
Seattle is putting up $50B for transit - jseliger
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/
======
timthelion
I for one, am extremely dissapointed with the concept of "bus rapid transit".
I live in Prague, and so I experience all three froms of mass transit:
metro(subway), tram, and bus. Busses are extremely uncomfortable. They rock as
they drive, and they have really awful seating arangements due to the need for
tall wheel wells. I don't see the point in including busses as a part of a
modern system. They also have a much shorter lifespan, and have horible gas
milage/electric efficiency compared to tram cars which last over 50 years. I
think that busses are only included in the system due to the convenience of
not having to have a line to the depo, and perhaps the corruption of the
consultants involved.

As Americans, you may have this impression that mass transit is a horrible
thing for poor people. That impression comes from busses, where the bus is
rocking around so much that you cannot whip out your cellphone and read on the
way to work(one of the big advantages of mass transit over a car). Trams,
however, are very comfortable. The floor is always extremely stable, you can
comfortably read or do work on your laptop. You no longer feel the stress of
driving and your commute can become a "free time" part of your day, rather
than a stressfull period between home and work.

~~~
rsync
"As Americans, you may have this impression that mass transit is a horrible
thing for poor people. That impression comes from busses"

This cannot be overstated.

There is nothing in the urban, built environment that is as terrible
aesthetically and functionally as some big lumbering bus bonking its way
through the city (and usually belching black smoke as it goes).

I am a huge advocate of public transit and I will _do anything to not ride a
bus_.

Always remember the quote from Steve Jobs about tablets and the stylus:

"If you see a (bus), they blew it."

edit: Yes, yes I know all about BRT. Lipstick on a pig.

~~~
techsupporter
For what it is worth, I ride transit a lot in Seattle and really like the
electric trolleybuses we have here. The new ones are whisper quiet, have air
conditioning, are generally a smooth ride, and belch no black smoke. I will
modify trips to be on one of those instead of a diesel bus. My house is on a
trolley route, by choice.

Metro has almost completely eliminated the older high-floor diesels that are
loud and rickety. Next up is ditching the longer, old conversion electric
buses.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The only reason they have trolleybuses in Seattle, however, is because of the
hills. Electric provides much more torque for getting a big bus up a steep
hill. If hills aren't involved, the bus is usually diesel given the
flexibility and lack of infrastructure need. (They used to run electric in the
bus tunnel, but went with hybrid instead)

~~~
techsupporter
That's as may be. My house is served by two trolley routes and I can go almost
anywhere I want except northeast Seattle by trolley. Given a choice, I use the
electric routes (for example, going to Ballard using the 44 instead of the
40).

Move Seattle is supposed to fund more electrification of routes so maybe we
get more wires in the next handful of years.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Ya, I was living in the U district for a long time, and they had a few
trolleybuses through but they were mostly local routes through the hills. If
you wanted to get to downtown, the 71/72/73 were diesel even though (at the
time) they were capable of running on electric in the tunnel.

Frankly, I wish they would just go with a decent tram system (like Portland
and many European cities).

I wonder why the don't consider electric buses with big batteries. We have a
few of those in Beijing now, and they seem to work OK. I have no idea how long
they have to be down for charging, however.

~~~
techsupporter
> I wonder why the don't consider electric buses with big batteries.

Ask and ye shall receive:
[http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/News...](http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/constantine/News/release/2016/February/17-battery-
bus-launch.aspx)

[http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/02/22/metros-battery-
powe...](http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/02/22/metros-battery-powered-
proterra-buses-now-running-revenue-service/)

Metro is running Proterra EV buses (like a Nissan Leaf writ very large) on
routes 226 and 241 on the Eastside. So far the only charger is at Eastgate P&R
so the routes served by the Proterras have to go through there. They are
entirely run on batteries, no overhead wire or diesel engine, but their range
is limited to about a ~20 mile route and they don't hold a charge well with
steep hills. They take around 20 minutes to go from discharged to full and
about 10 minutes to recharge from normal route usage.

