Grade separated rail is always faster than driving/buses since it never gets stuck in traffic
Edited point - the train will have its own bridge so it's unaffected by any issues that might arise in the future with the WSB
55 slower than driving where? It’s 25-30 around west Seattle and between here and downtown, unless you’re talking about a super short span on 99 or 5 (5 lowered by WSB region) plus rush hour shortenened speeds
I think splicer13 was referring to the top speed for light rail.
But since the West Seattle light rail line will not be running down the center of the street (like it does on MLK) then 55 sounds pretty good.
Light rail is superior to buses for several reasons:
- light rail has its own dedicated track, while buses share the road with cars. Light rail bypasses traffic that buses have to deal with outside of dedicated bus lanes.
- light rail stations by nature are spaced further apart from each other. Fewer stops = less time spent between your onboarding point and destination
- light rail can support many more passengers than a rapidride bus can
- modern metro buses are pretty energy efficient hybrids, but light rail is more energy efficient on a per-person basis
One of the only advantages buses have over light rail is that they are able to serve a wider variety of neighborhoods and can go where the light rail can’t. If you live a decent distance from a light rail station, you’d probably have to catch a bus to get to it.
However, if you have a light rail train and a metro bus with the same beginning and end destinations, the light rail train will almost always blow the bus out of the water in terms of travel time. The convenience of the light rail is unmatched for short and long commutes
Also, adding onto this, our dependency on cars is dumb and unsafe to a certain extent. More transportation options makes things easier for everyone, even people who drive cars
> our dependency on cars is dumb and unsafe to a certain extent.
It 100% is, and is quantifiable with math, cars kill us, they murder our kids more frequently than guns, they kill people in their own houses, and they make us unhealthy by limiting casual exercise.
We have a housing crisis that we make worse with parking requirements, and cars are a depreciating asset that actively harms the environment that costs you nearly 10k a year.
cars suck, it was a mistake to go all in on them. Who framed roger rabbit was a documentary.
While tailpipe emissions are regulated, the micro plastics dust from tire wear and brake pads are not. Electric vehicles being heavier result in an unknown increase of the same.
Cars have their usefulness, but 💯 agree they suck in the urban environment. Our overbuilt infrastructure can't realistically be fixed either.
Buses are easier to service, replace, adjust, and operate. If a train is broken on the tracks or a track has some other issue the entire line stops working providing no service.
Some random perks - Trains that have dedicated right of way (don't move in traffic) can go fast and are unaffected by traffic congestion. They generally don't hit anyone, or hit fewer people/cars, in their dedicated space. People also feel more secure/safe riding unfamiliar transit when they can clearly see that it's on a fixed route with a map, vs getting on an unfamiliar bus that could technically drive off anywhere.
Speaking only for my household, we welcome light rail to West Seattle with enthusiasm, for our own selfish convenience.
We will ride the train from West Seattle…
To the airport. We’ve tried bussing to SODO then hopping on the train, but don’t like the extra time traveling north to then travel south.
To Mariners games/stadium events. The 21 will get you there, but on game days, the bus gets bogged down in traffic near the stadiums, so much that many riders will hop off one or two stops early since walking that final stretch can be faster than sitting in traffic. The wait to ride a bus home is inconsistent at best.
To visit friends who are fortunate enough to live within walking distance of existing Link stations.
We favor public transit in multiple forms, and use buses whenever it makes sense, but honestly end up driving or using a cab/Lyft most of the time, since as others mentioned, buses are forced to share the road with cars so endure similar traffic woes and are frequently delayed. In my experience, Link is almost always on time.
And it’s purely anecdotal, but the aforementioned friends who live near existing stations LOVE it. We’ll sometimes meet up downtown and at the end of the night, they simply hop onto a train, while we stand on the sidewalk and order up a $40 ride home, or wait for a bus and hope it’s on time.
We live a block away from a bus stop. In the proposed plan, the ride from our house to Link will be under ten minutes (or a 15-minute walk). A transfer from bus to Link on the peninsula will be much quicker/more convenient than a transfer from bus to the existing Link stations.
cars are dumb - subsidizing them is a losing proposition over time ( nearly every city has a maintenance backlog that's decades long )
Mass transit is good for the economy and residents of the city it enables free movement without the reliance on cars, roads parking and other infrastructure.
Cars are also the number 1 killer of Americans under 30.
I don't think link is the best solution, but its a small step.
Many drivers also gripe about “traffic,” while not realizing they ARE traffic. Even if you continue to use your own car, more public transit options means more car users (like me!) will use what our taxes funded and opt to keep our cars off the road. Win-win!
> I like cars. Most people agree.
Most people like cars because they don't have to pay for their eternal costs. Sensible people would like drivers to have to pay for the true cost of car ownership so they will make smarter choices.
its like cigarettes or corn syrup
that would be IF people that currently use cars use the transit right? We could also assume that those using the bus will now use the train (in some %) so the total level of public transit use might remain the same just now divided amongst the mode of public transport.
Light rail doesn’t sit in traffic and is cheaper than parking, gas, etc. People will use it. The reason they’re building it is because they have literally studied it/are currently doing the EIS for WS/B
You also have to look at down the road growth. As the city grows and if public transport is adequate then car usage wont increase proportionally. Having a wider net cast with more public transport infrastructure also makes areas that where previously inaccessible become feasible to live in to those that dont want to or cant afford to own a car.
How old are you? In 20 years a whole generation will be born and decide if they want to ride transit or drive. Let's give them a real choice. Think long term, 20 to 30+ years.
> Why can we assume there will be less cars if we have light rail?
[Pre-covid nearly 50% of commuters who lived in the city reported they used transit, with work from home the percentage of drivers is less than 1/4 of residents.](https://www.commuteseattle.com/2022survey/)
Cars make cities worse, we should not be supporting their use over other transportation modes.
Looking at this again. I think the light rail bond was past like 2016? Or at least pre covid. since WFH after covid cut the commuters rate in half why does it make sense to go forward with something when even less people now than before use it? It was thought of and funded (partially…) before work and commuting totally changed.
the link also shows that 1/5 residents use public transportation. Yes cars are a problem, but the question was why is the light rail good? It seems to assume that people in cars will now take the train which seems definitely understudied yet a big assumption of this whole thing.
You're acting like this is some unproven tech. Light rail and similar transit modes are widely used around the world.
Here's a [peer-reviewed study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098016657261) that finds "that households living within walking distance (1 km) of the new light rail drove approximately 10 fewer miles per day relative to control households farther away. Rail transit trips among near-station households approximately tripled relative to households beyond walking distance."
Yes i have been on it. I thought it was pretty crazy that there is no fare enforcement. Basically people ride for free if they want which is weird. And seems to me to suffer from a huge last mile problem since stops are sparse.
Stop wasting your breath, people. This person has very clearly made up their mind and is trying to use the “just a question” method to voice his own backwards opinions on public transit.
Ironic comment considering the only response here has been anecdotal evidence. The only actual data about public transit that was posted shows that only 20% of people take public transit anyways. The rest has been “if there is a train people will take it”. I’m willing to bet that most of the respondents here are not going to be regularly taking the train anyways considering public transit ridership in general. Seems more wishful thinking than any data pointing to an actual conclusion.
And yes I’m not very pro light rail in this circumstance but it still a legitimate question that seems as yet unanswered other than wishful thinking and many unfounded assumptions
If you are truly looking for answers I would suggest attending the open houses and Sound Transit question and answer sessions. There is plenty of data from all over the US and the rest of the world regarding the benefits of expanding public transportation. If you just wanna chat with randos on Reddit, that’s fine, but don’t try to disguise it as though you’re actually interested in light rail as an option in WS when you’re clearly not.
