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 October 29th, 2007, 08:24 AM   #1421
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
Right, I found all that info on a ST report and posted it on pg 17 of the first Seattle LR thread; it's outdated but still might ring true. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...422473&page=17



And there's also a news graphic on page 16 of the first thread that says the comfortable capacity of a 4-car train is actually 592. Not 800 as I used in my previous calculations. New calculations:
..................capacity....9 min freq.......6 min.....4 min
2-car trains: 296 pax....1973pax/hr....2960......4440
4-car trains: 592 pax....3907pax/hr.....5920......8880

So this means that upon initial operations, East Link will have a maximum capacity of moving 1,973 passengers per hour per direction. And according to ST, the frequencies would drop to 6 minutes using 4-car trains, resulting in moving 5,920 passengers per hour at full build-out.

And Ben's right, this is all armchair planning...but I'm a nerd and I just calculate this kind of stuff for fun.

Edit: I just read that I-90 pdf that UrbanBen posted... I'm not sure when that was made, but it looks like they want 4-car trains at 4 minute frequencies at build out now. Assuming the other lines remained constant, that'll put 25 trains per hour in the tunnel---about every 2.5 minutes...which seems a little too much for me. The other lines' frequencies are already bad enough so I doubt East Link will ever reach 4 minutes; it'll be more like 6 minutes.
That would assume extension to Issaquah as well. The tunnel systems are built for 25 trains/hr with possible 30 trains/hr - 2 minute headways are what Portland and Vancouver BC have at peak already (although that wasn't planned in downtown Portland, it just happens due to traffic congestion).

Do you think that people standing at stations will say "Hm, it's not comfortable, I'll wait for the next one"? No, they squeeze on. Try 190/car.

And I'm all for armchair planning, but keep in mind that those 90 reversible lanes being removed and the HOV added really does increase 90's capacity, light rail or no light rail.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old October 29th, 2007, 10:52 AM   #1422
Tri-ring
Expert
 
Tri-ring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
That would assume extension to Issaquah as well. The tunnel systems are built for 25 trains/hr with possible 30 trains/hr - 2 minute headways are what Portland and Vancouver BC have at peak already (although that wasn't planned in downtown Portland, it just happens due to traffic congestion).

Do you think that people standing at stations will say "Hm, it's not comfortable, I'll wait for the next one"? No, they squeeze on. Try 190/car.
Yep, a train every 2 minutes at 130% is the way to go, rush hour on a train on a typical weekday everywhere else in the world that have been using the transit system. (with gropers and minor skirmishes over a seat or a suitcase hitting someone elses behind. )
__________________
banned for denial of war crimes in world war 2.
Tri-ring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 05:29 PM   #1423
Tcmetro
Registered User
 
Tcmetro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis/Chicago
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 17

Maybe stations will have to be modified for 6 or 8 car trains in the future. Especially if the Everett, Ballard, West Seattle, Renton, 520, and Issaquah extensions are ever built. All buses would be pushed out of the tunnel when ST2 is complete, though a lot of routes would be replaced by LRT (194, 41, 550, 545, 71, 72, 73, 511).
__________________
metrology
Tcmetro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2007, 11:17 PM   #1424
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
Maybe stations will have to be modified for 6 or 8 car trains in the future. Especially if the Everett, Ballard, West Seattle, Renton, 520, and Issaquah extensions are ever built. All buses would be pushed out of the tunnel when ST2 is complete, though a lot of routes would be replaced by LRT (194, 41, 550, 545, 71, 72, 73, 511).
It's more likely that we'll build a second spine once we have light rail in service to our urban centers. Once we connect Kirkland, Issaquah, Everett, Renton, Bothell to the main line, we'll be seeing the kind of core density that supports faster, higher capacity service.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 01:54 AM   #1425
mhays
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 14,325
Likes (Received): 2598

I do think we'll need a second Downtown tunnel eventually. But probably not for a couple decades, with all-new lines.
mhays no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 03:58 AM   #1426
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Sound Transitís planners have attempted to compensate for the loss of the existing HOV lanes on the I-90 bridge by reconfiguring the traffic lanes so that four lanes will occupy the space presently occupied by three lanes. Of course, this change could probably be implemented even without the construction of the light rail line. Regarding the capacity impact, the following is my version of the capacity calculations.

The ST2 plan projects trains operating to Overlake at six minute headways, which gives 10 trains per hour per direction. The trains will each have up to four cars and each car is designed to carry about 150 passengers. For calculation purposes, Iíll assume the crush load of 190 that has been mentioned in previous posts. This gives a total passenger capacity of 7600 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).