The new trolleys, separate from the Proterras, operating in Seattle now have
batteries and can run off-wire for a few miles, including going up the 18%
grade found at James St & 7th Ave. They're a _lot_ better on hills and come in
bendy-bus (articulated) styles that the Proterras currently don't have.

We're trying to build more streetcars but there is astounding pushback against
devoting street capacity to exclusive lanes for them. The First Hill
Streetcar, that runs from the ID to Capitol Hill Link Station, goes up two-
lane-with-bike-path Broadway...and is slower than walking during parts of the
day. On the other hand, it will get monumentally more useful if the Central
City Connector--a streetcar route from the ID to Westlake along 1st Ave in its
own lanes--is built because the CCC will connect both streetcar routes.

Personally, I'd love to see a dedicated-lane streetcar running between Mt
Baker Station (Rainier Ave near Franklin HS) to University Link Station (just
north of the ship canal along Montlake) on 23rd Ave. Cheaper than tunneling,
in its own right-of-way, and running from, say, 5am to 1am every day of the
week. That would be incredible and could easily replace route 48 with more
capacity and better reliability.

Sadly, I suspect I will be dead and gone before the Central District gets any
kind of high-capacity transit.

------
news_to_me
The Capitol Hill and U District extension of the light rail is a much-
appreciated addition, as ridership shows since they opened. Based on my
personal conversations with residents, more corridors like this are badly
wanted. For instance, I'm not sure why the Ballard-U District line is ignored
as much as it is in official plans.

~~~
phinnaeus
The other big missing piece is a cross-town rail line. Currently there are
three main corridors for going east-west in Seattle: Denny Way (home to the 8
bus line), Mercer St (a glorified entrance/exit thoroughfare for I-5 and the
bridges across Lake Washington), and 45th/50th St north of Lake Union (home to
the 44 bus line).

Now that UW and Capitol Hill have a station, it makes sense to at least study
the feasibility of an east-west line that could provide an alternative to at-
grade transit and connect to the Link.

Another advantage of a crosstown route north of Lake Union is it could
continue east over the brand new 520 bridge, which was designed to support
Light Rail and connect to the east side.

As a resident of Seattle, the current plan is vexxing. I love transit, and I
don't mind voting for something that I'll never see (as long as there are good
reasons for the long timeline) but I'd certainly prefer a different set of
priorities for light rail.

~~~
techsupporter
As a resident of Seattle who lives south of the ship canal, I am going to lose
my mind if we don't get to, someday, vote on transit through the Central
District. The CD has more riders and more density than the opening-in-2021
station in Roosevelt. Roosevelt is going to be zoned _lower_ than the upcoming
rezone at 23rd and Jackson. Yet, inexplicably, nobody ever wants to put a
Metro 8 Subway to a vote.

I'm already half tempted to vote no on ST3 because running light rail to
ISSAQUAH--expected to get 11,000 riders per day, or 70% of the riders that a
_single_ route (number 48) through the CD gets--before filling in the gaps in
the rest of our system is just...galling. But I'll probably vote yes because
it's not like voting no is going to end subarea equity.

(See the seattlesubway.org yellow line for what a Denny/23rd Ave "Metro 8
Subway" would look like.)

~~~
OrwellianChild
Now's your chance to get involved! As a soon-to-be Beacon/Mt. Baker resident,
I'm right there with you on the south-end infill... Their final plan will be
decided in June, so we have to speak up now!

------
aaronbrethorst
The article title is misleading. The ST3 package is being put to _voters_ in
November, Seattle isn't simply ponying up $50bn. Seattle doesn't have $50bn to
put into transit.

Here's more information on ST3:

[http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/24/st3-draft-plan-
over...](http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/24/st3-draft-plan-overview/)

[http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/31/how-to-fix-
st3-so-s...](http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/03/31/how-to-fix-st3-so-
seattle-will-vote-for-it/)

------
dclowd9901
The Bay Bridge one mile bypass cost about $6.4Bn. It was quite contentious
too, and did nothing to make getting through the city any easier. It amazes me
how unwilling most municipalities are to make this kind of investment in
transit that would actually make it easier for people to get around rather
than just pumping more lanes into freeways. Seattle should be lauded for
putting their money where their citizens wants are.

