development.
But that said it is beyond me why anyone would want commute to the Bay Area from places like; Dixon, Fairfield, Stockton, Tracy or Modesto. Really it illustrates that there is a problem with reasonable white collar jobs being available in the Central Valley and affordable housing basically not existing in the Bay Area.
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever.
They're not. They're seeing more one person commutes. If you re-read what Bruce had said, commuting is up basically across all forms of types of commuting except for carpooling. However, the *percentage* of single trips via car has gone done.
To put it another way, using numbers (below numbers are for illustrative purposes only):
50,000 people commute via car (50%)
50,000 people commute via bus (50%)
100,000 total.
New figures:
60,000 commute via car (40%)
90,000 commute via bus (60%)
150,000 total.
As seen above, it's not fewer people commuting via car; in fact, it's the exact opposite, and there's more cars on the road. However, because the number of users taking mass transit rose even higher, the overall percentage of single-car users dropped.
Statistics are fun!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2019, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever.
They're not. They're seeing more one person commutes. If you re-read what Bruce had said, commuting is up basically across all forms of types of commuting except for carpooling. However, the *percentage* of single trips via car has gone done.
To put it another way, using numbers (below numbers are for illustrative purposes only):
50,000 people commute via car (50%)
50,000 people commute via bus (50%)
100,000 total.
New figures:
60,000 commute via car (40%)
90,000 commute via bus (60%)
150,000 total.
As seen above, it's not fewer people commuting via car; in fact, it's the exact opposite, and there's more cars on the road. However, because the number of users taking mass transit rose even higher, the overall percentage of single-car users dropped.
Statistics are fun!
*sheds a tear since it has been a long time since he's seen a good explanation of statistics*
As popularized (but not originated) by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever. My suspicion is that the toll facilities and so-called "congestion tax" may have something to do with it.
There is no congestion tax at the moment, and so far only the SR 520 Floating Bridge, the SR 99 Tunnel, the I-405/SR 167 HOT lanes, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge are tolled. We do need a congestion charge for the downtown area to discourage driving in on weekdays, since it makes no sense for the vast majority of road users going to office jobs who aren't carrying around tools in a work vehicle.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2019, 12:40:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on November 25, 2019, 09:53:19 AM
With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever.
They're not. They're seeing more one person commutes. If you re-read what Bruce had said, commuting is up basically across all forms of types of commuting except for carpooling. However, the *percentage* of single trips via car has gone done.
To put it another way, using numbers (below numbers are for illustrative purposes only):
50,000 people commute via car (50%)
50,000 people commute via bus (50%)
100,000 total.
New figures:
60,000 commute via car (40%)
90,000 commute via bus (60%)
150,000 total.
As seen above, it's not fewer people commuting via car; in fact, it's the exact opposite, and there's more cars on the road. However, because the number of users taking mass transit rose even higher, the overall percentage of single-car users dropped.
Statistics are fun!
Yep. We've already hit capacity for single-person drivers, so it makes sense that people are choosing transit. Over 100,000 people have moved to Seattle proper in the past decade and the number isn't slowing down yet. Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 02:57:24 PMInstead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.
Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 03:07:25 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 02:57:24 PM
Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.
Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.
Really depends on the area. Around the Seattle area, very few are vocally opposed to land-taking, and NIMBYs are few in number. Nevertheless, mass transit is certainly far less destructive than a new freeway or road, just in terms of the narrower ROW. Where mass transit becomes more destructive is in new building construction around the station areas. Many older single-family buildings, and the families within them, have been removed to make way for transit-oriented development. They are compensated accordingly, but there's no denying that freeways
usually produce less gentrification, because they more often encourage new construction in far-away lands.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2019, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.
The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.
IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.
Regarding the HSR in California it really is polarizing. Probably best thing that could have been done was chose a coastal route that connected San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles. Forcing the HSR through San Joaquin Valley just ending up stirring the agricultural folks since they largely didn't want it. I'd argue that building a smaller HSR between Oakland' and Sacramento would have had more merit that could have shown it was useful as commuting toll. Spur lines would have been easier to sell if there was an interurban model already functioning. The trouble in California is that the urban and rural crowds have almost total view points on almost everything. While there are more people living in urban areas there is a far stronger rural presence than in California than most probably assume. It probably doesn't help that cities have historically prayed upon rural regions of the state (Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy come to mind) for infrastructure development.