The displaced HOV lanes on the I-90 bridge require a minimum of two passengers per car. Assuming that the all the drivers observe the two second rule, there would be a maximum of 1800 cars per hour per direction, which would give 3600 pphpd; however, the assumption of just two passengers per car seems low given that buses also use the HOV lanes. If it is assumed that there are 1800 cars per hour each carrying 2.5 passengers and 30 buses per hour each carrying 100 passengers (If a 95í light rail vehicle can carry 190 passengers, it should be no problem to cram 100 passengers into a 60í articulated bus.), then the capacity of the HOV lanes is 7500 pphpd, which is similar to the capacity of the light rail line.

In another post, it was stated that a future ST3+ plan will provide trains at 7 minute headways to Redmond and 15 minute headways to Issaquah. This will result in 12.57 trains per hour across the I-90 bridge. If each train features four cars and each car carries 190 passengers, the capacity is 9554 pphpd. This is better but the difference relative to the existing HOV lanes isnít all that impressive considering the cost of the project.

The ST2 light rail extensions are projected to cost about $200 million per mile, which is about three times the cost of the light rail lines being built in other cities and is comparable to the cost of recent and planned extensions of the heavy rail metro in Washington, D.C. Based on this, the capacity that the trans-Lake Washington line adds is disappointing. I can fully understand why King County Executive and Sound Transit board member Ron Sims has dropped his support for the ST2 plan.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 04:55 AM   #1427
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Sound Transitís planners have attempted to compensate for the loss of the existing HOV lanes on the I-90 bridge by reconfiguring the traffic lanes so that four lanes will occupy the space presently occupied by three lanes. Of course, this change could probably be implemented even without the construction of the light rail line. Regarding the capacity impact, the following is my version of the capacity calculations.

The ST2 plan projects trains operating to Overlake at six minute headways, which gives 10 trains per hour per direction. The trains will each have up to four cars and each car is designed to carry about 150 passengers. For calculation purposes, Iíll assume the crush load of 190 that has been mentioned in previous posts. This gives a total passenger capacity of 7600 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).

The displaced HOV lanes on the I-90 bridge require a minimum of two passengers per car. Assuming that the all the drivers observe the two second rule, there would be a maximum of 1800 cars per hour per direction, which would give 3600 pphpd; however, the assumption of just two passengers per car seems low given that buses also use the HOV lanes. If it is assumed that there are 1800 cars per hour each carrying 2.5 passengers and 30 buses per hour each carrying 100 passengers (If a 95í light rail vehicle can carry 190 passengers, it should be no problem to cram 100 passengers into a 60í articulated bus.), then the capacity of the HOV lanes is 7500 pphpd, which is similar to the capacity of the light rail line.

In another post, it was stated that a future ST3+ plan will provide trains at 7 minute headways to Redmond and 15 minute headways to Issaquah. This will result in 12.57 trains per hour across the I-90 bridge. If each train features four cars and each car carries 190 passengers, the capacity is 9554 pphpd. This is better but the difference relative to the existing HOV lanes isnít all that impressive considering the cost of the project.

The ST2 light rail extensions are projected to cost about $200 million per mile, which is about three times the cost of the light rail lines being built in other cities and is comparable to the cost of recent and planned extensions of the heavy rail metro in Washington, D.C. Based on this, the capacity that the trans-Lake Washington line adds is disappointing. I can fully understand why King County Executive and Sound Transit board member Ron Sims has dropped his support for the ST2 plan.
Why don't you actually use WSDOT's numbers for the 90 reversible express lanes, rather than making them up?
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:06 AM   #1428
splashflash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Puddle, BC
Posts: 52
Likes (Received): 0

Proposition 1 just doesn't make the cut

I have to agree with greg_christine. The tunnelled lrt is almost twice as costly as the Vancouver RAV line. And the lrt is not automated! Couldn't Seattle put up a better show than this? I mean, this is the city of Microsoft, Boeing, and Starbucks (who inexplicably supported this proposition).

Perhaps labour costs are so high in Seattle, less costly alternatives should be examined. Seattle should be able to have the best congestion pricing system in the world with all that talent in the city - a lot less could be spent on roads and bridges. Articulated electric trolleybuses could replace the lrt's. I think the construction industry must be lobbying behind the scenes. I mean really. One would think that Microsoft employees could work at home several days of the week.

I hate being this negative about transit projects, but this one would drive even the most hardened lrt fan to the proprietary guided bus schemes being developed in Europe.
splashflash no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:17 AM   #1429
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Why don't you actually use WSDOT's numbers for the 90 reversible express lanes, rather than making them up?
Do you blast everyone who doesn't use "your" numbers/calculations? Just because greg_christine uses numbers that, for now, seem accurate, doesn't mean that you may interpret his calculations as anti-Proposition 1 and just accuse him for "lying".

As far as I have read, this just goes back to the disappointing planning put into our light rail system. Some say that the current AND future plans are too costly since we're going to build mainly tunnels for light rail trains instead of heavy-rail subway trains, which I believe could really reduce congestion in our ever-growing region, at the cost of a subway-style system. But then, a heavy-rail train is much heavier than a light rail train (hence the name) and could do extensive damage to the I-90 bridge. So all I can say is we're in a really bad situation in terms of light rail construction and planning.

Also, if we're going to add more trains, then underground stations would have to be modified, which would be costly. And if we increase frequencies of trains, the DSTT (for example) would be jammed and accidents would be inevitable. Sure a second tunnel could be added, but the geography and current density of Seattle will be challenging, but not CONSTRAINED.

Anyone got a solution?
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:22 AM   #1430
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by splashflash View Post
I have to agree with greg_christine. The tunnelled lrt is almost twice as costly as the Vancouver RAV line. And the lrt is not automated! Couldn't Seattle put up a better show than this? I mean, this is the city of Microsoft, Boeing, and Starbucks (who inexplicably supported this proposition).

Perhaps labour costs are so high in Seattle, less costly alternatives should be examined. Seattle should be able to have the best congestion pricing system in the world with all that talent in the city - a lot less could be spent on roads and bridges. Articulated electric trolleybuses could replace the lrt's. I think the construction industry must be lobbying behind the scenes. I mean really. One would think that Microsoft employees could work at home several days of the week.

I hate being this negative about transit projects, but this one would drive even the most hardened lrt fan to the proprietary guided bus schemes being developed in Europe.

It's probably because our tunnels are/are going to be bored, while Vancouver's Canada Line is mostly a cut-and-cover tunnel (though the Downtown segment is bored). It could be because of labor costs, or because their platforms are a lot shorter (only for two-trains).

And don't even think about talking about using buses for transit on any Seattle-related thread. UrbanBen will eat you out!

Microsoft employees currently has five bus lines for their employees, so you could say they're (kind of) helping out. Though i'm not sure about Boeing. Nobody on this forum wants light rail to Everett (except me), so I guess Boeing employees will continue to stick to their cars until 2030+.
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:42 AM   #1431
splashflash
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Puddle, BC
Posts: 52
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
"Microsoft employees currently has five bus lines for their employees, so you could say they're (kind of) helping out. Though i'm not sure about Boeing. Nobody on this forum wants light rail to Everett (except me), so I guess Boeing employees will continue to stick to their cars until 2030+."


Sorry, I meant that with these types of cutting edge, high tech companies, one would think that Seattle could have come up with an innovative solution. Proposition 1 seems to be just throwing money at transportation as was done by the city when the freeways were built. This was perfectly feasible in the 1960's when health care costs weren't taking such a large proportion of the budget as they do now. China with its low wages and decreasing social safety net can build infrastructure in such a way now since it is still developing. It is just coming out of command-control communism, so this is understandable

Can't Seattle come up with something better than this? There's nothing "elegant" about it . It is transportation planning by brute force
splashflash no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:48 AM   #1432
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by splashflash View Post

Sorry, I meant that with these types of cutting edge, high tech companies, one would think that Seattle could have come up with an innovative solution. Proposition 1 seems to be just throwing money at transportation as was done by the city when the freeways were built. This was perfectly feasible in the 1960's when health care costs weren't taking such a large proportion of the budget as they do now. China with its low wages and decreasing social safety net can build infrastructure in such a way now since it is still developing. It is just coming out of command-control communism, so this is understandable

Can't Seattle come up with something better than this? There's nothing "elegant" about it . It is transportation planning by brute force
There aren't any magical ways to provide transportation for people on the cheap. You can build more rails, or more roads. The rails have the double whammy of making later development more dense, saving you a lot more in the long run.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:48 AM   #1433
deasine
=)
 
deasine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,452
Likes (Received): 57

Before we start comparing Seattle's Light Rail to other projects such as Vancouver, let's try to know what we are talking about before doing so. Vancouver's Automated transit line, the Canada Line, has shaved our construction costs by having cut-and-cover (like taiwanesedrummer said) and not compensating the loss of businesses in the area that are affected by the construction. We are also building 40 m platforms, expandable to 50 m... And obviously, the Central Link's platforms will be much longer than that. Just take a look at the Central Link's website for more information.

