daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old September 8th, 2007, 09:43 PM   #1061
tritown
Registered User
 
tritown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Albany
Posts: 547
Likes (Received): 5


Community Transit is Snohomish County's bus system. It's more like King County Metro than Sound Transit, it just serves Snohomish County instead of King County.

Sound Transit is different in that it is an amalgamation of the three transit agencies of the central Puget Sound area (Community Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit)
tritown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old September 8th, 2007, 09:46 PM   #1062
tritown
Registered User
 
tritown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Albany
Posts: 547
Likes (Received): 5


So, in reality, I suppose that the light rail could actually be a King County Metro operation since it is only in King County to start out with, and will only be in King County for a long time, not counting the Tacoma light rail, which could also just be a Pierce Transit Operation. This is all just too confusing for me.
tritown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 03:08 AM   #1063
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

We got the three (four really, counting Kitsap) county transit agencies that have been around for a while now (don't know the exactly length of time). When Sound Transit was voted into existence, it added another larger scale (regional) transit agency, but did not replace the already existing ones. It seems a little redundant if you ask me, and perhaps one day things will be consolidated, but for the near term, this is what we got.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 04:27 AM   #1064
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxom92 View Post
We got the three (four really, counting Kitsap) county transit agencies that have been around for a while now (don't know the exactly length of time). When Sound Transit was voted into existence, it added another larger scale (regional) transit agency, but did not replace the already existing ones. It seems a little redundant if you ask me, and perhaps one day things will be consolidated, but for the near term, this is what we got.
Are there differences in fares between ST and Metro?

By the way this popped up: http://www.komotv.com/news/9668407.html

Last edited by HAWC1506; September 9th, 2007 at 04:32 AM.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 07:52 AM   #1065
SteveM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider1983 View Post

EDIT: By the way, NYC (Manhattan):
52% Transit
32% Car
1.6% Taxi
.4% Bike
10.5% Walked
The rest: other/worked from home/motorcycle

US CENSUS 2000
To be clear, this is for New York City as a whole. So people who work in, say, suburban Staten Island are counted here too. I bet the Transit/Walk share in Manhattan proper is much higher.

That said, I agree that the car is here to stay. And so it follows that making cars more efficient is probably more important from a global warming perspective than building more trains is.

On the other hand, the key issue with transportation efficiency is number and length of trips, not mode. In other words, amenities that make compact neighborhoods more desirable (including but not limited to subways, light rail and streetcars) can help people choose lifestyles that require fewer trips and so cut down on the *need* for transportation. And that's good in any number of ways (local economies, carbon emissions, personal economies, etc.)
SteveM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 07:56 AM   #1066
Bond James Bond
Licence to kill.
 
Bond James Bond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 9,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
Are there differences in fares between ST and Metro?

By the way this popped up: http://www.komotv.com/news/9668407.html
Yes, Sound Transit fares are a bit more expensive (but only, like, 25 cents per trip). However, I've always been able to get a transfer from a Metro bus and get on a ST bus and they never ask me to pay the additional 25 cents.

BTW I can't believe you don't know about Community Transit. I guess you haven't lived here long???
Bond James Bond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 07:59 AM   #1067
Bond James Bond
Licence to kill.
 
Bond James Bond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 9,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by tritown View Post

Community Transit is Snohomish County's bus system. It's more like King County Metro than Sound Transit, it just serves Snohomish County instead of King County.
Actually, CT only serves SW Snohomish County and a few other areas. Everett Transit concentrates on areas around Everett.

And yes, there's always been a lot of talk about them merging, but they don't ever seem to get around to doing it.

Quote:
Sound Transit is different in that it is an amalgamation of the three transit agencies of the central Puget Sound area (Community Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit)
Sound Transit isn't really an amalgamation of those agencies, it's actually its own agency that just happens to have a regional focus.
Bond James Bond no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 08:04 AM   #1068
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
On the other hand, the key issue with transportation efficiency is number and length of trips, not mode.
I don't know about that. There are plenty of suburbanites moving farther and farther and farther to the periphery, lengthening their trip. They don't care how far they have to drive, as long as they get a ginormous house on cheap land in the exurbs. I don't know if that applies to Seattle, but many many other US cities are faced with this out-of-control sprawl.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 08:05 AM   #1069
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond James Bond View Post
Yes, Sound Transit fares are a bit more expensive (but only, like, 25 cents per trip). However, I've always been able to get a transfer from a Metro bus and get on a ST bus and they never ask me to pay the additional 25 cents.