But that said it is beyond me why anyone would want commute to the Bay Area from places like; Dixon, Fairfield, Stockton, Tracy or Modesto. Really it illustrates that there is a problem with reasonable white collar jobs being available in the Central Valley and affordable housing basically not existing in the Bay Area.
Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.
As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least,
faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2019, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.
The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.
IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.
Regarding the HSR in California it really is polarizing. Probably best thing that could have been done was chose a coastal route that connected San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles. Forcing the HSR through San Joaquin Valley just ending up stirring the agricultural folks since they largely didn't want it. I'd argue that building a smaller HSR between Oakland' and Sacramento would have had more merit that could have shown it was useful as commuting toll. Spur lines would have been easier to sell if there was an interurban model already functioning. The trouble in California is that the urban and rural crowds have almost total view points on almost everything. While there are more people living in urban areas there is a far stronger rural presence than in California than most probably assume. It probably doesn't help that cities have historically prayed upon rural regions of the state (Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy come to mind) for infrastructure development.
But that said it is beyond me why anyone would want commute to the Bay Area from places like; Dixon, Fairfield, Stockton, Tracy or Modesto. Really it illustrates that there is a problem with reasonable white collar jobs being available in the Central Valley and affordable housing basically not existing in the Bay Area.
Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.
As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least, faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.
The trouble with Fresno and Bakersfield is that they essentially are the middle ground between Los Angeles and the Bay Area. It usually takes three hours maximum to reach the center of the major cities in both metro areas by car from Fresno/Bakersfield. The trouble with using Pacheco Pass instead of Altamont or the Carquinez Straight is that it bypasses the Tracy/Modesto/Stockton traffic which might use it for Bay Area commutes. At least if Oakland-Sacramento was used as an example corridor the median of I-80 could have been used as much as possible which would have driven costs down. Lancaster would benefit greatly but it also one of the more expensive sections of the HSR planned, the terrain around Newhall Pass requires a lot of tunneling. What's odd now is that project is scaled back to Bakersfield-Merced but hasn't been cancelled. The current governor probably is kicking the issue down the line to whoever is next in office. The irony is that the Bakersfield-Merced corridor was the place that would likely use the HSR the least given the Amtrak Service is already pretty good and probably will cost fat less. As much as cities like Fresno get ragged on for mass transit there is a very long standing bus service that date backs to the Streetcar era and at least the BNSF mainline gets secondary use with Amtrak.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 03:07:25 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 02:57:24 PMInstead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.
Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.
For a subway (like the ones built for University and Northgate Link), the property takings have been one or two square blocks needed for each station box, along with some miscellaneous properties for vents and support systems like electrical substations.
A freeway is at least one to two blocks wide and requires a continuous right-of-way, since tunneling is prohibitively expensive at that width.
Most of the NIMBY opposition to transit is usually based in nonsense, like not wanting to give up a lane for buses (which move the most people on the corridor) or trying to prevent upzones around transit.
No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2019, 05:44:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 05:19:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2019, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 24, 2019, 11:21:42 PM
I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want. For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes. But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others. A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States. Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."
But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.
The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.
IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.
Regarding the HSR in California it really is polarizing. Probably best thing that could have been done was chose a coastal route that connected San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles. Forcing the HSR through San Joaquin Valley just ending up stirring the agricultural folks since they largely didn't want it. I'd argue that building a smaller HSR between Oakland' and Sacramento would have had more merit that could have shown it was useful as commuting toll. Spur lines would have been easier to sell if there was an interurban model already functioning. The trouble in California is that the urban and rural crowds have almost total view points on almost everything. While there are more people living in urban areas there is a far stronger rural presence than in California than most probably assume. It probably doesn't help that cities have historically prayed upon rural regions of the state (Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy come to mind) for infrastructure development.
But that said it is beyond me why anyone would want commute to the Bay Area from places like; Dixon, Fairfield, Stockton, Tracy or Modesto. Really it illustrates that there is a problem with reasonable white collar jobs being available in the Central Valley and affordable housing basically not existing in the Bay Area.
Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.
As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least, faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.
The trouble with Fresno and Bakersfield is that they essentially are the middle ground between Los Angeles and the Bay Area. It usually takes three hours maximum to reach the center of the major cities in both metro areas by car from Fresno/Bakersfield. The trouble with using Pacheco Pass instead of Altamont or the Carquinez Straight is that it bypasses the Tracy/Modesto/Stockton traffic which might use it for Bay Area commutes. At least if Oakland-Sacramento was used as an example corridor the median of I-80 could have been used as much as possible which would have driven costs down. Lancaster would benefit greatly but it also one of the more expensive sections of the HSR planned, the terrain around Newhall Pass requires a lot of tunneling. What's odd now is that project is scaled back to Bakersfield-Merced but hasn't been cancelled. The current governor probably is kicking the issue down the line to whoever is next in office. The irony is that the Bakersfield-Merced corridor was the place that would likely use the HSR the least given the Amtrak Service is already pretty good and probably will cost fat less. As much as cities like Fresno get ragged on for mass transit there is a very long standing bus service that date backs to the Streetcar era and at least the BNSF mainline gets secondary use with Amtrak.
I was (and am) as big a proponent of HSR as anyone out there (and would be a frequent user), but the planning and execution thus far have been woeful, to say the least. I always figured the powers that be realized that they couldn't get statewide support without connecting both north and south, using the argument that it would relieve the congested air corridor and serve the "underserved" Central Valley cities (in quotes because I'm not sure that they are actually underserved by rail).
If, five or seven years ago, the HSR authority realized what a mess it was in and re-dedicated itself to focusing on existing rail corridors in the north (Caltrain, ACE, Capitals, San Joaquins) and south (Metrolink, Pacific Surfliner, Coaster) - getting those to Acela-like speeds and frequencies and making sure "last mile" connections with light rail/bus service was simple and robust - then I would bet after five to ten years of that service you could make a much more compelling and popular argument for connecting the two for a full statewide HSR. As it is, we're getting the worst of all possible scenarios - behind schedule, over budget, and only on the section guaranteed to have the lowest ridership, ensuring popular support for future construction will be minimized.
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 06:35:18 PM
No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.
My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least. From my experience, gentrification is one of the bigger issues affecting our cities, not the demolition of a few homes to make way for a metro station or new freeway ramp. Unlike expropriation, where compensation is not only direct, but given straight away, gentrification rarely helps those that aren't in owner-occupied housing.
Your experience must be limited.
ROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays. Heck, right now I know of a case where there's a guy who says he's all for being bought out...but in actuality he hired three separate lawyers to handle the three adjacent parcels related to the project. Aw, but he's not a NIMBY, right? On any day in NY, there are tens of projects (out of the few hundred let a year here) held up by these kinds of issues.
Sure, the fair market clauses have made things more tolerable and not everyone throws a fit when eminent domain comes their way, but when it comes down to it, there are a whole lot of people out there that drag out the negotiations because they would have rather not have had DOT come a-knockin'.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Property acquisition has indeed been a huge challenge for our light rail expansion. Lynnwood Link had to be redesigned to fit within budget because the cost of property had increased way higher than anyone had expected in the last decade (between the estimate being made in 2008 and the acquisition starting in 2018). It's made a bit harder by the fact that we have to find reasonably similar housing within a certain radius for relocated residents, which is a tough ask in a housing market as thoroughly molten as Seattle's.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 07:26:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 06:35:18 PM
No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.
My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least.
Yeah this is one way in which the Seattle area is very different from the northeast. Here, eminent domain of any residential property gets touchy even if you're only talking about taking a corner of someone's yard. If you're talking about needing to demolish the home, forget it, it's not happening.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 25, 2019, 09:39:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 07:26:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 06:35:18 PM
No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.
My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least.
Yeah this is one way in which the Seattle area is very different from the northeast. Here, eminent domain of any residential property gets touchy even if you're only talking about taking a corner of someone's yard. If you're talking about needing to demolish the home, forget it, it's not happening.
I should probably rephrase my comment. It's never easy to just go up and take property. The costs alone make it very difficult. But going by Bruce's comments, taking property is far from impossible around here. It can be just as slow as other parts of the country, but it's not like it won't happen because people start tying themselves to trees and bulldozers.
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 08:38:50 PM
Your experience must be limited.
Well, of course. But my comment was simply there to emphasize that property acquisition alone is not
necessarily a huge point of contention for Seattle residents. Many, from my readings, are more concerned about being priced out of their neighborhoods because of new development that itself sprung-up because of "something" (new road, new transit route, etc). Ultimately, many of these people may end up facing eviction when a developer buys the land out from under them, but that's different from eminent domain. Sure, finding new housing for the displaced residents is hard enough, but who knows how many others will be "naturally" displaced by the higher land values associated with close access to a metro line.
