<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We Need to Give City Voters the Option to Expand Light Rail in Seattle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mcginnformayor.com/2009/09/we-need-to-give-city-voters-the-option-to-expand-light-rail-in-seattle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mcginnformayor.com/2009/09/we-need-to-give-city-voters-the-option-to-expand-light-rail-in-seattle/</link>
	<description>Transportation &#124; Education &#124; Connectivity</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Davis</title>
		<link>http://mcginnformayor.com/2009/09/we-need-to-give-city-voters-the-option-to-expand-light-rail-in-seattle/comment-page-1/#comment-256</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcginnformayor.com/?p=1086#comment-256</guid>
		<description>I'll be sending this to Mallahan as well. I'm tired of the two sides on transportation offering us all or nothing.

Let me label the two sides as the bikers and the SUV'ers to try to establish two extremes. We need a mayor, and the rest of our leaders who are pragmatic about traffic in and around Seattle. We don't need anyone who only champions one side or the other.

Bicycles, busses, light rail, and even streetcars have their place in a comprehensive transportation plan, and so do automobiles.

I'm tired of our city leaners (no, that's not a typo) vilifying the automobile. The fact is that cars are not only not going away, they are going to increase in number with the population growth. The other issue to recognize is that the technology for cars is toward cleaner, and even pollution-free electric vehicles, so the pollution debate is becoming irrelevant. Add to that, GPS and computerized vehicles, and the use of this technology can be used to control the flow of traffic is just around the corner; why are we working with the auto makers on developing that system?

One final point on cars; when people are willing to spend $30,000 to $60,000 on a car, they are not going to park that darling and take a bus in most cases. If the city policy is to punish people in cars, what they will accomplish is to push people away from Seattle, and with them goes the tax base a vibrant city needs.

Okay, so we need a transportation solution that builds a partnership between all the various forms of transportation. It's a shame the monorail plan got so honked up over financing because that would have been a great facet of a modern rapid transit system, but that's another issue.

New York, by far the most successful city for mass commuters, is estimated by Forbes to move about 1/3 of their commuters every day. That's an impressive number compared to Los Angeles where the number is around 6% (still above the national average of 5%). Let's assume that Seattle can beat the national average, but will probably fall well short of New York's 33% - let's optimistically say we'll hit 10%. That means that 90% of the cars on the road today, will be there tomorrow after we've spent billions on tunnels, light rail, and whatever else we can dream up.

My point is that we have to stop talking about a "single" solution to our congestion and embrace ideas that are inclusive for all our residents, not just those on bicycles or those in their Hummers. That's the kind of leadership I'm looking for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be sending this to Mallahan as well. I&#8217;m tired of the two sides on transportation offering us all or nothing.</p>
<p>Let me label the two sides as the bikers and the SUV&#8217;ers to try to establish two extremes. We need a mayor, and the rest of our leaders who are pragmatic about traffic in and around Seattle. We don&#8217;t need anyone who only champions one side or the other.</p>
<p>Bicycles, busses, light rail, and even streetcars have their place in a comprehensive transportation plan, and so do automobiles.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m tired of our city leaners (no, that&#8217;s not a typo) vilifying the automobile. The fact is that cars are not only not going away, they are going to increase in number with the population growth. The other issue to recognize is that the technology for cars is toward cleaner, and even pollution-free electric vehicles, so the pollution debate is becoming irrelevant. Add to that, GPS and computerized vehicles, and the use of this technology can be used to control the flow of traffic is just around the corner; why are we working with the auto makers on developing that system?</p>
<p>One final point on cars; when people are willing to spend $30,000 to $60,000 on a car, they are not going to park that darling and take a bus in most cases. If the city policy is to punish people in cars, what they will accomplish is to push people away from Seattle, and with them goes the tax base a vibrant city needs.</p>
<p>Okay, so we need a transportation solution that builds a partnership between all the various forms of transportation. It&#8217;s a shame the monorail plan got so honked up over financing because that would have been a great facet of a modern rapid transit system, but that&#8217;s another issue.</p>
<p>New York, by far the most successful city for mass commuters, is estimated by Forbes to move about 1/3 of their commuters every day. That&#8217;s an impressive number compared to Los Angeles where the number is around 6% (still above the national average of 5%). Let&#8217;s assume that Seattle can beat the national average, but will probably fall well short of New York&#8217;s 33% - let&#8217;s optimistically say we&#8217;ll hit 10%. That means that 90% of the cars on the road today, will be there tomorrow after we&#8217;ve spent billions on tunnels, light rail, and whatever else we can dream up.</p>
<p>My point is that we have to stop talking about a &#8220;single&#8221; solution to our congestion and embrace ideas that are inclusive for all our residents, not just those on bicycles or those in their Hummers. That&#8217;s the kind of leadership I&#8217;m looking for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More on the McGinn Proposal - Seattle Transit Blog</title>
		<link>http://mcginnformayor.com/2009/09/we-need-to-give-city-voters-the-option-to-expand-light-rail-in-seattle/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>More on the McGinn Proposal - Seattle Transit Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mcginnformayor.com/?p=1086#comment-142</guid>
		<description>[...] on the McGinn Proposal by Martin H. Duke  To add to what Ben said, let no one say that Mike McGinn isn&#8217;t bold.  From McGinn&#8217;s information [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on the McGinn Proposal by Martin H. Duke  To add to what Ben said, let no one say that Mike McGinn isn&#8217;t bold.  From McGinn&#8217;s information [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