And different regions need different forms of transportation. Looking at seattle, I think LRT is adequete and is a very wise choice. I dont' think anyone should complain.
1) Expandable the 4-Car trains
2) Lots of elevated and tunneled portions to speed the LRT - it's just a little slower than a full-metro
3) Used technology that is familiar in Washington and will be expandable (i.e. East Link, etc.)

Looking at Vancouver, I have to say the transit planners weren't doing their job properly since they:
1) Did not look in the far enough in the future (built short platforms)
2) Did not build with the proper technology (it's automated, but did you know it's a complete different technology than the rest of the SkyTrain system)
3) Many parts of the lined are single tracked

etc.

And remember, there are many networks, especially in Europe, act as a seperated metro in the city and a LRT in the suburbs...

Last edited by deasine; October 30th, 2007 at 05:56 AM.
deasine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:55 AM   #1434
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by splashflash View Post

Sorry, I meant that with these types of cutting edge, high tech companies, one would think that Seattle could have come up with an innovative solution. Proposition 1 seems to be just throwing money at transportation as was done by the city when the freeways were built. This was perfectly feasible in the 1960's when health care costs weren't taking such a large proportion of the budget as they do now. China with its low wages and decreasing social safety net can build infrastructure in such a way now since it is still developing. It is just coming out of command-control communism, so this is understandable

Can't Seattle come up with something better than this? There's nothing "elegant" about it . It is transportation planning by brute force
Unfortunatly we can't. China's partly to blame with their ******* Communist spending sprees raising construction costs all over the world. Back in 1996, when Sound Move was originally approve and was planned to be constructed immeadiatly, anything would have been feasible. Then came the 21st Century and everything just fell apart. I blame the Democrat politicians that currently hold posts all over our government. They can't come up with a definitive solution that everyone likes. Look at Greg Nickels; he had to hold an election over whether to replace the viaduct with a four-lane tunnel or a rebuild, but nobody wanted any of those, then the governor said that the state wanted a rebuild. Now they're going to delay the replacement of the viaduct's central segment. As for Ron Sims, he couldn't make up his mind on Proposition 1 until his wife told him what to think. He's the leader of the state's largest county and he has to consult his wife on whether he should approve Prop 1 or not (not that consulting you marital partner is a bad thing, but you'd think it would be easy to vote yes/no for Proposition 1).

So, we're pretty much screwed (whether Prop 1 passes or not).
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 05:59 AM   #1435
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Before we start comparing Seattle's Light Rail to other projects such as Vancouver, let's try to know what we are talking about before doing so. Vancouver's Automated transit line, the Canada Line, has shaved our construction costs by having cut-and-cover (like taiwanesedrummer said) and not compensating the loss of businesses in the area that are affected by the construction. We are also building 40 m platforms, expandable to 50 m... And obviously, the Central Link's platforms will be much longer than that. Just take a look at the Central Link's website for more information.

And different regions need different forms of transportation. Looking at seattle, I think LRT is adequete and is a very wise choice. I dont' think anyone should complain.
1) Expandable the 4-Car trains
2) Lots of elevated and tunneled portions to speed the LRT - it's just a little slower than a full-metro
3) Used technology that is familiar in Washington and will be expandable (i.e. East Link, etc.)

Looking at Vancouver, I have to say the transit planners weren't doing their job properly since they:
1) Did not look in the far enough in the future (built short platforms)
2) Did not build with the proper technology (it's automated, but did you know it's a complete different technology than the rest of the SkyTrain system)
3) Many parts of the lined are single tracked
etc.
I thought only part of the airport segment and the end of the Richmond segment (at Richmond-Brighouse) was only single-tracked. And isn't the main reason why Canada Line is so screwed up because planners wanted to finish the entire project by the Olympics (not that the Canada Line won't have its benefits)?
taiwanesedrummer36 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 06:10 AM   #1436
mr.x
Ex-mod
 
mr.x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: █♣█ Vancouver
Posts: 7,931
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36 View Post
I thought only part of the airport segment and the end of the Richmond segment (at Richmond-Brighouse) was only single-tracked. And isn't the main reason why Canada Line is so screwed up because planners wanted to finish the entire project by the Olympics (not that the Canada Line won't have its benefits)?
Yea, only those 600 metre end sections are single tracked...but according to the Canada Line project office, they have built provisions to make it possible to double track it in the future. With single-tracking, a maximum 3 minute frequency can be created in Richmond and YVR.
__________________
"My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is NOT a porn star." - Abe Simpson

"Preparations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics are progressing so well, it's boring. We'd like there to be some challenges, so we [the IOC] could shout at them." - IOC (Sept. 2007)


"In medieval Europe if you didn't like somebody's argument and couldn't think of a real response you called them a witch and demanded they be burned at the stake. In the US you call them unpatriotic, and in Canada you call them racist."
mr.x no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2007, 09:20 AM   #1437
SteveM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 505
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
The displaced HOV lanes on the I-90 bridge require a minimum of two passengers per car. Assuming that the all the drivers observe the two second rule, there would be a maximum of 1800 cars per hour per direction, which would give 3600 pphpd; however, the assumption of just two passengers per car seems low given that buses also use the HOV lanes. If it is assumed that there are 1800 cars per hour each carrying 2.5 passengers and 30 buses per hour each carrying 100 passengers (If a 95í light rail vehicle can carry 190 passengers, it should be no problem to cram 100 passengers into a 60í articulated bus.), then the capacity of the HOV lanes is 7500 pphpd, which is similar to the capacity of the light rail line.
A couple of comments:

1) Buses take up space on the highways too (and need more braking room), so you probably can't fit 1800 cars and 30 buses at the same time.
2) The "HOV" lanes in question here are not actually HOV lanes, since Mercer Island traffic is allowed to use them for SOVs. Average passenger level is probably closer to 1.7.

I think maybe that's what UrbanBen meant about using WSDOT's numbers, since they've, you know, studied the corridor.

And a somewhat off-topic rant about the "pro-transit" people pushing for canceling light rail in favor of bus schemes: it annoys the snot out of me that I've never heard John Niles or any of the other pro-bus people talk about getting SOVs out of the express lanes on I-5. I can't tell you how many times I've stood in a standing-room-only commuter bus waiting in traffic in the express lanes because the bus can't merge through the SOV traffic getting off at Denny or going through downtown. You want to make me believe you're actually pro-transit? Work to make the *&%^$%& existing buses better.
SteveM no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2007, 01:03 AM   #1438
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM View Post
A couple of comments:

1) Buses take up space on the highways too (and need more braking room), so you probably can't fit 1800 cars and 30 buses at the same time.
2) The "HOV" lanes in question here are not actually HOV lanes, since Mercer Island traffic is allowed to use them for SOVs. Average passenger level is probably closer to 1.7.

I think maybe that's what UrbanBen meant about using WSDOT's numbers, since they've, you know, studied the corridor.

And a somewhat off-topic rant about the "pro-transit" people pushing for canceling light rail in favor of bus schemes: it annoys the snot out of me that I've never heard John Niles or any of the other pro-bus people talk about getting SOVs out of the express lanes on I-5. I can't tell you how many times I've stood in a standing-room-only commuter bus waiting in traffic in the express lanes because the bus can't merge through the SOV traffic getting off at Denny or going through downtown. You want to make me believe you're actually pro-transit? Work to make the *&%^$%& existing buses better.
Niles is completely anti-transit now. He had a single seat bus ride in DC when he lived there, and he suddenly had to transfer when they opened the Metro, so he went totally anti-transit.

WSDOT actually says that the express lanes carry about 1.1 lanes worth of traffic - you'll lose next to nothing moving those cars to an HOV lane on the outer roadway in one direction, and you'll get a new HOV lane in the other direction. Overall, you increase capacity, even with the center lanes closed. And if someone seriously tries to argue that those center lanes are then better used by traffic than by light rail, I'll smack them.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2007, 01:07 AM   #1439
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by taiwanesedrummer36 View Post
Unfortunatly we can't. China's partly to blame with their ******* Communist spending sprees raising construction costs all over the world. Back in 1996, when Sound Move was originally approve and was planned to be constructed immeadiatly, anything would have been feasible. Then came the 21st Century and everything just fell apart. I blame the Democrat politicians that currently hold posts all over our government. They can't come up with a definitive solution that everyone likes. Look at Greg Nickels; he had to hold an election over whether to replace the viaduct with a four-lane tunnel or a rebuild, but nobody wanted any of those, then the governor said that the state wanted a rebuild. Now they're going to delay the replacement of the viaduct's central segment. As for Ron Sims, he couldn't make up his mind on Proposition 1 until his wife told him what to think. He's the leader of the state's largest county and he has to consult his wife on whether he should approve Prop 1 or not (not that consulting you marital partner is a bad thing, but you'd think it would be easy to vote yes/no for Proposition 1).

