By Matt the Engineer on August 6, 2010
Well, duh. But it’s nice to see a map that corrolates so well with the theory. From SDOT: The green areas have the least GHG emissions from driving per household. The outlined areas are our urban villages.
Posted in density, drivers
By Matt the Engineer on June 8, 2009
Ouch. It turns out the current front runner for King County Executive, the seat that has the most influence over transit decision in Seattle and throughout the county, is Susan Hutchison – a former Discover Institute board member and former TV news anchor. Why does this scare me? 1) I like to call the Discovery Institute the Discover How To Build More Roads Institute. They fought hard against light rail, and fight hard to build more roads. 2) Former news anchor = instant name recognition, which will help her in the polls.
I admit I don’t know much about the other candidates. Does anyone have a suggestion about who to support?
Oh, and don’t be too afraid. Although she’s leading with 37% to 9% (with Larry Phillips in 2nd place), I should point out that it was a KING5 TV poll.
Posted in drivers, sanfrancisco
By Matt the Engineer on June 25, 2008
In my previous post, I argued that:
1. Seattle needs a city-level mass-transit system – not to replace, but to augment the bus system.
2. King County is the wrong agency to build this.
There were several comments about how the branding a Seattle transit agency would be confusing. I’m not sure I agree (many other cities handle this fine), but I’m ok with not having a new agency as a requirement.
Here’s my proposed compromise: We build all of the infrastructure, buy the trains, then ask King County to run it. They may need to pay for a few new drivers, but it would certainly be an easier sell than having them come up with all of the initial capital.
Of course, this is exactly what’s happening with the streetcars. But I’d argue that streetcars aren’t enough. Unless they’re completely traffic-seperated, they’re just busses with increased ridership (good, but still slow and inefficient). What we need is a monorail-scale plan. We could still use streetcars (though light rail may be better), but elevate them, put them in tunnels, or just make their path completely seperate from cars.
Posted in drivers, sierraclub, Trail
By Matt the Engineer on June 6, 2008
Different problems generally require different solutions. So why does King County only use busses?
At some level of ridership, busses are less efficient than rail. This can be seen by imagining the extremes – say Auburn with it’s own light rail system or New York with only a bus system. The first case is far from affordable and the second far from useful.
Our region has decided that long-distance commuting has passed this point – hence the creation of Sound Transit and thereafter Link. This system won’t replace busses – just compliment them by providing a traffic-free trunk that will lead to density.
But what about short-distance travel? We can again imagine Manhattan with only busses – the streets would be packed with the things to the point of not being useful. Such a city would quickly break down and lose its density. There must come a point where busses need to be complimented by faster, higher capacity transit.
Back to King County Transit. They do busses – and that’s it. That’s ok. As I’ve stated, busses are useful. Just because New York has a subway system doesn’t mean they don’t need their busses. But I’d argue busses aren’t enough.
I think we’re well past the point of bus transit limiting our city’s density. Watch the crowds at 3rd and Pine at 5pm for some evidence of this. We need a rapid way to get between neighborhoods.
Maybe the solution is to convince King County Metro to try something new and fix Seattle. But it seems out of their scope of interest or charter – after all they get their funding from the whole county, and why would a Kentian want to spend a large sum of money getting Seattlites from Fremont to Capital Hill?
I think the reason we don’t have an in-city rapid transit system is because we don’t have an in-city transit agency – something that can act on our behalf and let us tax ourselves for our own benefit. I know the Monorail fiasco is still a fresh open wound, and our city failed in its attempt. But just because we’ve failed to build an in-city rapid transit system (or an effective transit agency) doesn’t mean we don’t want or need one.
Posted in Critical Mass, drivers, normrice
Recent Comments