[news_to_me]

A lot of the anti-transit comments here are simply saying "yeah but it's hard to get to X place by transit" (particularly Microsoft). This may be true now, but from my perspective only underscores the need for even better coverage — for example, ST3 reaching Redmond will help enormously for people getting between Seattle and Microsoft.

In general, focusing on transit at the expense of drivers is simply the smart thing to do — roads are a limited resource, and as the population grows we have to use them more efficiently. Doing so helps the most people for the least cost.

I'm sorry if you own a car and things get a little less convenient for you, but in the end we have to create the most value for the most people, especially those who don't have the luxury of owning a car.

[adventured]

> In general, focusing on transit at the expense of drivers is simply the smart thing to do

Plus, as Seattle continues to expand, it's only going to become more expensive and difficult (zoning, nimby etc) to build rail mass transit. Now is the time to do it and do it aggressively. You put it into place now because you won't be able to later.

[marssaxman]

It's a real shame that we've chosen with ST3 to build rail to the suburbs instead, deferring the much-more-important task of rail between the neighborhoods for the next generation.

[Jesus_Jones]

We should do both, both will get expensive. It does seem wrong that we aren't building to ballard at the same time we are building through bellevue to go to microsoft. But the whole thing takes so freaking long, I want to start working on all segments at once, subject to our capacity to plan.

[chroem-]

>In general, focusing on transit at the expense of drivers is simply the smart thing to do

Light rail will not reach Snohomish County until the mid 2030's. That is not an acceptable answer.

[news_to_me]

So what, we don't invest in light rail at all? That's why we're in the traffic mess we are now — because voters 30 years ago didn't prioritize long term improvements.

[chroem-]

We are shooting ourselves in the feet by intentionally diminishing road traffic capacity before the alternative is ready. You are not serving the underprivileged by making it too expensive to drive, since middle and lower income people can only afford to live in the outlying areas in the first place.

[davidw]

> middle and lower income people can only afford to live in the outlying areas in the first place.

That is a solvable problem: get rid of the zoning that keeps them out.

[chroem-]

That's wonderful, but now you're trying to solve mass transit and affordable housing at the same time. The fact of the matter is that a war on driving is a war on the working class. You can get a used car for just above $1000, but that's how much more you would be paying per month to live within transit distance of your workplace.

[jogjayr]

> The fact of the matter is that a war on driving is a war on the working class.

It's not a war on driving - it's favoring public transit over driving. There's a contradiction in your statement because public transit is often opposed by wealthy communities for fear of attracting "undesirable elements" (read: the poor). How can public transit both be used by working class people but also be bad for them?

To add on to that, how is it better financially for working class people to put thousands of dollars (a significant fraction of their net worth) into an otherwise unproductive asset that sits idle 80-90% of the time? Not to mention that $1000 used car is far more likely to break down and require expensive repairs (due to more use) when used by a poor person who has to drive an hour each way every day (because housing within decent commute range is too expensive). Operating a car can cost quite a bit too. Insurance can easily be another $1000/year and gasoline is maybe another $1500 more. Compared to that an unlimited VTA pass is $70/month. And the cost of sitting in traffic vs sitting in a train/bus and possibly getting some sleep or work done.

[marssaxman]

> now you're trying to solve mass transit and affordable housing at the same time.

Yes, that's exactly how it needs to happen. Transit works more efficiently in higher-density areas, and higher-density areas become more appealing when served by transit, and everyone benefits. The solution is obvious: upzone all the low-density neighborhoods within city limits, then build transit links connecting them.

[loeg]

The working class can drive on largely un-congested roads to a park and ride. No one is taking away road capacity in places that aren't getting better mass transit.

[aaronbrethorst]

Exactly! Making mass transit more feasible as a primary method of commuting requires more affordable housing near where people work.

[briffle]

How long would it take to widen the freeways to account for the same number of commuters that the light rail is predicted to carry? I'm guessing rebuilding all those roads, overpasses, underpasses, purchasing rights of way, etc, take some serious time and money..

[chroem-]

Even maintaining current capacity would be an improvement over what's happening right now. They are intentionally trying to reduce the number of drivers before the transit system is ready to handle them.

[loeg]

Are you talking about the I-90 express lanes? If not, where else is capacity being reduced?

[jschwartzi]

And that's all right of way that could otherwise be used for rail. So it's not just a matter of building both, but of choosing one mode or the other.

[loeg]

Snohomish county is an exurb. If you work in Seattle and chose to live in an exurb, what did you expect?

The interim solution is the same as it has always been for suburb/exurb transit: the last mile is a drive to/from a park and ride.

[InclinedPlane]

OK, so gather signatures and organize more funding?

Dynamics of mass transit infrastructure in the Seattle region is dominated by a multi-decade absence of adequate funding and building. Seattle spent several decades through the mid-20th century in decline, but even as jobs and residents started flowing back (beginning in the '80s) Seattle nevertheless squandered additional decades failing to build out infrastructure. Only recently has that changed, and the process has to overcome a reluctance towards taxation and government spending in the area (Seattle specifically has very low taxation levels compared to a city of its size) and the deep hole of those lost decades. The only way to counteract not building up transit for decades is either spending decades building up transit or taking a hard short-term financial hit to accelerate the process.

[throwawaysea]

Your comment makes it seem like population growth is inevitable. I don't think that's true at all. The city can manage their policies (for example around permitting) more reasonably, to slow down/disincentivize unchecked population growth, to protect the quality of life for folks already living here.

Things are not just "a little less convenient" for people who use a car. That's minimizing what has been a much more real impact to me and many others I know. There was a time even only a few years ago when I could zip around the city and do many different things in one day, making the most of the limited time me, my family, and friends have. Now a lot of that way of life is simply not possible due to the amount of planning/time it takes to get around - we can't casually expect to be some place at some time, and in the end we just plain do less and live a less-enriched life as a result. That's a lot more than a slight inconvenience to us.

And along the same lines, certain neighborhoods in the city (e.g. Capitol Hill, Ballard, etc.) are downright inaccessible to anyone who doesn't live there, whereas previously it was possible to drive there and find parking (even if it took a little bit :D). I'm sure someone is going to mention there is now light rail to Capitol Hill, which I'll head off by saying that the nearest light rail station for me has no parking, and taking a bus to get there and then waiting for the light rail basically adds 40m+ to the trip and just makes it not worth it. ST3 is also not a panacea. It will take years for it to reach its intended coverage (whereas the population is growing _now_), and there's also a good chance that it will not be enough by the time it is ready.

Lastly, I think saying we have to "create the most value for the most people" is also more of an opinion than a fact of life IMO. From my perspective, the city government exists firstly to protect the quality of life of its existing constituents. It is plainly failing at that.

[Jesus_Jones]

all those people "blocking you" already moved to seattle, it's just going to get worse. so lets deal with reality. certainly there is a limit to the number of people our infrastructure can handle comfortable. As someone who rides a bus to work each day, we are past that limit already.