Have you considered petitioning the university you attended for a refund?

Quadruple the number of park and rides, invest in on and off ramps to accomodate the buses, and make the carpool lane bus only.

Thanks for answering my question twat.

Power-hungry is ugly stuff.

It's one thing to have people think your stupid, then there's opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Wntrrn,

Buses are presently the most cost efficient alternative to single occupant motor vehicles, but adding on/off ramps contributes to gridlock, not smooth traffic flow, unless you mean ramps for buses only. What we are more likely to see is a bus only lane and the carpool lane, further reducing lanes available for single occupant vehicles. That is ultimately how people will be motivated to use a transportation alternative. When driving one's own car takes a good 10 to 15 minutes longer each way than using buses or trains or whatever, that is when people will switch.

As Hank points out, 84% (in Portland, but likely similar in many places) prefer to drive single occupant cars, and that is just what they will continue to do until it becomes less preferable. It becomes less preferable when it takes significantly longer or when it costs just too damn much, which varies according to individual affluence.

Hank,

I drive. I could take the bus by riding my bike to the bus stop, riding the bus, transferring to another bus, and then finishing off my commute on my bike to the office. Or I can just ride my bike the whole 10 miles. So why don't I? Because I don't have heavy traffic on my route, nor is it too expensive. Yet.

I want to thank all of you drivers for subsidizing my commute...

I walk on the ferry in the morning and work an hour while commuting. in the evening, I walk on the ferry, drink a beer, and work an hour...

so basically, I'm getting a free ride, drinking on the job, and getting paid to do it...

suckers...

Typical response, avoid the question and resort to insulting someones intelligence. I at least think you are reasonably intelligent, but I also think you are a complete twat.

Livin' the good life Piper! What could be better than beer on the job?

The issue with that is that it negatively effects people who's jobs require daily additional travel once onsite to their work place. Which coincidentally are the same ones who foot the largest portion of the road work costs through gas taxes etc, which trimet does not pay in a proportionate sum. The cost per trimet rider is nearly 85 cents a mile, almost what a cab costs, light rail is 1.11 per rider without costing in the nearly 3 billion dollars in construction costs to date.

Salmo,
I think we all are in favor of planning, but planning that makes sense, not a just a liberalist view of how to force people to live. A market approach to the solution would say that when roads get bad enough, then people will move to the city. Developers would find the initiative to provide inner city living that people want. The liberal planners view is to try to force people to live in the certian areas, regardless of efficeincy or desirability or cost.

Take Tacoma, no one wanted to live in Hill top. They have great mass transit, easy access to the freeways and down town, great views, but derelict buildings and high crime. Then the city changed the zoning to allow high rise buildings, offered tax credits, and built the Tacoma branch of University of Washington. Despite a set back with the current housing crisis, there are multiple condo complexes in the area. I have freinds who love living in the area and others who have invested there. No amount of mass transit or traffic would have got them to live in the area, but the prospect of walking to work and school in a safe enviroment, to clubs, the waterfront and other things were. The biggest draw back to the area is a lack of shopping. This is partially related to the high levels of crime in the areas open for the construction of shopping centers. Some rezoning and incentives may take care of the problem, but eventually economics should rule since once the need is high enough someone will find a way to make it work.

An example of economics over planning can be seen in a housing development in our area. When prices were very high, people started moving out to a housing development in Yelm called Clearwood. Clearwood is a rural subdivision with a lake and lots of neighborhood amenities. For a family, it is a fairly nice place to live. Unfortunately, it is about 20 minutes to the nearest shopping and most owners commute 45 minutes or more to get to work. When housing appeared to be in a crunch, people were willing to sacrifice to be able to own a home. Now that prices have fallen in closer to town, the prices here have collapsed. With gas at $3.00 a gallon, an average family could easily spend an extra $15.00 a day to live here. At $450 a month, that translates to about $70,000 purchasing power in closer. Surprise, Surprise. Right now homes here sale for about $60,000 less than in town. Since noone can build that cheap, development here is almost nill,while in town it is starting to take off. Economics and desirability took care of the issue. If the county came in and starting running busses and car pools, the effect would be the opposite, as some people would then find it more affordable to live there.

WRO,

People who have to travel SOV (single occupant vehicle), each way, or throughout the day, are always going to be the ones experiencing the worst of what the transportation system offers. I don't see the evolution towards a dedicated lane reserved for those forced to SOV, although one possibility would be purchase of a pass allowing one to use bus and carpool lanes.

I'm not denying the high cost of transportation alternatives either. My main reason for entering the discussion is that at some point in terms of human population, the conventional SOV approach fails to function. Then what? Many simply argue that more freeways and roads should be built. I used to be one of "those people." Then I learned to understand the transportation experts who know that we can't just simply build our way out of gridlock by way of endless accommodation of SOVs. Since that's the case, we have to choose an alternative, and all the viable alternatives are not what most people would prefer.

Krijack,

Planning that makes sense. Yes, but makes sense to who? And why? And how? As for forcing people how to live, I thought that was a conservative's attribute. Joking; both sides do it, usually failing to recognize it.