I don't know exactly what the situation is in parts of the Northeast, but around here, metro lines tend to spur new development. While a transit agency may need to acquire 15 properties along a ten mile stretch, and parts of maybe 150 others, it's the development that [usually] follows the construction of the metro line that ends up having a biggest effect on the neighborhood.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 26, 2019, 12:44:13 AM
I should probably rephrase my comment. It's never easy to just go up and take property. The costs alone make it very difficult. But going by Bruce's comments, taking property is far from impossible around here. It can be just as slow as other parts of the country, but it's not like it won't happen because people start tying themselves to trees and bulldozers.
More like "because people start hiring lawyers and holding up the project in court for years until eventually the political will behind it dies and/or the state realizes they no longer have the money for it".
I do think it also makes a difference that the northeast isn't really growing much, generally, and is full of a lot of people who want nothing more than to preserve the status quo of development forever. So it's easy to get away with an attitude of "screw it, this isn't worth the agita, let's just go with the no-build alternative". In a rapidly growing metro area, you're naturally going to have a much greater sense of need among the populace that something needs to happen and the no-build alternative isn't acceptable. Because of the rapid growth you also have a lower percentage of the population with deep and longstanding emotional attachments to their specific dwelling unit and the specific character of the neighborhood.
QuoteI don't know exactly what the situation is in parts of the Northeast, but around here, metro lines tend to spur new development. While a transit agency may need to acquire 15 properties along a ten mile stretch, and parts of maybe 150 others, it's the development that [usually] follows the construction of the metro line that ends up having a biggest effect on the neighborhood.
Oh the situation is the same here.
But this is also then what makes proposals to extend service to places that do not already have it often politically problematic. Eminent domain or no eminent domain, you'll get people complaining that they like their neighborhood the way it is and they don't want it altered by bringing rapid transit service into it. A proposal to extend the E train into Southeastern Queens back in the late 80s was killed in part by residents along the proposed routing who complained that the curbside parking on their streets would get clogged up by people driving there to catch the train.
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 08:38:50 PMROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays.
Heck, even when a transit expansion plan involves utilizing an existing rail right-of-way (i.e. no land takings); such has been met with NIMBY opposition due to concerns (I won't go into whether such are valid or not) of
others invading their area. An example of this was when NJ Transit's River Line was first proposed; such was met with that type of opposition despite that much of the line was utilizing an existing railroad bed & right-of-way. It's since been built & active for about 15 years.
Transit-NIMBY opposition isn't just limited to rail/subway/trolley expansion. If one proposes a bus line linking a well-to-do town with its more urban (and less well-off) abutters; watch out... see Wellesley, MA. Such only has one commuter rail station and that's it. One Wellesley resident actually told me that one reason why there are no MBTA bus routes that actually bordered along the lines of racism; and Wellesley is a politically liberal town.
Quote from: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 09:56:01 AM
Quote from: Rothman on November 25, 2019, 08:38:50 PMROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays.
Heck, even when a transit expansion plan involves utilizing an existing rail right-of-way (i.e. no land takings); such has been met with NIMBY opposition due to concerns (I won't go into whether such are valid or not) of others invading their area. An example of this was when NJ Transit's River Line was first proposed; such was met with that type of opposition despite that much of the line was utilizing an existing railroad bed & right-of-way. It's since been built & active for about 15 years.
Transit-NIMBY opposition isn't just limited to rail/subway/trolley expansion. If one proposes a bus line linking a well-to-do town with its more urban (and less well-off) abutters; watch out... see Wellesley, MA. Such only has one commuter rail station and that's it. One Wellesley resident actually told me that one reason why there are no MBTA bus routes that actually bordered along the lines of racism; and Wellesley is a politically liberal town.
Transit-NIMBYism is a big thing in some of the areas near Salt Lake and is why TRAX will never extend north of downtown. Several years ago a line running north from Salt Lake to Centerville was proposed, but the south Davis County residents came out in full force against it because they couldn't stomach the idea of poorer people from Salt Lake City in
their towns. The current plan now calls for bus rapid transit along US 89 up to Bountiful, but I would be surprised if such a thing happened within the next 25 years.