Yes, rigid Bob I know what a commute to downtown Seattle is, i've done it more than my share of times. It's got I-5, 99, I-90 and 520 as entry points and that's pretty much it. Not many cities out there with as dense of transportation corridors relative to population density as Seattle so 25% has a little extra meaning. The satellite commuters stream in from Bellevue, Lynnwood, Kirkland, Federal Way, Renton and etc competing with the Seattle neighborhoods for band width over these few entry points, thus creating an untenable commute. Not a lot of perpendicular bus routes except for the ones along the 2 bridges, with most all others running parallel to I-5 and 99.

So, yes I know what the 25% is referencing, do you is the question.

And no, I'm answering an off shoot of the question (if that is ok mr rigid) with the comment there are better ways to implement bus usage than BRT. I understand you have done studies on the tenability of BRT into town, good on you mate. But for me it's just common sense that taking lanes away is not practical. There are already HOV (aka BRTs) lanes maxed out with buses on those 4 previously mentioned access routes and yet cars are still flooding in. It just takes common sense to see that the net sum of cars coming in is greater than the capacity of lanes available, god for bid we take more lanes away. The only way Seattle can add dt BRTs is to add more highway lanes and bridges for more BRTs as well (Good luck with that). Only then should we think about adding Seattle dt BRTs.

BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> les,
>
> I know about this number, and you do know that 25%
> is only for an area defined as "downtown" Seattle,
> right?
>
> It is a response that, once again, has nothing to
> do with the question.
>
> Do take a lane BRT's in already highly congested
> auto corridor improve operational or travel times
> for bus riders, compared to the time costs,
> increased gas usage, and increased emissions, from
> taking those lanes and imposing those additional
> costs on them?
>
> The answer is NO. It is not about service level,
> or stop placement, it is about travel time cost
> savings to bus users offsetting time cost
> penalties on drivers. And, based on the evidence
> I've collected, there is very little, if any time
> savings, in most cases, and no "evidence" of any
> on street segments, like are being proposed on
> Colorado, or Roscoe...
>
> I suspect that the Seattle Tacoma region has about
> the same transit mode split as the Southern
> California percentage of about 4% of total
> regional trips by some form of public transit, and
> over 85% in a cars, as a driver or a passenger.
>
> les Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think it is a question of mode capacity
> or
> > BRT station location, I think it is
> > will it work. Seattle is known to have the
> most
> > aggressive implementation of buses in the
> nation
> > and has a population of which most use public
> > transportation. But even Seattle realizes
> BRT's
> > limitations(Seattle is only implementing it on
> the
> > fringes of King County). "Despite massive job
> > growth, just 25 percent of workers drove
> > themselves in 2017." according to the results
> of
> > the latest annual commuter survey by the
> Seattle
> > Department of Transportation.
> >
> > It isn't converting lanes to BRT that is
> driving
> > Seattle's success, but it more has to do with
> bus
> > frequency and convenience of access. Sure,
> some
> > BRT features don't hurt such as pre-board
> paying,
> > level boarding and multiple boarding points.
> But
> > BRT in its purest form is an unnecessary evil.
> >
> > You still have 35% in cars which makes it
> > impossible to take their lanes away. (35% of
> 1-2
> > million is still a lot of people)
> >
> >
> [www.citylab.com]
>
> >
> ttle-keeps-slashing-its-downtown-driving-rate/5532
>
> > 80/
> >
> >
> >
> >