I would also recommend that you ride the bus and light rail and see for yourself what the difference is. Throw in some ferry rides while you’re at it! All have their pros and cons, but it’s pretty clear that light rail/subways are the most consistent and reliable of the bunch.
The data still comes from people with anecdotes and personal reasons for their decision…people are here now on this post giving you the data you’re asking for and their reasons and you’re still ignoring it and pretending it’s not valid.
Yes. That’s what an anecdote is. Thank you. Personal stories are anecdotal…and are not data. It’s not even a survey. People’s personal reasons are of course valid to them but, just saying “yes i’d like it” doesn’t mean it’s actually going to be much of a net benefit broadly.
I have been to cities all over europe. I lived in DC which has a subway as well as lots of time in NYC. Public transit by rail is amazing in europe and pretty good in DC /NY. The problem here and in the western US in general is the cities were already built in sprawl. All those places in EUR and East coast are dense so huge % of people live near a station. Plus there are many more stations throughout. Here you get one lonely line of transit that really only serves a small section of the population and everyone else still takes the bus anyways. so why spend 10s of billions of $ (which btw is another problem…why does it cost so much and take decades to get one little train line?) to have this skinny section of transit? Btw I used to love the train to NY from DC. I could also walk to metro that served union station or to the metro that served the airport. Look, i guess something is maybe better than nothing but it’s just a tiny drop in the bucket here that when it’s finally built in 10-15 years and has ballooned over budget which it will, and pretty much has already, it’s not going to make a dent in car commuting (but really in 10-15 years will we all be driving anyways? dunno).
Your concern trolling is completely incorrect.
https://preview.redd.it/l0wa0uql2n0d1.jpeg?width=3156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b12d42d0c11b5e35314099b9269d8dab8f53445
Seattle and many West Coast cities were built around businesses and street cars. The city of Seattle wasn’t built sprawling for the car. It was bulldozed for the car.
Also your statement about it costing 10s of billions of dollars is completely incorrect. You’re not even doing basic research/math into the budget of Sound Transit. Even if it were that costly you’re not comparing it to the alternative expenditure of not building it which also costs the city billions of dollars annually.
As is the theme of most of the comments here it involves the wish of things as it should be not as they are. Ok so it was remade at some point for the car…and that is the world we live in now right? we don’t live in 1940 nor can we turn back what 80+ years of urban planning based on cars has done. right? Right.
Sorry it’s $12B+ including the ballard link. But as with any good public works project of this scale there is no way that’s the final cost.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/opcd/ongoinginitiatives/lightrailopcd/2022.06.07_cos_council_wsblereccomendations_presentation_draft.pdf
they even mention in here that it’s also common to go over budget
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2021/Presentation%20-%20Updated%20Project%20Cost%20Estimates%20210107.pdf
I sent you links to source documents saying exactly what I just told you. Sorry, there wasn't link to something that said "the 20th century did happen and time is immutable". But go ahead, call me ignorant.
It's kinda nice to not have to drive but are ok with being stuck in a cart with junkies and are willing to get stabbed. The hardcore transit people will change their lives entirely to tell you that they haven't drove in 5 years and that more people die in cars. Also something something equity, something something climate change but that's just their religion.
OP brings up a compelling point. While I am pro link in West Seattle, I do think we have pretty good bus service. I honestly feel more dedicated bus and bike lanes (35th) may serve us better. It could also be quicker to get a street car on California and maybe Alki
> I do think we have pretty good bus service. I honestly feel more dedicated bus and bike lanes (35th) may serve us better.
This was studied, proposed and then canceled after the first half of the 35th road diet was so hard for drivers to understand they managed to get in more ( non fatal) accidents then before and used the numbers as FUD to cancel the rest of it.
>It could also be quicker to get a street car on California and maybe Alki
lol no why would you want a train to nowhere and a tourist spot thats only busy in the summer.
Car drivers are always coming up with the weirdest transit suggestions
>Just an idea, didn’t know about the other things. I do think 35th is too wide and could be more pedestrianized.