So, we're pretty much screwed (whether Prop 1 passes or not).
Sims is against Prop 1 mostly because it would make Metro dependent upon Sound Transit for service planning, and likely reduce overall ridership on many of the core routes. It has nothing to do with his wife, it has to do with consolidation of power, and the fact that he wants a cabinet seat in the next Democratic federal administration.

The Viaduct? The Viaduct is bad every which way. It's a bad call to build a new elevated structure. It's too expensive to build a tunnel. We voted, not because of Nickels, but because Gregoire doesn't want to lose against Rossi - so she can't go against what Seattle wants on such a big issue.

Proposition 1 is just another positive step in a long battle against people with other agendas. Look at the Mercer Island-based editorial board of the Seattle Times: I wonder why they're against Proposition 1? Oh, that's right, because Vesely and Blethen use the express lanes to drive alone into the city. Duh.

Instead of randomly attacking people because of the op-ed of the week, why don't you actually do research and pay attention, and recognize that you don't know everything right off the bat? I'm wrong all the time about this stuff, but at least I learn from it. You get all this information and it doesn't have any impact on the asinine arguments you make - learn!
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2007, 01:41 AM   #1440
taiwanesedrummer36
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Little Taipei, Everett
Posts: 1,029
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Sims is against Prop 1 mostly because it would make Metro dependent upon Sound Transit for service planning, and likely reduce overall ridership on many of the core routes. It has nothing to do with his wife, it has to do with consolidation of power, and the fact that he wants a cabinet seat in the next Democratic federal administration.

The Viaduct? The Viaduct is bad every which way. It's a bad call to build a new elevated structure. It's too expensive to build a tunnel. We voted, not because of Nickels, but because Gregoire doesn't want to lose against Rossi - so she can't go against what Seattle wants on such a big issue.

Proposition 1 is just another positive step in a long battle against people with other agendas. Look at the Mercer Island-based editorial board of the Seattle Times: I wonder why they're against Proposition 1? Oh, that's right, because Vesely and Blethen use the express lanes to drive alone into the city. Duh.

Instead of randomly attacking people because of the op-ed of the week, why don't you actually do research and pay attention, and recognize that you don't know everything right off the bat? I'm wrong all the time about this stuff, but at least I learn from it. You get all this information and it doesn't have any impact on the asinine arguments you make - learn!
First of all, I think we can all agree that Ron Sims has bad judgement skills. And i'm just remembering what I read in the newspaper several weeks ago. Maybe it was a lie, maybe it wasn't; all I know is it was printed on paper.

Can you even verify what Gregoire thinks? Almost everyone pretty much likes Gregoire, and I guess, from what I OBSERVED and RESEARCHED, Rossi might not have much chance come 2008 (though I support him).

What's with you and the Seattle Times? We're past that issue. People can vote whatever they want on Proposition 1 as far as I care, hopefully no.

And to correct you blatant attacks, before I commented on what was posted by others, I thoroughly reviewed what was written and checked the calculations to make sure it was realistic (at best). I know for certain that communist China can build massive freeways and mass transit systems because the government can do whatever it wants. They can destroy people's homes to build a golden palace, they can tell people to build stuff at $1 an hour because of cheap labor laws, and i'm pretty sure you can see the point. I was just sharing what I thought when splashflash brought up the issue, and to me, China is a ****ed-up nation. I pretty sure I have more background on China because of China-Taiwan relations. And how can you call my attacks on China "random". Taiwanese people have a history of criticizing China, at least for over five centuries.

Second, as far as I have seen, when the 21st Century dawned upon us, everything did fall apart. The Nisqually earthquake in 2001 exposed us to the importance of replacing the Viaduct and the SR 520 Bridge (which was kind of a good thing and a bad thing). Initiative 695 cut car-tab taxes (and yes, I voted "yes" on that) in 2002. And as the 21st Century progressed, construction all over the world, mainly in China, increased construction costs for our transportation projects, which leads back to what I said about China.

And a last word: I think you need to review whatever goes on in your head.
taiwanesedrummer36 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 10:15 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