Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#91

Post by loeg »

arcticfox wrote: post #25
news_to_me wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of life down for most drivers, maybe. But by focusing on transit, moving around and in/out of the city becomes a lot easier for more people than it becomes worse for, so I'd say overall quality of life goes way up. Best of luck to you in your new city :)

I just experimented on Google Maps with an arbitrary route: random place near Microsoft campus to a random nice park in Seattle: 1hr30 minutes. Car: 23 minutes. Even during the awful 520 rush hour, it's still ~15-30min faster. > in/out of the city becomes a lot easier for more people than it becomes worse for Pretty hard to imagine losing 2hrs on a round-trip into the city is a benefit for anyone that can't afford to…

You've managed to choose an arbitrary route that is an extremely uncommon commute and one of the worst possible commutes into the city. You're also neglecting time to find parking and the cost to park (and as long as we're mentioning costs, gas, insurance, and wear and tear on the car).

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#92

Post by loeg »

stephengillie wrote: post #38
eksu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to have good public transit, but being someone who bused from 2008 until 2015 it will never happen. Busses in the city are plagued by our homeless. A lot of the busses simply don't feel safe, especially if you're a female traveling solo. The exception to the rule seems to be the 'commuter' busses, double deckers that go to park and rides straight downtown, but park and rides are full by 6:30 with not eno…

.

> Commuter buses … pay for the city buses that serve the disadvantaged

This is actually the opposite of the truth. Commuter buses are far more expensive routes to run due to both the distance (wear and tear, fuel) and the deadhead (empty) return trips. City routes cost far less to run per head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_County_Metro#Operating_co...

> Metro's higher-than-average cost per boarding can be at least partially attributed to its high percentage of commuter routes, which run at peak hours only, and often only in one direction at a time. As of 2011, 100 of Metro's 223 routes are peak-only. These routes require significant deadheading (particularly on the one-way routes), as well as a very large part-time labor force, both of which drive up costs.[29]

> Metro's lowest-cost route overall, route 4 (East Queen Anne to Judkins Park), had a cost per boarding of only $0.46 during peak hours in 2009. By way of contrast, Metro's peak-only route with the lowest cost per boarding was route 206 (Newport Hills to International School), at $2.04. Metro's highest cost route by this measure, route 149 (Renton Transit Center to Black Diamond), had a peak time cost of $34.47 per boarding. Route 149 serves the rural southeastern corner of King County.[30]

For the direct source, check out this PDF: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/reports/2009/2009-RtPerf.pdf

Starting on page 24 (20 in the document), you can see look at "Fare Rev. / Op. Exp. Ratio." The "West Subarea" is the city of Seattle; the East and South subareas are suburbs. You can see that the aggregate fare recovery per operating expenses is much higher in Seattle than in routes serving the suburbs.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#93

Post by stephengillie »

loeg wrote: post #86
stephengillie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bus routes are a circuit, so they are more heavily impacted by traffic than other modes of transportation. Thus, heavy traffic regularly makes Seattle's commuter buses 10-20 minutes late. The bus from Mountlake Terrace can sometimes be over an hour late, and rush hour makes this a 2-hour ride on top of the wait. With a car, you can hop off the freeway and take a side street and you're there in 30-40 minutes instead o…

> With a car, you can hop off the freeway and take a side street and you're there in 30-40 minutes instead of 2+ hours. You're comparing the best case time with a car to the worst case time of a bus. How long do you think the car will take in 5 years, or 10, as the region continues to grow? > We could put one WA State resident on the moon for that price. Perhaps, but what's the utility of that? Infrastructure costs m…

The best time with a car was 15-20 minutes. I haven't had that commute in 3 years so I'm not sure how it is today. Seattle is at maximum capacity, and it's spilling out into the larger region. I don't forsee commutes getting much worse, as if commute times get any longer, fewer people will commute, balancing out travel times over weeks to months.

A call to the absurd is a way to illustrate my frustration with the relative lack of return on the investment.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#94

Post by mikestew »

andrewguenther wrote: post #13
amsha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any specific actions Seattle has taken to make the driving experience worse?