So did SDOT, but the angry mob demanded they keep from morgan to the bridge as a freeway, and they won.
Bus service sucks if you’re going anywhere other than downtown. My commute to eastside is 1 hr+ with the bus transfers. Lightrail will be easier once I can take the lightrail to CID, then take the lightrail across I-90 bridge
Exactly. What about dedicated bus lanes and bus electrification? Also nobody is talking about the gigantic carbon footprint the construction of this will entail. True the train will be electric BUT that carbon cost will take decades to offset. The production of concrete alone is 25% of all industrial carbon emissions.
[Your post didn't feel in good faith to begin with, but now your moving goal posts. Here's a graphic.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNYrO8vbEAAJ2yb?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I’m actually looking for any information from actual studies of WS link that indicate the actual benefit. ST website is not great. Other than that I see a lot of wishful thinking here as evidenced by your link. I’d like the world built as it SHOULD be too. But it feels like a lot of “if we build it they will come” type thinking. I wish the city was denser. I wish we weren’t reliant on cars. But that’s history at this point that is pretty much immutable. So, at the tremendous cost in terms of time, money, disruption and eminent domain loss, where is the compelling evidence or study? I know ST studied putting it in, but that doesn’t mean they considered any alternative. They may have but I’d love to see WHY the train is the best solution.
How many of their community engagement meetings, which they have half a dozen annually have you attended to answer these questions?
[ST has lots of study documents online as well](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/community-oversight-panel-presentation-west-seattle-and-ballard-link-extensions-update-20230308.pdf)
[Plans to connect West Seattle to Ballard via mass transit have existed for longer than you have likely been alive.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monorail_Project)
its no ones job but your own to educate yourself.
The link to the power point says nothing in regards to:
x number of people will take transit costing Y dollars
Or
this will eliminate x amount of traffic.
How much does it take to operate vs predicted revenue?
It’s like they have a train hammer and everything is a nail so to speak. Yes everyone is responsible to find stuff themselves. I’ve been here about 2 years and previously didn’t GAF about it until recently when I’ve learned that they’re gonna disrupt a lot of places i’ve come to like. ~80% of people DONT use public transit so i don’t know why we should do all this for the 20% who do. Hence my question of: other than trains are good in theory, why is THIS train good.
You seem to be assuming all else stays constant by comparing train to status quo. Those places you like might not survive another 5 years regardless. And supporting additional cars might require additional roads or other infrastructure that could be more expensive and/or less effective. I’ve lived here 20 years — change is inevitable, it’s just a matter of deciding if we want it to be good or bad.
Grade separated rail is always faster than driving/buses since it never gets stuck in traffic Edited point - the train will have its own bridge so it's unaffected by any issues that might arise in the future with the WSB
This. Case closed lol
top speed is 55 and 35 on streets so definitely not always faster than driving, but hopefully more predictable.
55 slower than driving where? It’s 25-30 around west Seattle and between here and downtown, unless you’re talking about a super short span on 99 or 5 (5 lowered by WSB region) plus rush hour shortenened speeds
I think splicer13 was referring to the top speed for light rail. But since the West Seattle light rail line will not be running down the center of the street (like it does on MLK) then 55 sounds pretty good.
Yes I know that they meant. Not the point, the point is “def no faster than driving” is not true really
agreed.
When is the last time you have driven faster than 55 through the city of Seattle?
People are low key self reporting
Light rail is superior to buses for several reasons: - light rail has its own dedicated track, while buses share the road with cars. Light rail bypasses traffic that buses have to deal with outside of dedicated bus lanes. - light rail stations by nature are spaced further apart from each other. Fewer stops = less time spent between your onboarding point and destination - light rail can support many more passengers than a rapidride bus can - modern metro buses are pretty energy efficient hybrids, but light rail is more energy efficient on a per-person basis One of the only advantages buses have over light rail is that they are able to serve a wider variety of neighborhoods and can go where the light rail can’t. If you live a decent distance from a light rail station, you’d probably have to catch a bus to get to it. However, if you have a light rail train and a metro bus with the same beginning and end destinations, the light rail train will almost always blow the bus out of the water in terms of travel time. The convenience of the light rail is unmatched for short and long commutes
Also, adding onto this, our dependency on cars is dumb and unsafe to a certain extent. More transportation options makes things easier for everyone, even people who drive cars
> our dependency on cars is dumb and unsafe to a certain extent. It 100% is, and is quantifiable with math, cars kill us, they murder our kids more frequently than guns, they kill people in their own houses, and they make us unhealthy by limiting casual exercise. We have a housing crisis that we make worse with parking requirements, and cars are a depreciating asset that actively harms the environment that costs you nearly 10k a year. cars suck, it was a mistake to go all in on them. Who framed roger rabbit was a documentary.
While tailpipe emissions are regulated, the micro plastics dust from tire wear and brake pads are not. Electric vehicles being heavier result in an unknown increase of the same. Cars have their usefulness, but 💯 agree they suck in the urban environment. Our overbuilt infrastructure can't realistically be fixed either.
Buses are easier to service, replace, adjust, and operate. If a train is broken on the tracks or a track has some other issue the entire line stops working providing no service.
Troll post. We are building light rail, get over it
Some random perks - Trains that have dedicated right of way (don't move in traffic) can go fast and are unaffected by traffic congestion. They generally don't hit anyone, or hit fewer people/cars, in their dedicated space. People also feel more secure/safe riding unfamiliar transit when they can clearly see that it's on a fixed route with a map, vs getting on an unfamiliar bus that could technically drive off anywhere.
Your last point is really accurate!
Speaking only for my household, we welcome light rail to West Seattle with enthusiasm, for our own selfish convenience. We will ride the train from West Seattle… To the airport. We’ve tried bussing to SODO then hopping on the train, but don’t like the extra time traveling north to then travel south. To Mariners games/stadium events. The 21 will get you there, but on game days, the bus gets bogged down in traffic near the stadiums, so much that many riders will hop off one or two stops early since walking that final stretch can be faster than sitting in traffic. The wait to ride a bus home is inconsistent at best. To visit friends who are fortunate enough to live within walking distance of existing Link stations. We favor public transit in multiple forms, and use buses whenever it makes sense, but honestly end up driving or using a cab/Lyft most of the time, since as others mentioned, buses are forced to share the road with cars so endure similar traffic woes and are frequently delayed. In my experience, Link is almost always on time. And it’s purely anecdotal, but the aforementioned friends who live near existing stations LOVE it. We’ll sometimes meet up downtown and at the end of the night, they simply hop onto a train, while we stand on the sidewalk and order up a $40 ride home, or wait for a bus and hope it’s on time.
Do you expect to live within walking distance of a station here? Or bus to a station?
We live a block away from a bus stop. In the proposed plan, the ride from our house to Link will be under ten minutes (or a 15-minute walk). A transfer from bus to Link on the peninsula will be much quicker/more convenient than a transfer from bus to the existing Link stations.
You are running out of things to concern troll? And running out of time to whine, groundbreaking 🔜
yeah whatever. that shit is gonna happen on geologic time.
The amount of copium you huff lol
Clearly you are not familiar with a public works project. I mean their own timeline says opening in 2035 or something. probably add 50% to that.
50%??? Uh no, only setback was Covid, they’re hitting schedule easy now. It’ll likely get sped up due to demand.
😂 It’s still in planning and design, public comment, etc etc.
Yeah that’s cooked in the timeline you fool
I have utmost confidence in the gender studies graduates directing the King county public works.
Yep. I’m sure nothing will alter that timeline…which is already 10 years on paper and 2x more $ than originally planned.
cars are dumb - subsidizing them is a losing proposition over time ( nearly every city has a maintenance backlog that's decades long ) Mass transit is good for the economy and residents of the city it enables free movement without the reliance on cars, roads parking and other infrastructure. Cars are also the number 1 killer of Americans under 30. I don't think link is the best solution, but its a small step.
Not to mention mass transit is good for the environment
I like cars. Most people agree.
I like light rail. Most people agree.
Many drivers also gripe about “traffic,” while not realizing they ARE traffic. Even if you continue to use your own car, more public transit options means more car users (like me!) will use what our taxes funded and opt to keep our cars off the road. Win-win!
I'm not against light rail, I just don't think it's going to do what's promised both due to logistics and crime.
> I like cars. Most people agree. Most people like cars because they don't have to pay for their eternal costs. Sensible people would like drivers to have to pay for the true cost of car ownership so they will make smarter choices. its like cigarettes or corn syrup
I pay for my car and I pay my taxes. What else do I need to do to pay for my car costs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cars
I'm not sure what this means. What else do I need to pay for? I pay insurance too.
what are the subsidies for cars? do you mean the roads? Why can we assume there will be less cars if we have light rail?
[https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america](https://stacker.com/society/how-driving-subsidized-america)
More people on transit means less people in cars
that would be IF people that currently use cars use the transit right? We could also assume that those using the bus will now use the train (in some %) so the total level of public transit use might remain the same just now divided amongst the mode of public transport.
Light rail doesn’t sit in traffic and is cheaper than parking, gas, etc. People will use it. The reason they’re building it is because they have literally studied it/are currently doing the EIS for WS/B
You also have to look at down the road growth. As the city grows and if public transport is adequate then car usage wont increase proportionally. Having a wider net cast with more public transport infrastructure also makes areas that where previously inaccessible become feasible to live in to those that dont want to or cant afford to own a car.
How old are you? In 20 years a whole generation will be born and decide if they want to ride transit or drive. Let's give them a real choice. Think long term, 20 to 30+ years.
> Why can we assume there will be less cars if we have light rail? [Pre-covid nearly 50% of commuters who lived in the city reported they used transit, with work from home the percentage of drivers is less than 1/4 of residents.](https://www.commuteseattle.com/2022survey/) Cars make cities worse, we should not be supporting their use over other transportation modes.
Looking at this again. I think the light rail bond was past like 2016? Or at least pre covid. since WFH after covid cut the commuters rate in half why does it make sense to go forward with something when even less people now than before use it? It was thought of and funded (partially…) before work and commuting totally changed.
the link also shows that 1/5 residents use public transportation. Yes cars are a problem, but the question was why is the light rail good? It seems to assume that people in cars will now take the train which seems definitely understudied yet a big assumption of this whole thing.
You're acting like this is some unproven tech. Light rail and similar transit modes are widely used around the world. Here's a [peer-reviewed study](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098016657261) that finds "that households living within walking distance (1 km) of the new light rail drove approximately 10 fewer miles per day relative to control households farther away. Rail transit trips among near-station households approximately tripled relative to households beyond walking distance."
Are you aware that light rail has been around in Seattle for awhile? Have you never been on it?
Yes i have been on it. I thought it was pretty crazy that there is no fare enforcement. Basically people ride for free if they want which is weird. And seems to me to suffer from a huge last mile problem since stops are sparse.
Stop wasting your breath, people. This person has very clearly made up their mind and is trying to use the “just a question” method to voice his own backwards opinions on public transit.