BTW I can't believe you don't know about Community Transit. I guess you haven't lived here long???
Haha I've lived here for 10 years. I'm not a commuter though. I get to ride my crammed, bumpy, big smelly yellow twinkie!
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 09:08 AM   #1070
Mongo8780
New guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 29
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond James Bond View Post
Actually, CT only serves SW Snohomish County and a few other areas. Everett Transit concentrates on areas around Everett.
Except for Stanwood, Marysville, Gold Bar, Index, Arlington, Sultan, Monroe, Snohomish, Smokey Point, Darrington, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens....
Mongo8780 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 08:37 PM   #1071
SteveM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider1983 View Post
I don't know about that. There are plenty of suburbanites moving farther and farther and farther to the periphery, lengthening their trip. They don't care how far they have to drive, as long as they get a ginormous house on cheap land in the exurbs. I don't know if that applies to Seattle, but many many other US cities are faced with this out-of-control sprawl.
Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.
SteveM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 08:51 PM   #1072
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM View Post
Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.
Ohh I agree too.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2007, 09:35 PM   #1073
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM View Post
Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.

Would that draw commercial businesses there too though? If you're expanding out, then it doesn't really make sense for businesses to stay where they are right now and not expand with them does it?
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 02:35 AM   #1074
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
Would that draw commercial businesses there too though? If you're expanding out, then it doesn't really make sense for businesses to stay where they are right now and not expand with them does it?
That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:40 AM   #1075
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider1983 View Post
That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.
During the "White Flight" of the 1960s, real estate in the cities became much cheaper than real estate in the suburbs. There were many issues involved. One of the most important was security. In many cases, the parks, plazas, and other common spaces in downtown areas had become campgrounds for vagrants and open air drug markets. One of the advantages of the suburbs comes from "Defensible Space". Most of the land is privately owned and directly under the control individuals who will not hesitate to call the police to chase away trouble makers.

The principal of defensible space goes beyond dealing with people engaged in illegal activities. In an apartment or condominium complex in which the lobby and stairs are shared, rowdy teenagers can seriously impact the quality of life for the other residents. Rowdy teenagers are much less of a problem in a suburban neighborhood where each house has its own private yard.

These issues cause me concern with the "New Urbanism" development that is underway in Seattle. One demographic group in which the city is already well below the national average is families with children. Also, I still hear a lot about the population of homeless people who hang out in the downtown area.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 03:46 AM   #1076
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 536

^ so we shouldn't build dense because of rowdy teenagers?!?

wow

jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 06:42 AM   #1077
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
Has anyone else seen this great-looking bus on the streets of Seattle (or on home roads in Snohomish County)? I'd love to take a ride on it, if only I had a reason to go north and stay as Community Transit serves Seattle only at rush hour and only one way. In any event, here's a link. http://www.commtrans.org/?mc=Newsandevents&Subcat=10
I rode the double decker once on way to work from my friend's place in Seattle. It was a real cool ride.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 07:06 AM   #1078
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by jchernin View Post
^ so we shouldn't build dense because of rowdy teenagers?!?

wow

Hey!
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 07:07 AM   #1079
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsider1983 View Post
That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.
Okay so spreading out = cheaper, but less efficient transportation.
But that means not everyone works in DT right? So wouldn't that relieve the city a little bit?
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2007, 07:17 AM   #1080
Northsider
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,522
Likes (Received): 121

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
Okay so spreading out = cheaper, but less efficient transportation.
But that means not everyone works in DT right? So wouldn't that relieve the city a little bit?
Somewhat, except that many people who live in the city commute out to the suburbs, along with suburb-suburb commuting. So instead of suburb-CBD commuting, in which transit would be easiest to implement, we have region-wide congestion.
Northsider no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
king county metro, seattle, sound transit, us light rail

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium