I would love to see you dive in future "episodes" (video or written) an understanding as to how these development plans go from discussion to development to implementation. That's probably a broad and lengthy discussion with a million permutations, but I feel like in order to actually change, for instance, a BRT from being built on Hwy 7 to Steeles, it would be helpful to know the typical players and the plans (and where we can get involved) to have a voice and maybe an impact. Maybe this is too nebulous of an ask, but sometimes I have serious doubts about the people making the decisions and just how thoughtful they have been in actually serving the community.
So, let me get this straight. Steeles has a lot of buses, running all day long, often very frequently, with a huge number of riders. Highway 7 had a few buses, mostly running peak hours, and a nearby expressway running express buses. So, after much consideration ... they decided to add BRT to highway 7.
Aach! I wish I could say this is rare, but it isn't. I can't help but think that cost per distance had something to with it. This happens all of the time with both BRT and rail (in the U. S. anyway). It is very common to build train stations by the freeway (that studies have shown always perform poorly). It is just cheaper to do it that way. Not cheaper per rider, or cheaper per rider-time saved; just cheaper per mile. It looks more impressive.
From an aerial view, this is definitely the case with Viva. It is pretty exciting to see the big station area, and the center running buses. But it is also clear (admittedly, with a cursory view of things) that often the stations have very little around them. Worse yet, it will always struggle with development. Much of the potential space is used by the highway itself, now wider than ever. Throw in a lack of midday frequency (for a freakin' bus line) and it is hard to see it as a great project. Ever.
Maybe that isn't fair, and eventually it will become quite good. But I see no reason to ignore existing ridership levels on these streets, especially given the congestion. If highway 7 had a lot more congestion, then I could see it leapfrogging Steeles, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Steeles is just the more productive project.
But Highway 7 is just easier -- from a political and physical standpoint.
Excellent comment, I'd actually say the highway 7 route has been pretty good at attracting high density development, with the very pretty stations - but not transit riders! Most of the developments have substantial parking and Highway 7 is now very wide, you by no means see a constant flow of buses on the dedicated lanes either. The project was great for development but, without the service - not very helpful and very inefficient cost wise, for sustainable mobility.
Excellent essay. I think this is your best on substack (so far). I have several thoughts, which I'll break down into a few comments.
First, the idea that the structure of the board is as much responsible for the results of a system as the board members themselves. I think this is very common. I've increasingly come to the conclusion that many of the mistakes of Sound Transit (in greater Seattle) are due to the makeup of the board. While there is definitely a role for regional transit within Puget Sound, it is simply a bad idea to spend enormous sums expanding "Link" (a light rail line that operates more like a light metro) to distant cities and suburbs while ignoring the urban core. But the board members don't know any better, as none of them have any transit expertise (and all have more important jobs, like being mayor). Often the decisions are based on a combination of parochial interests and ignorance as to what is appropriate. Every distant city wants a connection to "Link" when what they really need is decent bus service. As a result, Puget Sound will have one of the largest metro lines in North America (at typical high American costs) with numerous stations next to the freeway, and precious little coverage inside the city.
If the board was made up of elected or appointed officials, there is a very good chance they would have a greater understanding of transit fundamentals. If the board was based only on the city of Seattle, or King County, then the plans would be more like traditional subway systems. Such a system could then expand to connect to the inner suburbs (if not there initially) and connect to the more distant areas via express buses and regional rail (running on existing tracks). It would be a much better system for everyone, but we won't get that because the board wasn't set up that way.
I definitely agree that the approach is very problematic but probably mostly because rail + bus CAN work well, but only when you don't try to serve almost every outlying area with rail - which becomes super inefficient.
I also really do think governance structures are a big part of our problems across the board, ST being no exception.
I would love to see you dive in future "episodes" (video or written) an understanding as to how these development plans go from discussion to development to implementation. That's probably a broad and lengthy discussion with a million permutations, but I feel like in order to actually change, for instance, a BRT from being built on Hwy 7 to Steeles, it would be helpful to know the typical players and the plans (and where we can get involved) to have a voice and maybe an impact. Maybe this is too nebulous of an ask, but sometimes I have serious doubts about the people making the decisions and just how thoughtful they have been in actually serving the community.
Thats a really good idea, stay tuned for something!
So, let me get this straight. Steeles has a lot of buses, running all day long, often very frequently, with a huge number of riders. Highway 7 had a few buses, mostly running peak hours, and a nearby expressway running express buses. So, after much consideration ... they decided to add BRT to highway 7.
Aach! I wish I could say this is rare, but it isn't. I can't help but think that cost per distance had something to with it. This happens all of the time with both BRT and rail (in the U. S. anyway). It is very common to build train stations by the freeway (that studies have shown always perform poorly). It is just cheaper to do it that way. Not cheaper per rider, or cheaper per rider-time saved; just cheaper per mile. It looks more impressive.
From an aerial view, this is definitely the case with Viva. It is pretty exciting to see the big station area, and the center running buses. But it is also clear (admittedly, with a cursory view of things) that often the stations have very little around them. Worse yet, it will always struggle with development. Much of the potential space is used by the highway itself, now wider than ever. Throw in a lack of midday frequency (for a freakin' bus line) and it is hard to see it as a great project. Ever.
Maybe that isn't fair, and eventually it will become quite good. But I see no reason to ignore existing ridership levels on these streets, especially given the congestion. If highway 7 had a lot more congestion, then I could see it leapfrogging Steeles, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Steeles is just the more productive project.
But Highway 7 is just easier -- from a political and physical standpoint.
Excellent comment, I'd actually say the highway 7 route has been pretty good at attracting high density development, with the very pretty stations - but not transit riders! Most of the developments have substantial parking and Highway 7 is now very wide, you by no means see a constant flow of buses on the dedicated lanes either. The project was great for development but, without the service - not very helpful and very inefficient cost wise, for sustainable mobility.
Excellent essay. I think this is your best on substack (so far). I have several thoughts, which I'll break down into a few comments.
First, the idea that the structure of the board is as much responsible for the results of a system as the board members themselves. I think this is very common. I've increasingly come to the conclusion that many of the mistakes of Sound Transit (in greater Seattle) are due to the makeup of the board. While there is definitely a role for regional transit within Puget Sound, it is simply a bad idea to spend enormous sums expanding "Link" (a light rail line that operates more like a light metro) to distant cities and suburbs while ignoring the urban core. But the board members don't know any better, as none of them have any transit expertise (and all have more important jobs, like being mayor). Often the decisions are based on a combination of parochial interests and ignorance as to what is appropriate. Every distant city wants a connection to "Link" when what they really need is decent bus service. As a result, Puget Sound will have one of the largest metro lines in North America (at typical high American costs) with numerous stations next to the freeway, and precious little coverage inside the city.
If the board was made up of elected or appointed officials, there is a very good chance they would have a greater understanding of transit fundamentals. If the board was based only on the city of Seattle, or King County, then the plans would be more like traditional subway systems. Such a system could then expand to connect to the inner suburbs (if not there initially) and connect to the more distant areas via express buses and regional rail (running on existing tracks). It would be a much better system for everyone, but we won't get that because the board wasn't set up that way.
I definitely agree that the approach is very problematic but probably mostly because rail + bus CAN work well, but only when you don't try to serve almost every outlying area with rail - which becomes super inefficient.
I also really do think governance structures are a big part of our problems across the board, ST being no exception.