Page Two articles are from our reader community. Sign up for an account.

View post on imgur.com

(Full size of i-sustain graphic)

Came across this content today from i-sustain showing clearly how 200 people would take 177 cars stretching a long way on 5 lanes of traffic (35+ rows of vehicles) or three buses.  Or with some standing up, one light rail train.

In early 2012, “i-SUSTAIN conceived and organized the Commuter Tookit Photo Shoot to get the images for the Commuter Toolkit poster and associated website. The photo shoot involved shutting down a main downtown Seattle street for several hours early on a Sunday morning to set up the photo shoot with hundreds of volunteers.”  Still a powerful piece of transit photography several years later.

Folks, we have one political party representing a side of the aisle that sure talks a lot about “congestion relief”.  Said political party might put up a fight to ST3 & Community Transit’s local option.  Let’s remind all legislators what congestion relief actually looks like, muscle any & all roadblocks out of the way, and let’s get ST3 & Community Transit on the ballot.

Let’s resolve in 2015 to show the truth that if you want congestion relief, please support your local mass transit providers.  Thank you.

7 Replies to “North by Northwest 39: What Congestion Relief Looks Like”

  1. I saw that poster a few years ago, or at least the left side; I’m not sure if the right side was the same. It’s pretty dramatic. The corollary is that if we had only a few cars — say the proportion in the 1920s — then even though transit would massively increase, you’d still only need two lanes’ worth of I-5 for trains. Soo the structure would be much smaller, have less impact on the neighborhoods, and be cheaper to build. Even if you assume we’d need two more lanes for express tracks, they wouldn’t have to be right next to them, and Aurora would still be available for cars. Of course, this would also discourage some of the land-use changes that happened; i.e., the difference between Vancouver and Seattle, so more of the population might live between Columbia City and Northgate, and less commuting to Marysville. That in turn would make distinct express trains less necessary, so maybe you wouldn’t need the third and fourth track; especially since there would be other transit going to other parts of north Seattle.

  2. I prefer their term “Transit Rich Development” over “transit oriented development” as it sure seems more accurate to me. Something like “transit friendly development” would probably work better.

    Let’s face it: in the USA nobody is going to be building completely transit focused developments. Even New York City has surface streets. Saying “Transit Oriented Development” only helps feed the fire of those who oppose the non-existent “war on cars”. Something like “transit friendly development” makes it clear the real goal of newer development standards has to do with the ability to have good quality transit service. Transit certainly won’t be the only way of accessing these types of developments.

  3. This graphic is a gross simplification, because of “induced demand”. If all those cars were taken off the road, we wouldn’t need a two lane I-5 and turn Seattle in to Manhattan. Instead more people would build McMansions farther out.

    The only thing that will create sanity in US land use is for China to kick us out of the Middle East and take all the oil for themselves. Or maybe for Iran to get the big hammer and drop one on Ras Tanura.

Comments are closed.