Unfortunately I think the market approach fails to solve the issue, and to the extent that it does solve it, it does so with attendant gridlock, extreme pollution, and significant reduction in quality of life. But hey, it's a market solution, and if you want to count on that to always float your boat, by all means advocate for it. The problem with that approach is that most leftys and rightys don't really want that as the outcome.

I suppose you're right in assuming that most planners are liberals, since a true conservative is likely wedded to market forces alone, no matter how badly it degrades the environment or human experience, but I digress. Planners work for governments, and planners that work for liberal governments will develop plans that reflect the goals of those governments, which may or may not have any relevance to economic efficiency.

I disagree with your contention that when gridlock is bad enough, developers will create inner city living that people want. They will do that for the affluent. But they will develop something marginally affordable for those who qualify only for low paying inner city jobs that they cannot afford to commute to, even if that results in 6 people living in a 2 person apartment, or equivalent. By definition, the unregulated market solves problems, but the unregulated market doesn't care how ugly the solution is or how low the quality of life that results. Effective planning can offset some of the disadvantages of an unregulated market, and I guess I'm taking the long way around in saying that is the purpose of transportation planning. The vast majority of Americans prefer an SOV, but we know that isn't a solution for downtown sections of large cities. Therefore, what is the next best, most preferable alternative?

Sg

Salmo,
For all the planning Seattle has, where is the affordable housing within the city core? I have had planners tell me that economics has nothing to do with planning, eventually the costs will justify the outcome they want.
For all their planning, what happens is usually the exact opposite of what they want. They dictate 6 houses per acre, then ask for community parks, sidewalks, 60 foot roadways, and then can't figure out why the lots are only 3500 sq ft or how to get adequate storm water reabsortion. So then they dictate bigger storm water ponds, resulting in smaller lots. Since the lots are smaller, they dictate on site drainage for all the homes and driveways. When they are done, we have a 3500 to 4000 sq ft lot with $60,000 in development costs, but raw building sites outside the growth area selling for the same price for an acre to 5 acres. What they do is drive anyone who wants a parcel of land to build a decent size house outside the growth management area, creating even more sprawl. Then, when every inch of land outside the GMA is developed people are forced into the GMA and they declare it a success. Since the GMA was passed in Pierce County, I feel they pushed the development of Non-GMA land up 20 years. People who would have been happy on a 10,000 to 12000 sq ft lot were forced to buy up existing acreage, usually at one acre to 20 acre lots. The recent down turn has given some retrieve, but eventually people will be forced inward simply because they have allowed almost 100% development of the land outside the GMA. A slanted market approach with simpler requirements would have stated no land subdivision outside the GMA until all utilities are present and lots of no more than 20,000 sq ft. Development would have followed more natural paths, with expensive areas justifying larger lots, and lower income areas smaller lots and areas with high development costs or natural constraints generally being skipped over.

Salmo,

I'm talking about dedicated park and rides, on off ramps and lane for buses only. Instead of investing billions on systems that people don't ride, invest in one that people do ride. Our commuter buses are packed to overflowing and park and rides along I-5 and 405 are also at max capacity.

People will ride the bus. A study showing that xxx percent of people prefer driving solo doesn't take into account having a system that actually works. Light rail doesn't and won't, IMHO.

When Sound Transit went thru all the pre-planning and had their EIS completed, it showed that statiscally ZERO automobiles would be removed from the streets. Most ridership would be pirated from already existing bus routes. How does that make sense to spend however many billions it's going to end up when there is a system that works, and, the cost is substantially less? It's not about providing the best transportation system, it's about extracting the most amount of money from John Q Public and putting it into the hands of those who help our local politicians get elected. I believe the overall goal isn't about solving transportation issues, it's about leaving a legacy of social engineering that isn't working.


Looks like LA figured out how to reduce congestion.
http://blogdowntown.com/2013/02/7142-las-traffic-lights-now-synced-aims-to-increase

Looks like Washington doesn't know how to complete a single project without having to pass around the collection basket, AGAIN.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020398639_transpo52099xml.html

No argument with that Wntrrn.

I often watch who is driving in the HOV lanes. While buses and vans are visible during peak hours, a large portion appear to be the following: Husband/wife combinations, Construction or delivery crews, Mother and children ( a large portion), Police man, and other people who would already be commuting together. I wonder if a study has ever been done to see how many people truely are car pooling.

HOV lanes encourage me to carpool. I refuse to attend a meeting in Bellevue unless I've got a carpool to go up I-405. It's the only lane in motion in the morning; the other lanes stand still. HOV lanes only encourage people to carpool or pay for it if they value their time. That people will sit in the standstill lanes while the HOVs whiz by is a testament; those people are voting with their time and the choice they make. Obviously the slow lanes aren't yet slow enough.

If you take the "actions have consequences" and "stupidity should hurt" principles into consideration, people are saying and voting that their time isn't valuable enough to bother with the hassle of finding someone to ride with them.

That's why I'd like to see the center of the freeway with a Metro like rail system flanked by HOV lanes flanked by slow lanes. Everyone in the slow lanes watching the train and buses and HOVs zoom by deserves to be sitting in the slow/standstill lanes by the very choice they make to be there.