Will over at Horse's Ass makes an important point that enviros seem to missing: most people don't take mass transit to be green.
For my part, I take the bus for reasons 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 noted in the slide Will cites.
Yes, mass transit can never be a convenient and logical option for everyone, especially those working outside traditional commuting hours or typical commuting corridors. But, if the environmentalists who love mass transit for the sake of saving Mother Earth are actually serious about expanding it in the Puget Sound area, they might want to consider paying attention to Will on this one rather than going the extremist route.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 01, 2008 09:24 PM | Email ThisNice try, except my post was making a broader point about transit in general, not the transit agency many conservatives love to hate. Did you ever stop to think there are other transit programs people use in the greater Puget Sound area than Sound Transit? I generally ride Community Transit to and from Snohomish County.
More importantly, I was arguing the point rabid environmentalists should wake up to reality.
But, if you want to argue with that. Fine.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 1, 2008 10:52 PMST is facing a real dilemma: aim for people who will live in nearby new developments, or build garages so people can drive to the train/bus stop then ride it from there? No one seems to be developing cost estimates for running lots of local shuttle buses or vans to pick people up and get them to the station.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on April 2, 2008 12:34 AMIt costs millions to build those and you only get a couple hundred spots.
What if .......
The transit agencies would rent out existing parking lots that are sitting empty in the suburbs instead of building or trying to build new ones at high land and construction prices.
The parking lots I am referring to are church lots which usually don't see a lot of action till evenings and weekends- outside the commute. These lots are huge and they actually exist in each and every one of our neighborhoods.
What terrific potential there is there. Over the years here at SP, one of the negatives of bus travel has been getting the buses to the POD (Point of Delivery) or the subdivision in the suburbs. Bus routes and rail are not flexible enough to go up and down the subdivisions anymore.
Posted by: swatter on April 2, 2008 06:59 AM1. They stink.
2. They are slow.
3. They are unhealthy.
4. They are dangerous.
5. They are inconvenient.
6. Park and Ride = High Car Prowl Area
7. I don't give a sh*t about Globall Warming.
8. Park and Ride = Loss of green areas. (I through this one in for the ecocrackpots.)
Posted by FreedomLover at April 1, 2008 11:13 PM"
You are one sick cowboy Lover. Why do you hate America sooo much?
You sound like someone who would have been right at home in Germany in 1939. Like you, they too felt they had various groups they regarded as evil and in need of destruction.
You act a lot more like a hater than a lover. I'd be curious to hear what your definition of "freedom" is.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 2, 2008 07:31 AMHey, great question to pose to Planned Parenthood!
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 2, 2008 07:45 AMTransit is fine; don't confuse transit with Sound Transit.
They just figured out how to make electricity from nuclear radiation (actually they always have, but now we can do it with 40 percent efficiency).
That means that "nuclear waste" is now a potential generating system, that 10 year batteries are possible and that you can buy your own power plant from Walmart for $10,000 and stick it in your basement and not generate a molecule of CO2.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13545-nanomaterial-turns-radiation-directly-into-electricity.html
"Liviu Popa-Simil, former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear engineer and founder of private research and development company LAVM and Claudiu Muntele, of Alabama A&M University, US, say transforming the energy of radioactive particles into electricity is more effective.
The materials they are testing would extract up to 20 times more power from radioactive decay than thermoelectric materials, they calculate."
Posted by: John Bailo on April 2, 2008 09:42 AMThe greens will never allow this to happen. It will cost them their jobs. ; )
Posted by: NW Denizen on April 2, 2008 09:48 AMAlso some churches do have programs going on during the weekday, for example preschools, so the parking lot may not be used all the time but it may be used for some of the hours. Still, there could be some churches that do have enough parking space for this to be a good idea some of the time.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on April 2, 2008 10:01 AMJim T.
Posted by: Jim on April 2, 2008 10:17 AMHowever, my very first thought when I read 14 was the loud yipping and screaming of liberals when church is brought into any equation.
How dare the eco-cult (and no, I'm not referring to you Stuart as I don't know if you are an eco-nut) actually consider using a CHURCH for their own benefit... have they NOT heard of the Separation of church and state they throttle us with at every chance??? [/sarcasm].
I hope these churchs charge a high premium for the use, depreciation, wear and tear abuse of their property.... in the form of mandatory ATTENDANCE and tithing of the eco-nuts.
:)
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 2, 2008 10:46 AMI also like the fact that riding the bus allows me to read, or listen to music, or simply stare out the window and contemplate the natural beauty of living in this area.
Sure, the temperature isn't always exactly what I like most, it's either too hot, cold, stuffy, breezy, etc. But I can deal with it.
Sure, you occasionally rub elbows with some folks you'd rather not be very near. But, that's humanity. Those times are far outweighed by the number of great folks I've met and gotten to know on the bus.
So, if you want to ride the bus, ride the bus. If you don't, find some other way to get to work. I honestly know one guy who rides his unicycle.
Our bus system is a great option and I'm happy to have it.
There's no way that the auto will ever go away. If enviros were more serious, they would be focusing on real improvements to the auto, and not just feel good horsecrap like the Prius hybrid which burns less fuel, but ultimately is more expensive and much more harm to the environment with its expensive to build and maintain battery.
But the ecolefty folks are really not interested in Mass Transit, the Environment, etc. What they do want is more control, more authoritarian rule, more fascist control over corporations, etc. They hate people, and they hate success and freedom. All while they realize that the US is still by far and away the greatest country, that's why they are too cowardly to leave here, even though they often burn flags and voice their USA hatred.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 2, 2008 11:49 AMSo, which is it?
$4 = good. It will force the peasants into public transportation. (if it doesn't, add tolls, congestion pricing, and extra payments to use roads you already paid for, etc., etc.)
$4 = bad. The poor can't afford to buy gas anymore.
$4 = good. The government is able to extract higher tax revenues from the oil companies. (Who makes more on a gallon of gas - the government or the oil company?)
$4 = bad. The oil companies are making "excess" profits. These "belong" to the government.
$4 = good. Alternative fuels can now be developed because they are more cost efficient. (But they probably won't lower the energy costs)
$4 = bad. Less fuel is being purchased, lowering tax revenues from gallons sold, reducing demand, reducing gas prices.
$4 = bad. Food prices are going up because of transport cost and conversion of food growing acreage to bio-fuel acreage. The poor can't afford to eat anymore.
$4 = good. Government can take away the oil industry "subsidies" and increase revenue = all money is the goverment's to dole out as it sees fit.
$4 = good. At least we aren't in Europe.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 2, 2008 12:40 PMYou are NOT MY UNCLE, however, you are a liberal, that makes you evil, you must be destroyed.
Just kidding.
We need you so that we can point out the folly of liberalism. We can't convincingly act the part of a liberal because the sarcasm always comes through. We need a real one. Like you my very favorite Unkl Witz.
Posted by: REBEL on April 2, 2008 12:59 PMIt's hard to take Crazy tangent MIKE O'BRIEN seriously whe we caught Sierra Club employee Bill Arthur clear cutting and Michael McGinn secret meeting to kill whales
Posted by: Sierra Club aka Rodney Dangerfield on April 2, 2008 01:27 PMAnd to be honest, I have contacted the pastors and they seem receptive. And the two churches I contacted are in prime areas for a bus to stop- i.e. along State Highways or artierials.
Posted by: swatter on April 2, 2008 01:31 PMFor the fun of it I rode the San Diego trolley after it opened. Within two years the gangs found they could use it to rob in other neighbor hoods or just cruise around. Or worse of all to rob or just pick on people.
Plus when they were bored, they cut up the seats and damaged many windows.
What a huge waste of our dollars.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 2, 2008 01:31 PMThey must have the solutions, even though they never bother to tell us what they are.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 2, 2008 02:57 PMThey must have the solutions, even though they never bother to tell us what they are.
But then, Unkl, you'd need to step aside for a few years. Are you up for that?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 2, 2008 03:14 PMGo for it. But be prepared to show your work.
They seem to be investing in the development of much smaller cars that are comfortable for a single occupant with an eye to servicing the needs of the "commuter." (Kind of like the European Smart Car, but with more focus on functionality and versatility.)
They are also putting R&D dollars into what I call "conveyers" or " mass haulers" that basically move around great number of those single occupancy vehicles that happen to be going the same direction at the same time. (Kind of like ferries - not buses or other "mass transportations solutions that don't let people take their personal vehicles with them.)
What they aren't spending money on is building solutions that try to force Americans out of our cars and onto a central transportation system that only goes from A to B with no easy conduit to get the commuter to points C thru Z. They are great listeners and know that Americans don't want that.
(Yes, I know there are bullet trains in Japan and great subways. I use them often there and they work there. My point is the Japanese understand those solutions work in a small country with a homogenous, concentrated population but will not work in a spread-out diverse country like our own.
Frankly, even the Japanese wish they could drive their own cars in Tokyo and will if they can develop the infrastructure and a type of personal transportation that makes it feasible. They don't like waiting in subways for long periods or standing at bus stops in the rain any more than we do. They don't see their transportation infrastructure as a "long-term solution" - they see it as a necessary evil until they come up with something better.)
My point is this:
Wouldn't it be a great thing if Sound Transit were more like Toyota and actually listened to the American public with compassion and a desire to serve? Instead of trying to force us into an imperfect European solution, wouldn't it be great if they would pursue an innovative American solution?
(Like the Japanese are doing?)
This is the land of Boeing, Microsoft and Starbucks folks. As a people, we should be fundin better, faster and more wired solutions - not expensive, antiquated and inconvenient buses and fixed line rail.
We're capable of building it here, but instead we're going to let bureacrats piss away billions doing it the old way so the Japanese can make billions when they hand us the solutions we really want in the first place.
Where is the sense in that?
To make public transportation be all that it can be, we must make the public sector use it to commute, to shop and to recreate during the week. No van pools. No cabs. No hitchin' a ride or riding with a member of the private sector to work or to the mall.
If we do this we will have the best rapid transit system in the world, bar none
Posted by: barrackslawyer on April 2, 2008 05:42 PMO-gee, South made a joke. Simple..... Build some damn roads. You have ONE, yes I said one major road into Seattle. Talk about stupid. Knock off the car pools lanes and use them for traffic.
That would sure help.
By the way South as a medic, but better damn well hope I know how to work on more than just dogs & cats if your hurt from a car wreck or have heart problems.
But because of traffic, I may not get there in time. Hmmmm
Hell, yeah.
The only problem with your proposition is the part that says ..."so they can just fix all the problems."
Excuse me, we are CONSERVATIVES.
We won't fix problems. We will however remove the burdens that prevent people from solving their OWN problems and give them the knowledge and common sense to avoid future problems born of liberal foolishness.
When can we start?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 2, 2008 08:30 PMSeems to me that there are in fact some "problems" that do require collective solutions. Is there not conservative solutions to those problems? Or just no conservatives capable of solving them?
Posted by: BA on April 2, 2008 09:27 PMTry focusing for a moment and see if you can come up with an original thought....
Do you have any kind of formal education at all? Or are you the poster kid for "no child left behind"?
Individuals can't always solve their own problems. They often need to band together to help one another. That's what we refer to as civilization, or in current terms, modern society. It really is a very useful concept. That's how we get things like roads, fire departments, police protection, our monetary system, our judicial system, our banking system, even our system of national defense. The list is quite long.
