I really think that points towards less roads, more transit and more bike lanes!
_________________ -miles
henry
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:12 pm
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
Wow, that was one of the better articles i've ever seen in the Stranger. Clear, concise, accurate ... three terms i don't generally associate with them!
You can't argue that closing the viaduct would lead to disaster and then ignore the fact that eliminating half the lanes on a major freeway through Seattle actually made traffic better.
correct.
i've had to drive the last week or two since i've had meetings right after work most nights and i gotta say i haven't noticed traffic being worse. in fact, what normally takes me 20-25 minutes to drive across town has taken 15-20 the last few days. it's kinda nice. you have to wonder though at how many of those people used vacation time to either just be gone or work from home. that's not sustainable...
DJStroky
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:11 pm
Joined: 25 May 2007Posts: 356Location: Downtown Tacoma
srsly wrote:
you have to wonder though at how many of those people used vacation time to either just be gone or work from home. that's not sustainable...
These are exactly my thoughts. I heard my coworkers chatting about this possibility. The article said that 60,000 trips didn't occur. The Sounder had an increase of 3-4,000 people, and I highly doubt that other public transit (ie Buses) would be able to sustain more than 10,000 extra riders each day. So at that, 45,000 or so trips didn't occur, so I can't imagine that many people took vacation. Perhaps even a few other people rode their bikes!
As for trips that don't occur, I saw an interesting statistic from the People's Waterfront Coalition (the pro-surface/transit viaduct replacement group): A study in Great Britain found that when a highway is closed, an average of 25% and up to 60% of the trips that had used the facility just disappeared.
_________________ Tacoma isn't that bad... well maybe it is
keyholefish
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:37 am
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 268Location: somerville, ma
Portland and San Francisco have both had great results closing their waterfront freeways. I wish Seattle had the balls to do the same.
Alastair
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:43 pm
Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 475Location: U-district/Ravenna
henry wrote:
Wow, that was one of the better articles i've ever seen in the Stranger. Clear, concise, accurate ... three terms i don't generally associate with them!
I'm sure it was written by an intern.
Aaron
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:54 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
Why can't politicians see that more roads = more traffic and fewer roads = less traffic?
TrikerTrev
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:22 pm
Joined: 23 Oct 2006Posts: 2303Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
Aaron wrote:
Why can't politicians see that more roads = more traffic and fewer roads = less traffic?
simple;
cars = identity/status symbol.
it's not up the politicians , it's up to the individuals. removing cars form the equation is unpopular, and unpopular politicians have short shelf lives.
never in any of our lifetimes will we see the individual method of mechanized transportation be eliminated. even bikes create traffic.
...and to get to your comment; more or less roads really dont mean jack schit...as a prime example, the Seattle metro region has not increased it's amount of roads but the traffic has increased dramatically. less traffic only comes with less commuting or more people using the same commuting method. you dont really believe that all those people just took the week+ off do you? folks found longer/different ways to get to where they needed to go. whats too bad is that employers dont give employees grace time to get to work so that alt methods can be utilized to their potential.
There is the real solution to traffic...stagger the times folks can be at work without punishment. this would open up the use of all available options if we (employees) were not worried about being "late" all the damn time. Lord knows it makes a HUGE difference in my attitude. as long as i get my work done, they really dont give a fuck when i'm there (to a degree).
_________________ Insufferable ass, est. 1969
Aaron
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:03 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
So you are telling me a fixie with pink rims is NOT a status symbol?
TrikerTrev
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:16 pm
Joined: 23 Oct 2006Posts: 2303Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
Aaron wrote:
So you are telling me a fixie with pink rims is NOT a status symbol?
sure it is...to like .01% of the population...the other 99.9 don't give a squirt of piss about our bikes.
_________________ Insufferable ass, est. 1969
ksep
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:04 pm
Joined: 27 Jan 2007Posts: 1879Location: Westlake
Teenager without a car = loser. Going to make out with a cheerleader in the front seat of your Bakfiets?
_________________ -Kevin
Alex
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:12 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
abamfici wrote:
Teenager without a car = loser.
Hmm, I went to a high school full of losers then. I only knew one or two students who had their own cars and around half of the my graduating class didn't even have driver's licenses. This was in downtown Philadelphia where you can do just about anything without a car anyway.
I'd like to see the driving age slowly (and I do mean slowly) ramp up to 25 or 30. Really treat driving as a right and not a privledge. This will increase demand for walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, good mass transit, and allow zoning to start changing now. I'd also like to see annual testing (including an in-car test, not just a written test) that is much stricter.
alex
TrikerTrev
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:22 am
Joined: 23 Oct 2006Posts: 2303Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
HERE HERE!!!
my kids will NOT have the luxury of having a car by the time they're allowed to drive on their own. I didn't, they wont. the only option for motorized transport would be if they can buy their own and pay the insurance.
unfortunately, driving is view as a luxury and not a privilege (and biking is for the poor).
_________________ Insufferable ass, est. 1969
coupdegrace
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:28 am
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
Alex wrote:
Really treat driving as a right and not a privledge.
Vice Versa right?
After hearing about the 17 year old girl who lost control of her vehicle jumped the median and closed down southbound I5 for several hours near Fife this weekend I have been wondering if teens have enough life experience to be allowed to operate a potentially lethal weapon.
If the age to operate a motor vehicle were extended to 25, then doesn't that prevent drivers from getting driving experience until they are 25 years old?
Rogelio
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:44 am
Joined: 31 Jul 2007Posts: 3092Location: Pos, aya, por la Corona-Alta-Madera y que no.
Alex wrote:
I'd also like to see annual testing (including an in-car test, not just a written test) that is much stricter.
Yup, I have no idea what sort of special rules you Washingtonians have for cars as I got my license sans test and quick "No, I am not a felon." The whole transition from out of state license was something I wasn't really prepared for in that I showed up on Monday with my old license and got my new Washington license in the mail on Friday. *Best picture ever.* Not that they pass out many moving violations, it's always with the parking.
And did you mean privilege not a right? Because I think we're treating it as a right at the moment. The privilege part comes in on what exactly you are driving, differentiating between the mid-eighties VW drivers and the o'seven benz drivers.
In Texas, you had to get your parking permit for the high school lot because it'd get too full at times, taking into consideration we had plenty of land to put the parking lot on. And it was totally a status thing to have a car.
The driving rules have changed a bit now, with staggered driving rights that grow with age and I think they put in a limit on how many people in the car of a certain age dependent of driver age (too many cars full of teens dying).
But yeah, public transport was crap (and actually dangerous when I lived in Houston, my ass was not going out at night without a car).
Foo
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:55 am
Joined: 27 Jul 2007Posts: 583
Part of the problem is that drivers in the US just get a half-assed quarter of driver's ed with a minumum of hands-on training and then get set loose on the road.
At my high school, the driver's ed courses had most of the training done on a 'simulator'. This simulator was a cheap 8mm movie projected onto a screen while you sat behind a plastic wheel and sone spring-mounted pedals and 'drove' the course. Of course, nothing was hooked up to any of this stuff and my friends just spend the time spinning the wheels around and pretending to run stuff over.
I'd like to see some serious driver's ed for teen drivers that concentrates on more than just the basic traffic laws. I'd also like to see at least 2 quarters of driver's ed. We make students take a year of geometry and other subjects that the vast majority of them won't ever use but it's just silly that we spend just one quarter on something the vast majority of Americans will do pretty much every day of their lives that kills something like 50,000 of us a year.
henry
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:56 am
somewhat piggishJoined: 05 Aug 2005Posts: 5415Location: on porch with shotgun
I wholeheartedly agree that the driving age ought to be higher than it is now. Alex is right in saying that it would have to be done in baby steps. Let 'em drink when they're 16 and drive when they're 20.
Driving wasn't even just a right to me and my compatriots in high school. It was everything. We simply did not do anything that didn't require a car.
Cars gave us freedom to get around the 'burbs but they also gave us a private place to be away fom our parents. I had a lot of sex in church parking lots (they can't afford to pay security guards you know...)
There are new restrictions on young drivers, but they are widely ignored. My girlfriends brother is 16 so we get a pretty good window into the life of a suburban kid and in this area, nothing has changed.
The only way we'll ever get driving to be viewed as a privilege is to raise the cost. So i'll keep silently hoping to the god i don't believe in that we'll get a couple of good hurricanes in the Gulf and that Chavez will successully shut us off from south american oil.
Believe it or not this is post is the DHS friendly version
Joined: 23 Oct 2006Posts: 2303Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
henrys correct about the ingoring or the age/time/passenger thingylaw.
I have a few nephews and nieces that have evloved thru this retarded "law", and nothing has changed. and seeing them all "graduate" into being drivers, i would NEVER ride in Everett knowing they are on the road. Hell, i wouldnt even drive with them...ever!
my last trip to the DOL was funnier than any comedian could hope to be. Either the Eastern oriental couple that couldnt read/understand/interpret the vision test signs between them both (they, of course, "passed") or the teen girl that was on her 3rd try and was "given" a pass because they were tired of seeing her there, or the old man that had to be reminded that he clean his glasses in order to see the computer screen for his renewal test (he drove his 70's monstrosity to the DMV)!
But even with that experience, i'm more scared of the wealthy male drivers who think they can buy their way out of everything...tickets, accidents and injury included. Studies have proven THEY are the most dangerous drivers of them all. Fast cars, full coverage insurance and a shitty attitude.
_________________ Insufferable ass, est. 1969
Alex
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:28 am
Joined: 18 May 2006Posts: 3128Location: Roosevelt
coupdegrace wrote:
Alex wrote:
Really treat driving as a right and not a privledge.
Vice Versa right?
doh! yes
Quote:
After hearing about the 17 year old girl who lost control of her vehicle jumped the median and closed down southbound I5 for several hours near Fife this weekend I have been wondering if teens have enough life experience to be allowed to operate a potentially lethal weapon.
If the age to operate a motor vehicle were extended to 25, then doesn't that prevent drivers from getting driving experience until they are 25 years old?
I learned how to drive and got a license when I was 28.
Commuting by bike in traffic for the previous 10 years made learning much easier. I wasn't learning the rules of the road and how to operate a motor vehicle at the same time. I'd argue that this made me a safer new driver than if I had learned when I was 16 (and wasn't a safer user of the roads). The insurance companies seem to agree, my insurance wasn't that high at 28 and would have been huge at 16.
alex
coupdegrace
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:42 am
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
Alex I really appreciate your point of view and experience. I OTOH learned to drive on the farm and I had an ag-license when I was 14 years old. I drove all kinds of stuff from Stieger articulating 4-wheel drive tractors, tricycle gear John Deere's, Catipellar track vehicles, 3-ton flatbeds, pickup trucks and 3-wheel ATV's and all that experience didn't keep me from driving like Mario Andretti and turning my first car a Buick Skylark to garbage - fortunately it had large crumple zones. I still drove my second car a TR6 wild and crazy, it just had a much lower center of gravity and handled much better. At age 21 my third car a brand new Audi Fox wasn't a month old and I garbaged a quarter panel. It wasn't until I got the step-side pickup that I started driving better because it couldn't go fast with a granny tranny and low torque 6 cycl and 4-11 posi rearend - 65mph tops.
Then I was older and I began to drive more sanely, I don't know why but probably because of the costly, tickets, repair and insurance bills. Now I am 50 and when I drive I drive the speed limit and support the SPD emphasis patrol to slow down drivers.
I rode my bikes a Schwinn Varsity and a Motobecane Gran Touring in the 1970's and riding bikes as a teenager really had no affect on my driving. As an adult riding my bikes has made me a better driver.
coupdegrace
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:13 pm
Joined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 168
Another thing that had zero affect on whether as a teen or a twenty-something I drove reckless or drunk was that my father was killed by a drunk driver (himself) when I was a toddler. I could never understand why my mother was so freaked out when I came home late and/or drunk.
What a dumb fucking punk I was!
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 12, 2023 10:39 am
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 1039
Location: Ballard
Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 35
Location: Sand Point
Joined: 25 May 2007
Posts: 356
Location: Downtown Tacoma
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 268
Location: somerville, ma
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2303
Location: FOCO, MOFO!!!
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 1879
Location: Westlake
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 3128
Location: Roosevelt
Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Posts: 3092
Location: Pos, aya, por la Corona-Alta-Madera y que no.
Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Posts: 583