~~~
tn13
City administrations are not good at figuring out the needs of transportation
especially when they give less importance to market needs and focus more on
propaganda.

D.C.'s Metro system: [http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/20/dc-metro-repairs-
closed-es...](http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/20/dc-metro-repairs-closed-
escalators)

------
rayiner
> Because it is serving areas without major jobs centers or walkable
> neighborhoods, the long light rail corridor is inherently oriented toward
> suburb-to-downtown commuters.

This is the biggest problem with transit outside NYC/Chicago. Those cities are
surrounded by walkable suburbs that justify regional rail. Everywhere else,
the surrounding suburbs were not _designed_ at all, and it's questionably
valuable running rail out to them.

I take the Silver Line to work in D.C. None of it runs through any sensibly
designed area. There are a tiny handful of apartments within walking distance
of any Silver Line station, and even the closest ones are separated by
enormous dangerous parking lots. My commute is actually takes longer than it
did back when I used to commute from a walkable New York suburb into midtown,
even though the physical distance is about 40% less.

I'm pretty skeptical of the return on transit dollars in place like Seattle.
It seems to me that it's simply _too late_ to turn these places into real
cities.

~~~
slagfart
Why are the parking lots dangerous? Honest question

~~~
chipsy
Parking lots are attractive to crime: Unattended vehicles, low surveillance,
relative anonymity, unused space late at night. Many kinds of deals take place
entirely within parking lots. The crime wouldn't vanish if these locations
were busier and less anonymous, but it would be a little more challenging to
go completely unnoticed.

------
rdl
How does Seattle get such a generally reasonable city government (and even
better in the surrounding cities) compared to San Francisco (and the
neighboring cities, too).

As far as I can tell both places are roughly the same in demographics,
education, and only recently has SF surged ahead in wealth (and SF used to be
even worse than it is now.)

~~~
jseliger
The short answer is voters.

The longer answer is complicated.

1\. Some urban planning decisions are made at the state, not local, level,
which means that more housing gets built and prices are lower:
[http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-
bil...](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/6/11370258/honan-zoning-reform-bill).

2\. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is insane. For example, it
allows anyone to sue anyone building anything on environmental grounds.

3\. CA has Prop 13, which is also insane, and Prop U in LA:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_U)
which is insane. Prop U encourages some people at the margins to pick SF over
LA.

4\. SF has rent control, which means that many voters are encouraged to say no
to everything.

5\. The cities' histories are different: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-
housing](http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing). SF has a longer history
of radical, economically illiterate politics than Seattle.

6\. Seattle's city government is not quite as reasonable as it looks. Google
"The Seattle Process" or Kshama Sawant. It only looks better than SF because
SF has uniquely terrible voters.

~~~
teacup50
You can't really make the comparison being made in #1 without a lot of
assumptions that just don't actually hold water in the market.

Seattle has a population of 652k, with an average density of 8k/sq mi.

San Francisco has a population of 864k, with an average density of 18.5k/sq
mi.

And yet:

Seattle has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.5

SF has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.6

So what explains SF's higher costs? Density coupled with massive wealth
inequality. Period.

Upzoning increases land value in a tight market. Markets remain tight in
desirable locations and no amount of development has been able to keep up;
population is growing, job growth in the tech sector is high, and the wealth
gap coupled with high demand means that there's enormous price elasticity for
some, who then push the rest out.

High density construction carries a higher barrier to entry, and is almost
exclusively allocated to rental units. Additionally, high density construction
allows one to combine multiple profitable uses in the same plot; commercial
and residential.

This accelerates the wealth divide, putting more money into the hands of fewer
and fewer land owners, with rents tracking whatever the high demand is capable
of sustaining. Nobody else ever builds up equity, the city winds up being
owned by fewer and fewer, and the low end of the market is priced out.

This then requires attempts at government correction, through subsidized
housing; either as outright grants to developers, zoning variances granted to
allow higher margins in exchange for permanently affordable (but still
rental!) units, tax credits, etc.

