![]() On the other hand, the East-West 44 averages less than 8 MPH in the middle of the day (and worse at rush hour). North-South buses – such as the 28 on 8th NW, the 5 on Greenwood/Phinney, and RapidRide E on Aurora – have average speeds in the double digits (in MPH). Complements the Bus Networkīuses in Seattle tend to travel much faster going North-South than East-West. In other words, for a bit less than $2 billion you get two stops on Queen Anne (Queen Anne Ave Galer and 2nd N Republican) and a stop in Belltown (2nd Battery) while losing a stop in Wallingford as well as a fast ride from Ballard to the UW. A3 would cost $1.4B to $1.9B (A4 would cost a bit more). The fastest, most expensive Ballard-Downtown option, Corridor D, is expected to cost $3.2B to $3.6B. A route via the UW would have the same (or roughly the same) number of stops as a route that includes (or skirts) Queen Anne. For inner city travel, the easiest way to compare trip time for grade separated lines is by comparing the number of stops. For example, Corridor D is less direct than Corridor B, but saves at most a minute end to end. As should be obvious, the big gains in speed come with avoiding traffic, not by taking the most direct route. The difference in speed between a Queen Anne or UW route is marginal. If Ballard-UW were modified, per Keith’s “A4” suggestion, to include a lower Fremont stop, it would provide many of the same benefits of a Queen Anne route and also provide an excellent connection service for bus riders coming from anywhere in the Northwest part of the city. None of them, not even this route, provide the value that a route from Ballard to UW can provide. Indeed, there are some great ideas in Sound Transit’s study for HCT from Ballard to downtown via Queen Anne, but most of them are either slow or expensive. Superior to the Queen Anne Routingįor decades, the default assumption in Seattle is that Ballard would connect to downtown via Queen Anne or Interbay. Therefore any proposed light rail lines should provide good connections to the bus network. While, most of these areas are not likely to be served by high-capacity transit for a long time, buses can serve these areas quite well. On the other hand, it is fairly easy to find contiguous, broad areas of Seattle that could be considered moderately high density (for this state). Looking at the census map again, it is clear that if we only serve the areas with really high density, we won’t have much of a light rail system. The UW in particular is growing, and will grow substantially in the coming years (even with current zoning).Īdditionally, we must consider how light rail will interact with other forms of transit. Given all that, it is no surprise that Sound Transit calls downtown, Capitol Hill and the UW the “three largest urban centers in the state of Washington”. That criteria is harder to quantify, but since the UW is a major university, Capitol Hill has a lot of nightlife, and downtown is by far the biggest employment center in the area, all three rank really high on those standards as well. People travel for various reasons, including employment, education and recreation. I think it should be obvious that almost of the dark (populous) areas are in the Central Area, downtown or the U-District. ![]() Keep in mind that the darker the area, the more densely populated it is. Take a look at this interactive census map and zoom into Seattle. In fact, it should be the highest priority corridor for ST3. Kyle and suggest that a Ballard-UW line would provide much greater value than anything Sound Transit is in the process of studying or proposing. Keith Kyle wrote a very good article suggesting that we build a Ballard spur with added stations (which he calls “A4”).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |