Yes, U-Link converts bus riders to rail riders. I’m not sure why this is a problem. A train carries more people for less energy, and doesn’t get stuck in traffic either. The money for those buses will be used for transit along different routes. If more funding was available I’d love to see a much larger system including Tacoma and Everett (not to mention West Seattle and Ballard), but since funds are limited doesn’t it make sense to take advantage of FTA grants for high ridership corridors? I’d love to help on the funding, but I’m not actually billionaire.

Joshua Daniel Franklin, are you one person or three? Why not simplify with Josh Dan Frank or any ‘one’ of those names? Going after federal grant money does not necessarily produce good engineering. Admit that U-link ridership is based on converting bus riders to rail riders. How does the cost-benefit analysis justify the expense? You’re not earning your way toward a responsible position in gainful employment by dismissing pertinent information. Want to see the Bel-Red TOD development proceed? Divise a way to cut Link LRT costs through Bellevue and a reliable source of funding. I’ve been working on that, but you seem to be sitting on the sideline harping about light rail being good. Thanks a lot. Boy, are you ever helpful. Wow.

“planning that brought most cities to their current traffic overload” Ugh. Cars are not the answer. You can’t build enough freeways to ever reduce traffic – you’ll just encourage people to move further away. The more roads you remove (causing “traffic overload”), the more you encourage people to live close to work. If you really wanted your built-up suburb idea to work you’d need to remove almost all of the highways in and out of that suburb.

“small cities, townships, neighorhoods and commercial centers have far more need for transit options than inner-city Seattle” Public transit is inefficient with low housing densities. Our region has embraced suburban busing despite it’s high cost, and we’ve reached cost limits. However, if you’re talking about
dense towns and cities with local transit, then I can agree with that. But you would have to be talking about city-level density.

You’re saying do not consider the suburbs. Your idea is no different than planning that brought most cities to their current traffic overload. Your engineering theory is Old School.

As for absolute language, you do that more than me. You’re the one setting limits on transit design. Downtown Seattle occupies roughly 1/20 the acreage of the metropolitan area within which many small cities, townships, neighorhoods and commercial centers have far more need for transit options than inner-city Seattle. The suburbs also have a more complex travel demand that involves ‘cross-county’ travel. Suburbanites have no choice. The only way to reduce their need for long-distance travel is to guide growth according to planning theories that PSRC pays lip service to. There’s a hell of a lot of surburban parking lot that should be scraped off and rededicated to land-uses that complement and better serve surrounding neighborhoods. It’s the definition of local economies. Maybe you’ve heard of local economies? I’m a lot more like McGinn that you realize. He’d make a good mayor, that’s for sure.

You use a lot of absolute language about how Seattle “should” be. Why? Because it’s new? Building up the suburbs leads to sprawl. Your way is not McGinn’s way, and this discussion doesn’t involve the viaduct.

I’ve noticed your continued lack of an option that will reduce sprawl, instead of increase it. I’m not terribly interested in more tangential discussion – please provide this option.