I know it kills you to admit it, but local, state and national government does serve a useful purpose. And guess what..... it cost's money. That's right, we have to allocate resources to it. We do that with (cover your ears if you have to) taxation.
Get clue my friend.
The subject is/was local transit. YOU are the one that posited, albeit sarcastically, that Medic and I could solve all the problems.
I agree.
However, I don't believe in doing the work for you so your problem is solved.
I do believe that problems like those that WA, Seattle and King County have created for themselves through arrogant liberal ineptness can be solved by common sense solutions, yes even economic and security "problems". One thing I find most offensive about the local libs in power is their uncanny ability to find expensive tax-payer paid solutions for problems that only exist in their power hungry imaginations.
Furthermore, criticism from those that offer nothing but criticism is laughable. Step up to the plate and actually offer something besides a whine or an insult.
You but go ahead and keep throwing out your child like insults, because it shows ever poster here what type of person you really are.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 3, 2008 06:57 AMMy first approach to traffic congestion would be to eliminate as many choke points as possible - reduce congestion.
In short, I would want I-5 to be a freeway that goes THROUGH and has exits into Seattle - not a Freeway that goes TO Seattle.
The ludicrously stupid reduction of lanes in both directions of I-5 around the Convention Center. Until this is fixed, nothing done to I-90 or 520 will matter because it will all get bottled up in Seattle.
The 520 I-5 merge that backs up because it seems everyone from 520 wants to exit at Mercer.
The merge of traffic from 45th trying to get over to 520.
I would try to eliminate ramps like the one at Northgate where exiting cars mingle with cars trying to get on the freeway.
I would eliminate ramps like the one at exit 122 or Quilceda where traffic has the opportunity to back up onto the freeway.
As for "mass" transit - buses.
I rather like to left off, left on ramps for buses and carpools. All of these ramps should allow carpools - the one in Lynnwood that is reatricted to buses only is stupid.
There are only three major routes from Everett to South Center. One of them, the Seattlites want to tear down. I would investigate other potential north-south corridors that would allow more people to move around the area without the need to get on the freeways.
This is just a start, but because I beleive that transpotation planning in this state has been to socially engineer people out of their cars, incredibly stupid designs have been allowed that contribute to, and exacerbate, congestion.
That mentality must be eliminated.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 3, 2008 07:09 AMI have never had any luck hiring a former government worker...minimal work ethic, too strong sense of entitlement, no creativity.
Is that the system turning these people? Or, does the system attract that type of person?
Posted by: BA on April 3, 2008 07:10 AMYou can also look at the terrain or hills in Seattle. That is another big difference.
You can also look at the water bodies. They seem to be located where you want arterials or rail.
Posted by: swatter on April 3, 2008 07:10 AMYou hit it right on the head. This area in not NY.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 3, 2008 07:41 AMAh, yes, the 'liberal' solution. FORCE those stupid gummint workers to obey our edicts, and all will be peachy. And if our 'best rapid transit system in the world' [also the worst one, since we won't allow no steenkin' competition] doesn't go to your destination, well you can walk - or we'll just condemn your destination for a wilderness area and forbid you to go there.
Of course, there would be benefits - Ron Sims' eco-thugs would have to walk to all those rural properties to spy on the owners to see if they cleared more than 33% of the brush.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 3, 2008 10:05 AMThat's why Toyota and Nissan aren't investing in mass transit solutions that they hope to sell in America. Instead, they are investing in smaller cars targeting commuters that work better in dense situations. (Less parking area required, less polluting, etc.)
Go back and read my post again. I think you'll see we agree on things.
Posted by: johnny on April 3, 2008 12:16 PMWell isn't that the F'n Norm in Seattle. Pay twice what it costs in the most expensive city for the same protection.
I say come here and work for the same wages as in NY and cut our DAMN taxes!
Congratulations Seattle!
Keep ripping the tax payers off!
Posted by: GS on April 4, 2008 07:17 PM