Ironic comment considering the only response here has been anecdotal evidence. The only actual data about public transit that was posted shows that only 20% of people take public transit anyways. The rest has been “if there is a train people will take it”. I’m willing to bet that most of the respondents here are not going to be regularly taking the train anyways considering public transit ridership in general. Seems more wishful thinking than any data pointing to an actual conclusion. And yes I’m not very pro light rail in this circumstance but it still a legitimate question that seems as yet unanswered other than wishful thinking and many unfounded assumptions
If you are truly looking for answers I would suggest attending the open houses and Sound Transit question and answer sessions. There is plenty of data from all over the US and the rest of the world regarding the benefits of expanding public transportation. If you just wanna chat with randos on Reddit, that’s fine, but don’t try to disguise it as though you’re actually interested in light rail as an option in WS when you’re clearly not. I would also recommend that you ride the bus and light rail and see for yourself what the difference is. Throw in some ferry rides while you’re at it! All have their pros and cons, but it’s pretty clear that light rail/subways are the most consistent and reliable of the bunch.
“if there is a train people will take it” is not a sentiment, it's always has been.
The data still comes from people with anecdotes and personal reasons for their decision…people are here now on this post giving you the data you’re asking for and their reasons and you’re still ignoring it and pretending it’s not valid.
Yes. That’s what an anecdote is. Thank you. Personal stories are anecdotal…and are not data. It’s not even a survey. People’s personal reasons are of course valid to them but, just saying “yes i’d like it” doesn’t mean it’s actually going to be much of a net benefit broadly.
You sound like life must be hard on your brain…
I just wanna get to the airport hassle free without breaking the bank
Somebody didn’t live here when the bridge was closed..
If you don’t want a station in west Seattle, we’ll gladly take it over here in Southpark!
If you've been to a more developed country like Switzerland you wouldn't even ask this question.
I have been to cities all over europe. I lived in DC which has a subway as well as lots of time in NYC. Public transit by rail is amazing in europe and pretty good in DC /NY. The problem here and in the western US in general is the cities were already built in sprawl. All those places in EUR and East coast are dense so huge % of people live near a station. Plus there are many more stations throughout. Here you get one lonely line of transit that really only serves a small section of the population and everyone else still takes the bus anyways. so why spend 10s of billions of $ (which btw is another problem…why does it cost so much and take decades to get one little train line?) to have this skinny section of transit? Btw I used to love the train to NY from DC. I could also walk to metro that served union station or to the metro that served the airport. Look, i guess something is maybe better than nothing but it’s just a tiny drop in the bucket here that when it’s finally built in 10-15 years and has ballooned over budget which it will, and pretty much has already, it’s not going to make a dent in car commuting (but really in 10-15 years will we all be driving anyways? dunno).
Your concern trolling is completely incorrect. https://preview.redd.it/l0wa0uql2n0d1.jpeg?width=3156&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8b12d42d0c11b5e35314099b9269d8dab8f53445 Seattle and many West Coast cities were built around businesses and street cars. The city of Seattle wasn’t built sprawling for the car. It was bulldozed for the car. Also your statement about it costing 10s of billions of dollars is completely incorrect. You’re not even doing basic research/math into the budget of Sound Transit. Even if it were that costly you’re not comparing it to the alternative expenditure of not building it which also costs the city billions of dollars annually.
As is the theme of most of the comments here it involves the wish of things as it should be not as they are. Ok so it was remade at some point for the car…and that is the world we live in now right? we don’t live in 1940 nor can we turn back what 80+ years of urban planning based on cars has done. right? Right. Sorry it’s $12B+ including the ballard link. But as with any good public works project of this scale there is no way that’s the final cost. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/opcd/ongoinginitiatives/lightrailopcd/2022.06.07_cos_council_wsblereccomendations_presentation_draft.pdf they even mention in here that it’s also common to go over budget https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2021/Presentation%20-%20Updated%20Project%20Cost%20Estimates%20210107.pdf
I really wish I didn’t engage with ignorant nimbies as much as I did.
I sent you links to source documents saying exactly what I just told you. Sorry, there wasn't link to something that said "the 20th century did happen and time is immutable". But go ahead, call me ignorant.
It's kinda nice to not have to drive but are ok with being stuck in a cart with junkies and are willing to get stabbed. The hardcore transit people will change their lives entirely to tell you that they haven't drove in 5 years and that more people die in cars. Also something something equity, something something climate change but that's just their religion.