This further accelerates the growth of the wealth divide, as development and
development investment companies begin to specialize in cornering access to
(and brokerage of) these economic perks that are unavailable to individual
potential home owners.

Density does not fix housing. It literally never has, and I do not even begin
to understand how this conception became the norm amongst housing activists.
As near as I call tell, it's something that's been green/liberal-washed as a
necessity by those who profit the most from the government-funded development
incentives.

------
seattle_spring
This won't pass with the current proposal. No one is going to vote to
significantly increase their taxes for something they won't even see in 20
years. Most people have no idea where they'll be in 5 years, let alone 20.
Further, the entire proposal is for at-grade rail. That means that these
trains will be delayed by both road and waterway traffic. Do you really want
to be stuck in a train for 30 minutes while some rich guy needs to float his
yacht through a major city?

~~~
frankus
The timeline sucks, and there's arguably too much at grade, but the
particularly congested part (from Uptown to International District) would be
in a new tunnel.

------
slagfart
As a non-american, I am stunned - if ridership is only 20%, how on earth are
all these people parking their cars in downtown Seattle? Carpark skyscrapers?

~~~
xyzzyz
There's quite a lot of $10/hour parking in downtown Seattle -- almost every
high-rise building has multiple levels of publicly available parking. Also, if
you take a taxi/Uber, you don't need parking.

~~~
slagfart
What are the incentives at play here? Is it mandated that buildings need
carparks, or is space genuinely so plentiful that this is economic? I can't
imagine a carpark-sized area of office space goes for $10/day, even after the
cost of carpet and coffee.

~~~
dionidium
"Is it mandated that buildings need carparks"

Yes. Most towns have zoning rules that include minimum parking requirements
for new construction.

------
bkeroack
LA has a proposal for $120B in transit investment over a similar timeframe.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-
pro...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-transit-
projects-20160311-story.html)

------
pklausler
A plug for a technology that amplifies the reach of transit: the folding
bicycle (e.g., Bromptons).

You can't run trains to everybody's home or workplace, but you can run trains
to within a couple of miles of the endpoints of the commutes of many persons.
Can some of this large budget somehow be used to subsidize folding bikes?

~~~
phinnaeus
Seattle has a problem with casual bike ridership: it's very hilly. There are a
bunch of bike commuters, but they all already own their own bikes. There is
also a bike share system which is failing horribly primarily for this and one
other reason: the stations were spaced horribly around town and riders can not
know with confidence that there will be a station near their destination to
park.

Also, 8-9 months of the year Seattle is pretty miserable to bike in without
the proper gear -- even with the proper gear it's very far from what I would
call "appealing."

~~~
TulliusCicero
> There is also a bike share system which is failing horribly primarily for
> this

The point of bike share is for casual cyclists or people who want to pair bike
share with transit for the last mile (which is annoying to do with your own
bike). It's a niche that's not really intended to compete with people owning
their own bikes.

> the stations were spaced horribly around town and riders can not know with
> confidence that there will be a station near their destination to park.

Agreed. Apparently this is supposed to get better with the city taking over
the program, because then they can pair the stations with transit stops
better.

> Also, 8-9 months of the year Seattle is pretty miserable to bike in without
> the proper gear -- even with the proper gear it's very far from what I would
> call "appealing."

Seattle isn't really that rainy. It's actually _less_ rainy than Munich, for
example, and Munich has more than 4x the bike mode share as Seattle.

~~~
btgeekboy
Correct, the sheer quantity of rain that falls is not as great as other
cities. But this past week has been the first in a long time (dare I say
months) that it's not been cloudy, damp, and 45F.

------
calcsam
Metropolitan Seattle has 3.5m people.

This project will cost ~$15k per resident, roughly equivalent to the per-
person national debt.

~~~
avn2109
If I still lived in Seattle and had the choice between

a) Functional transit for a one time payment of $15 grand and then chump
change for train fare for the rest of my life

and

b) Buying, fueling, insuring, maintaining, and driving a car at a vastly
greater cost (probably around 10 grand per year all-in) for the rest of my
life

I would pick A) every time. It's not even a contest, I would pick A) at twice
the price. Hell, it would probably be economically rational to pick A) at 5x
the price.

~~~
the_cat_kittles
as a current resident of nearly 25 years, i agree wholeheartedly.

------
WalterBright
Seattle also can run tracks across the 520 bridge for $200M and can use an
existing 100 foot wide rail corridor on the Eastside from Renton to Bothell
for a song. This would nearly double the trackage and communities served by
light rail for well under $1B.

But that's nowhere in the $50B plan.

------
1024core
If the Bay Area spent serious money on good public transportation, we would
not have a "housing crisis" like we have today. People prefer the vibrance of
SF, and choose to live in SF because getting to/from SF is a pain in the ass.
And BART shuts down before midnight.

We can build as much housing as we want, but as long as we lack a solid public
transportation system, we'll be miserable: more cars on the roads, longer
commutes, etc.

SF itself has to fix its MUNI; we need a 24-hr BART that is cheap and
reliable; a CalTrain that runs very frequently and is 24-hr again; and feeder
routes in the smaller cities.

------
kazinator
> _You’ve got $50 billion for transit. Now how should you spend it?_

I'd get everyone a decent, quality bicycle loaded with all the right features
for commuting/road use, and improve the cycling infrastructure.

No idea what I would do with the gobs of money left over after that.

I'd definitely not waste any on some buses, though.

------
BIair
Isn't this money squandered, if autonomous vehicles are likely by the time of
its completion?

~~~
tdicola
Even if the cars drive themselves there's still not enough lanes to let them
flow right now, much less in 20+ years. There was a study done that found
Seattle's needs _22_ lanes of highway to meet the current demand. However
because of how the highway system was originally built through the city we're
stuck with 6-8 lanes at best. We need mass transit to get cars off the roads
and reduce traffic.

------
free2rhyme214
I think Seattle is better off allocating $50B towards self driving projects.
Seattle isn't Tokyo but that's what its trying to be here.

------
Apocryphon
if only the Bay Area likewise had some sort of similar industry as lucrative
as that in Seattle, which similarly yields the tax revenue to fund such
endeavors

------
roflchoppa
i just wanted to say that I'm jelly about y'all getting funding for extension
on transit. BART is a joke.

------
npunt
With $50B, I'd focus on building an _autonomous vehicle network_. Here's how:

1\. create autonomous vehicle road network by both creating new roads and
retrofitting existing roads with physical barriers where desirable. This would
be similar to building rail lines in places (say elevated or tunnels), except
with much more flexibility.

2\. put up a RFP/challenge to auto manufacturers for fleet of autonomous
electric vehicles, likely of a few types for different passenger loads (2-10)
and needs (disabled access, small cargo).

3\. put up a RFP/challenge to build efficient routing backend for fleet.

4\. put up a RFP/challenge for both card-based (for those without smartphones)
and app-based pickup and destination setting, as well as car interface to
handle route changes. Plan financially for frequent improvements due to rapid
tech changes.

5\. create infrastructure of very small depots throughout city where
autonomous charging as well as manned cleaning & minor repairs could happen.

6\. rope in social services to have progressive prices based on income,
allowing typical subsidies for seniors, disabled, low income, etc.

Here’s why:

* Separate lanes are helpful for near term autonomous vehicles that are not as good at avoiding things. They’re also good as a backup for smaller human-driven busses in the shorter term as the autonomous vehicle development ramps up.

* Can use existing highways, sectioning off a separate lane and creating select off-ramps to connect to autonomous road network.

* Roads are cheaper per mile than rail.

* Rather than large highway tunneling projects (oh seattle…), can build small one-way tunnels over certain stretches where useful - say a few blocks that typically have terrible traffic.

* Smaller vehicles with fewer passengers helps the inconvenience factor and last-mile problem of busses by providing flexibility in pickup/drop-off locations

* smaller vehicles and more convenience in locations helps to improve public image - it’d be like uber/lyft but without the traffic.

* Kickstarts rapid improvement in autonomous vehicle industry by being a large customer, which can benefit city with better tech over time (vs aging train cars).

* Adds useful infrastructure for the future where private fleets and privately owned cars can participate with their own autonomous vehicles. Essentially, it allows for a phase-out of publicly owned/run autonomous vehicle fleets in the future, were that to be something that makes sense.

I could see GM/Lyft and Uber being bidders in this process, among other auto
manufacturers. There may even be an opportunity to own less of the fleet and
simply rent at a particular per mile rate.

In short: spend money on the future of transportation, not the past.

------
forrestthewoods
I hate it. I hate it so much. I think if we spent $50,000,000,000 on
infrastructure to support autonomous vehicles it would both be better and we'd
see returns sooner. Light rail is expensive to build, slow to build, more
expensive to maintain, and completely inflexible as needs of the city change.

I will vote no in the fall. And I'll encourage my friends to do so. This makes
me a minority in Seattle but I'm ok with that.

Some additional food for thought:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-
do...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-dont-we-know-
where-all-the-trains-are/415152/)

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Autonomous vehicles are great for increased speed, improved (i.e. no)
parkability issues and lower car accidents. However, like any latency
improvement, they will not (can not) improve throughput. Trains on the other
hand are optimized for throughput and cost.

Point: They are complementary technologise, solving fundamentally orthogonal
problems, and can and should co-exist to create the best possible infra. (P.S.
I already train from CapHill to UDistrict then get an Uber within the
UDistrict)

That said, you're welcome to argue that Seattle does not and will never need
the throughput optimization provided by trains. That cars alone are enough.
But I don't believe it's in your best interest, to compare the throughput of
cars to trains. Actually it may even be an active disservice to the autonomous
car movement to try and compare them to trains (regarding throughput).

Meanwhile, anecdotally, living and working on Denny (20 min hilly-walk, 7min
bus no traffic): It is consistently bumper to bumper (at all times that
matter) and only getting worse. We seem to have a throughput problem! With
similar issues on Mercer. If your data is different, I'd love to hear more
about that.

~~~
forrestthewoods
I'm not sure your throughput assertion is correct.

As stated in another reply I-5 North congests every single day between the 520
and 45th st exits. Why? Because of a hill. There's a big hill there. And every
meatbag driver slows down going up it. Which causes people behind to brake.
Which creates a shockwave traffic jam.

That wouldn't happen with robot drivers. Nor would cars slow down when they
enter a tunnel for reasons I've yet to figure out. Nor would they slow down
when exiting that tunnel when their eyes adjust to the summer brightness.
Traffic is actually _worse_ on I-90 on bright, sunny days than on overcast
(but not rainy) days! Again, that slow down would not happen at all with robot
drivers.

So I disagree. Autonomous cars can very much improve throughput. The maximum
number of cars that can cross a stretch of road at rush hour is significantly
higher with autonomous cars than with meatbag drivers. In my opinion.

What I _really_ want is Seattle to throw a few million bucks at Google to do a
study. Show us a vision of an autonomous Seattle. Build a simulation and
present it. If Google gives us a "best case" and we still think light rail is
better then great. I'm sold. Let's pick the better option. But right now we're
not truly considering all options.

~~~
yazaddaruvala
Like, I said, there are two things:

1\. The theoretical throughput limits of cars on highways vs trains, for
transporting people, is drastically in the favor of trains.

Generally 1 car per 2 secs per lane - 1.5 people per car on average = 3 people
per sec on a 4 lane highway. On the other hand a 15mpg train, moves 6m per
sec, with a width of 2 meters = 12 m^2 per sec = 12 people _comfortably_ per
sec. While this is a relatively slow train, and we are comparing a train (land
mass = 1 highway lane) with a 4 lane highway, the math is still drastically in
favor of trains. this still holds, even if autonomous cars can achieve a 100%
increase to highway throughput limits.

2\. Seattle may not need the level of throughput only achievable by trains.
You're probably right that currently Seattle does not and will not need more
throughput than cars on highways can achieve.

However, I don't think this holds true as time continues indefinitely into the
future.

