Comments

1
If ST3 was a solid plan (like ST2) then I would agree with you. Unfortunately it isn't.

Anyway, the argument for self driving vehicles is a bit different than you (and a lot of people) portray. No one knows what will happen, but it is unlikely that it will fundamentally change personal car ownership. On the other hand, it will change plenty of industries, including trucking.

It will also dramatically change transit, as I wrote here: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/10/…. This would address the biggest weakness of our system. Try and get to South Seattle (Community) college (either one) and you run across the same problem -- the buses don't run often enough. If you have to transfer, it just isn't worth it. Try and get from Northgate to Georgetown or West Seattle and you can actually get downtown quite quickly (via the bus). ST2 will make that even better. But for a lot of people (especially people with kids to pick up at daycare) that second bus just takes too long. But with self driving vehicles, that bus is a small one (maybe even a van) and it runs every five minutes.

But that is all a side issue. Self driving vehicles could help, but they are no panacea. We still need a major investment in transit infrastructure. Unfortunately, ST3 is so badly designed that it doesn't deliver much of that. Nothing changes in the example I just gave. It goes to West Seattle, but not the part of West Seattle that includes the campus. Nor does it go anywhere near the other campus. That is just the nature of rail in this city -- it doesn't go where a majority of people want to go. We can't possibly build the New York subway system (as much as we would like to). We don't have the money.

Which is why it is critical to build the essential pieces. This doesn't do that. If this passes, forty years from now it will still take forever to ride our most popular bus (the RapidRide E) or the most popular regular bus (the 7). It will still take forever to get from Ballard to the UW, Roosevelt, Northgate or Lake City. It is rare -- perhaps unheard of -- for a major addition to an existing (or at least planned) system to provide so little in the way of a network effect, yet Sound Transit managed to do precisely that. I guess that is what happens when you ignore population density, the existing (or potential) bus service, and the existing light rail line.
2
Charles, in fact you are the one who is against transit because you refuse to review ST 3 critically but pretend it is a magical wonderful marvelous talisman and you'll vote for it to matter what it does & how it's is structured.
Transit need critical thinking.
Dogmatic cheerleading does not help.

3
The SR99 tunnel isn't JUST for cars, Charles. it's ESSENTIAL to freight mobility, remember? those shipping containers full of Chinese imports need to get off the waterfront post haste, so they can sit at the traffic lights north of Green Lake, on their way to major distribution centers in Blaine.
4
SR99 would not be built for trucks. not in a million years.
5
Well said. @2.
6
@4: what? it's not JUST for trucks, but the Port's insistence on freight mobility played a big role in WSDOT's decision making (and public rationale) against the surface "solution".

trucks and buses will fit, won't they?
7
@2 I agree.

FYI SR99 will absolutely be open to trucks/ buses. No idea where the author is getting the idea that it won't..
8
1
Sure, 'self driving vehicles' will change trucking... by dispensing with truck drivers.

Since SDVs have yet to prove themselves (one beer run in CO, on the highway-only, is not enough) ..imagining a wunnerful wurld where self-driving cars, buses or vans solve our transit problems is ... just imagining.

SDVs are going to require on-board human drivers for quite some time to do things like enter or exit highways, or deal with truly complex traffic situations, or be there when the auto-drive software breaks (or gets hacked), or a sensor malfunctions. Where are those extra drivers going to come from (& be paid with?) when Metro purchases this plethora of SDV vans you posit that will fill in the gaps they currently have?

Trains have a long --and current-- history of effectiveness. I'm going to stick with a known good as opposed to a pipe dream.

We should have built light rail in the 60s, when the land was more open and the City could have reserved right-of-ways for future rail. But no, we now have to pay lots of money to retrofit our city to get even minimal rail infrastructure set up.

But you know what? It's not going to get cheaper in the future. Maybe we should build ST3 now, and then add on more track later to build out the network even further. Rather than stalling now, and paying more for minimal rail infrastructure in the future, and paying even more to build out the rest of the network yet even further in the future.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.