Comments on: February 2010 Link Ridership Numbers

By: Light Rail On the Rise in Seattle « Green Growth Cascadia

Light Rail On the Rise in Seattle « Green Growth Cascadia — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:27:40 +0000

[...] February Link Light Rail ridership numbers are now in and we hit 16,741, which is the highest month since the revenue service began in July [...]

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:46:27 +0000

Yeah, I know I’d spend 5 minutes circling the lot at the gym to avoid having to spend any more time outdoors that necessary. I mean, you could catch cold and die!!!!

By: TV James

TV James — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:19:13 +0000

The treadmill is indoors. :)

I know, boo hoo. But that could also be a factor, especially when choosing a mode of transit to and from work. Last thing you want after a tough day at work is a dark and stormy 15 minute walk home to continue to keep you grumpy as cars and trucks fly by causing wind gusts or splashing you from puddles.

By: TV James

TV James — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:48:35 +0000

Hey, if they used to drive a car or ride a bus and now they don’t (and so that car or bus is no longer on the road), then I would benefit as a driver.

(Don’t jump on me. I’d ride a train everywhere if there were a train near me. I have a seven minute drive to work. If I wanted to take the bus it would take 90 minutes on the bus, several transfers and include a walk of more than a quarter mile.)

By: Dave F

Dave F — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:58:50 +0000

I’m not sure why you’re saying ST doesn’t release ridership numbers by station. The 2010 Service Implementation Plan that was just released breaks down ridership by station for Sound Transit’s bus and commuter rail routes. I assume the 2011 SIP will have similar date for central link, once the data is actually collected.

By: A tale of three cities… and their new light rail lines « Plannerd – planning, transport and cities

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:56:48 +0000

[...] to SeattleTransitBlog.com, Planetizen and Portland Business Journal for ridership statistics. Maps are from the respective [...]

By: Jim Cusick

Jim Cusick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:56:12 +0000

Hence, why he’s failing as the Devil’s Advocate.

And a poor defender of asphalt, to boot.

By: Zed

Zed — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:25:36 +0000

You have a skewed sense of what’s unconscionable.

By: Norman

Norman — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:04:44 +0000

REally? You agree with me that ST light rail is an unconscionable waste of money? Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

By: Jim Cusick

Jim Cusick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:07:31 +0000

Your own plan for fairly funding highways, so that the users actually pay for the highway they drive on.

But I guess you’re right when you say

“My own plan for what? I don’t have any problems getting where I want to go. I don’t need any “plan.” ”

That you have no problem with our highway system as it exists…

Norman, WE AGREE !!

By: Jim Cusick

Jim Cusick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 01:02:28 +0000

“Tax money generated by autos… ” ???

It still goes back to the idea that somehow because it was a tax generated by a sale that might be auto related, we therefore have some moral obligation to spend it on highways?

Okay, since the plan seems to be to keep spouting the same thing to justify that point of view, you need to put some framework under it.

If it is such a money maker (roads/autos) then either lay out a votable plan,

Tell us how you would operate a “For Profit” highway!

Just as the NEC is touted as a profitable passenger rail service, the NJ Turnpike and the Connecticut Tpke probably are the only highways that potentially meet that criteria, given the density of their location.

By: Andy Walker

Andy Walker — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:09:03 +0000

Foolish me, for buying those bonds that mature in 2047. Oh, and that were issues in 1896.

D’oh!

By: Andy Walker

Andy Walker — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:02:25 +0000

oh, no! He is on to them! If we never heard from him again, we know why…

By: Bernie

Bernie — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:56:24 +0000

We do spent the money on all sorts of things. Unlike WA a portion of the federal gas tax goes to transit. Doesn’t really matter since almost exactly the same amount (imagine that) is added to the federal highway fund from the general fund. That’s the budgetary shell game. It lets transit advocates claim that roads are subsidized and the highway lobby to point out how much of the tax revenue generated by drivers goes to transit. The fact remains that the tax revenue generated by autos, part of the pot that government has to play with, exceeds the amount of money they spend on roads. It has to. Autos are one of the money makers which lets government spend on things that don’t, like transit, wars, public assistance, etc.

By: Jim Cusick

Jim Cusick — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:34:31 +0000

I am a motor vehicle owner, actually two, I pay taxes on said vehicles.

I don’t want all those taxes spent on roads.

Are you saying that I am required to spend them on roads?

By what decree?

Put the plan together, and we can all vote on it.

By: Norman

Norman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:36:57 +0000

The ST 2010 proposed budget says ST budgeted for 19,800 riders per weekday for 2009 on Link. Actual ridership per weekday for 2009 was 15,546.

http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/Linkpassengercount.htm

By: Norman

Norman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:34:27 +0000

The 26,600 riders per weekday prediction is for all of 2010, as far as I can tell — not for the “end of 2010.”

By: Norman

Norman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:31:45 +0000

SWIFT is 20 minutes faster than the bus route it replaced. That makes it superior, of course.

This advantage does not exist because SWIFT does not “get stuck in traffic.” It exists because of fewer stops and much shorter dwell times, as well as a few stretches of “bus-only” lanes where SWIFT, indeed does not “get stuck in traffic” for just a few short stretches.

But the main difference with SWIFT is fewer stops and shorter dwell times. That is why it is 20 minutes faster than the old bus route.

My own plan for what? I don’t have any problems getting where I want to go. I don’t need any “plan.” So, what plan are you talking about?

By: Norman

Norman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:25:01 +0000

What costs? SR99 did not need to be widened for SWIFT. Ergo, there was no cost for those bus lanes, other than some signs, and painting on the lanes.

This is one reason why I am winning the debate.

By: Norman

Norman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:23:10 +0000

If you are concerned whether car drivers are subsidized by non-car drivers, that is the relevant information: total taxes/fees etc. paid by motor vehicle owners/drivers compared to total amount spent on roads.