Yes. Approval of an insane number of construction sites in downtown core has lead to absolute gridlock, the removal of lanes on arterial roads for wider bike lanes, and the 405 toll lane are the first which come to mind.

Ugh, that 405 change is almost enough to have me start an armed rebellion. Not only did it make traffic worse, as a motorcyclist it made my commute far more dangerous because they couldn’t be bothered to spend money for even the most trivial of barriers. Even the car drivers are scared, because they all huddle in the left HOT lane. It is one of the few public projects that blatantly appears to involve some degree of graft.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#95

Post by abawany »

beisner wrote: post #9

To add to the points raised in the article, Seattle’s public transit system and transit policy are just plain good . Buses are clean/new, frequent, and on-time; trains (while they don’t yet extend as far as they need to) are reliable and have good coverage along frequented routes; HOV lanes are (finally!!!) present along the entirety of common longer commutes (especially across the lake). The bus system is especially…

I have visited Seattle a few times and I agree. I live in a transit desert and Seattle by comparison is 'streets paved with gold'. I tend not to rent cars during my visits now and just use the bus service as much as possible, with Car2Go/Lyft for emergencies.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#96

Post by mikestew »

stephengillie wrote: post #30
arcticfox wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just experimented on Google Maps with an arbitrary route: random place near Microsoft campus to a random nice park in Seattle: 1hr30 minutes. Car: 23 minutes. Even during the awful 520 rush hour, it's still ~15-30min faster. > in/out of the city becomes a lot easier for more people than it becomes worse for Pretty hard to imagine losing 2hrs on a round-trip into the city is a benefit for anyone that can't afford to…

.

Hmm? 545 from Overlake or the Redmond Transit Center? I’m not sure what would necessitate a stop in Bellevue.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#97

Post by loeg »

andrewguenther wrote: post #13
amsha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any specific actions Seattle has taken to make the driving experience worse?

Yes. Approval of an insane number of construction sites in downtown core has lead to absolute gridlock, the removal of lanes on arterial roads for wider bike lanes, and the 405 toll lane are the first which come to mind.

Are you suggesting the city of Seattle has any control over 405? I agree that the 405 toll lane(s) are awful, just not on the part about Seattle's culpability.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#98

Post by Analemma_ »

Bensch wrote: post #29
arcticfox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe inside of Seattle it's "good", but when I lived near Microsoft I would have to allocate 3hrs+ for a round-trip into the city by public transit.

Maybe before the new 520? There are now continuous bus lanes for most of the 545's route.

Seconded, the new HOV lanes on the 520 have made the 545 a much more bearable option than it used to be.

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#99

Post by andrewguenther »

CarDrone2 wrote: post #61
andrewguenther wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seattle’s public transit system and transit policy are just plain good. Buses are clean/new, frequent, and on-time; trains (while they don’t yet extend as far as they need to) are reliable and have good coverage along frequented routes... Did we live in the same city? This is the exact opposite of my experience with Seattle transit.

We probably don't live in the same place. You see, I live in reality, while you live in a fantasy world where your ability to drive your car for cheap matters. Roads need to be _EXPENSIVE_ to use, Cars need to be expensive to own Transit needs to be _UBIQUITOUS_ and _CHEAP/FREE_ to use _ANY_ other combination is insanity. It has been proven time and time again that any other combination leads to insane amounts of con…

Did you even reply to the correct comment?

Re: Seattle Is Winning the War on the Car Commute

#100

Post by poulsbohemian »

andrewguenther wrote: post #35
beisner wrote: post #9

To add to the points raised in the article, Seattle’s public transit system and transit policy are just plain good . Buses are clean/new, frequent, and on-time; trains (while they don’t yet extend as far as they need to) are reliable and have good coverage along frequented routes; HOV lanes are (finally!!!) present along the entirety of common longer commutes (especially across the lake). The bus system is especially…

> Seattle’s public transit system and transit policy are just plain good. Buses are clean/new, frequent, and on-time; trains (while they don’t yet extend as far as they need to) are reliable and have good coverage along frequented routes... Did we live in the same city? This is the exact opposite of my experience with Seattle transit.

It's so much better than it was, and still so much better than so many other cities in the US. Not to say that it is actually good relative to the rest of the world.
Post reply on HN