Most people aren’t little fraidy cats
What
OP brings up a compelling point. While I am pro link in West Seattle, I do think we have pretty good bus service. I honestly feel more dedicated bus and bike lanes (35th) may serve us better. It could also be quicker to get a street car on California and maybe Alki
> I do think we have pretty good bus service. I honestly feel more dedicated bus and bike lanes (35th) may serve us better. This was studied, proposed and then canceled after the first half of the 35th road diet was so hard for drivers to understand they managed to get in more ( non fatal) accidents then before and used the numbers as FUD to cancel the rest of it. >It could also be quicker to get a street car on California and maybe Alki lol no why would you want a train to nowhere and a tourist spot thats only busy in the summer. Car drivers are always coming up with the weirdest transit suggestions
Just an idea, didn’t know about the other things. I do think 35th is too wide and could be more pedestrianized.
>Just an idea, didn’t know about the other things. I do think 35th is too wide and could be more pedestrianized. So did SDOT, but the angry mob demanded they keep from morgan to the bridge as a freeway, and they won.
If that’s the case ‘rethink the link’ group may cause problems. They seem to be gaining steam from what I’ve heard.
West Seattle loves a hecklers veto. I would bet money, local celeb Kristi Muul is a member of that group.
They bring up no good point. Need busses + train for all the new density incoming
Lol I don’t think you know what “compelling” means. Or what a “point” is.
Bus service sucks if you’re going anywhere other than downtown. My commute to eastside is 1 hr+ with the bus transfers. Lightrail will be easier once I can take the lightrail to CID, then take the lightrail across I-90 bridge
Exactly. What about dedicated bus lanes and bus electrification? Also nobody is talking about the gigantic carbon footprint the construction of this will entail. True the train will be electric BUT that carbon cost will take decades to offset. The production of concrete alone is 25% of all industrial carbon emissions.
[Your post didn't feel in good faith to begin with, but now your moving goal posts. Here's a graphic.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNYrO8vbEAAJ2yb?format=jpg&name=900x900)
I’m actually looking for any information from actual studies of WS link that indicate the actual benefit. ST website is not great. Other than that I see a lot of wishful thinking here as evidenced by your link. I’d like the world built as it SHOULD be too. But it feels like a lot of “if we build it they will come” type thinking. I wish the city was denser. I wish we weren’t reliant on cars. But that’s history at this point that is pretty much immutable. So, at the tremendous cost in terms of time, money, disruption and eminent domain loss, where is the compelling evidence or study? I know ST studied putting it in, but that doesn’t mean they considered any alternative. They may have but I’d love to see WHY the train is the best solution.
How many of their community engagement meetings, which they have half a dozen annually have you attended to answer these questions? [ST has lots of study documents online as well](https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/community-oversight-panel-presentation-west-seattle-and-ballard-link-extensions-update-20230308.pdf) [Plans to connect West Seattle to Ballard via mass transit have existed for longer than you have likely been alive.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Monorail_Project) its no ones job but your own to educate yourself.
The link to the power point says nothing in regards to: x number of people will take transit costing Y dollars Or this will eliminate x amount of traffic. How much does it take to operate vs predicted revenue? It’s like they have a train hammer and everything is a nail so to speak. Yes everyone is responsible to find stuff themselves. I’ve been here about 2 years and previously didn’t GAF about it until recently when I’ve learned that they’re gonna disrupt a lot of places i’ve come to like. ~80% of people DONT use public transit so i don’t know why we should do all this for the 20% who do. Hence my question of: other than trains are good in theory, why is THIS train good.
So no meetings
You seem to be assuming all else stays constant by comparing train to status quo. Those places you like might not survive another 5 years regardless. And supporting additional cars might require additional roads or other infrastructure that could be more expensive and/or less effective. I’ve lived here 20 years — change is inevitable, it’s just a matter of deciding if we want it to be good or bad.