Home › News ›

Seattle Bus System Just B.S.?

Posted by: David Gest

13 May 2006 - 11:00am

Dan Savage weighs in on the city's plan to increase the number of buses in circulation.

"I made the mistake of reading the Seattle Times over breakfast on Monday, April 24. I quickly lost my appetite. The editorial board at the Seattle Times heaped praise on Ron Sims's latest transportation plan—buses! More of them! Lots more! Everybody get on the bus!"

"Buses—the public-transportation option favored by people who do not take public transportation. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one on the Seattle Times op-ed board commutes to work by bus."

"People don't take the subway in New York or the 'L' in Chicago because it's virtuous. They take public transit in those cities because it's faster than driving. Buses—slow, stuck in traffic, unpleasant—can't offer commuters speed in exchange for sacrificing the autonomy and privacy of driving solo. So putting more of them on the street won't change a f**king thing—and it's certainly not worth raising taxes to do so, as Sims is proposing."

Full Story: Bus Load
Source: The Seattle Stranger, May 12, 2006
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Last time I checked

Submitted by Mike Doyle on Sat, 05/13/2006 - 11:06.

Last time I checked, twice as many people rode the bus here in Chicago (a million a day) as the L (only half a million). For that matter, two million people a day ride the bus in NYC.

If our buses here in Chicago were half as clean and well maintained as those in Seattle, no one would probably bother to ride the pee-scented L.

Just another example of what my ex-Seattle friend calls Pacific Northwestern Liberals Without a Cause. Trust me, Danny boy, although the bus tunnel was a rotten idea, your transit riders have it pretty damned good out there in the city of persistent drizzle.

---
Mike Doyle
http://www.chicagocarless.com

Rubber Tires and ROW

Submitted by caseyhildreth on Sun, 05/14/2006 - 07:50.

While I agree with Mr. Doyle (especially the frustratingly all-over-the-map liberalism) there's still plenty to be skeptical about a BRT proposal that is heavy on the "Bus" and light on the "Rapid."

Make no mistake: Seattle needs more transit like our Government needs a housecleaning. Whether or not it's the ideal use of real and political capital, increased bus service is the only transit option that is capable of hitting the ground in a reasonable timeframe and that will tie us over until light rail comes in 2009. Savage's skepticism rings true, however: More buses on our clogged road network just means better access to an uncomfortable and slow commute. And that's BEFORE the Viaduct, 520 Bridge, and I-5 fall down.

The point is that if Seattle is serious about solving its problem with buses, we need to start taking lanes, prioritizing signals, and building (gulp) transit-only bridges. Is there the political will to do that? My guess is probably not, although like LA and Boston have shown, there is hope for turning failed rail projects into decent BRT.

Until the city proves its capable of playing serious ball with buses, I only see hope in taking people out of their cars through more streetcar and light rail. But whatever we do, let's please not vote on it 4 times.

*CH
www.peopleswaterfront.org

'The Absurdity Is All Around'

Bookmark and Share
“
The interdisciplinary nature of these challenges justifies a more decisive federal policy that helps metropolitan areas promote energy and location-efficient development.
”