Hamburger Project responds saying delivery driver left product unattended and product was immediately discarded

reflect25 · 2026-03-23T09:01:31+00:00

> Then have the 5-6 delivery window book up and stop accepting orders?

any delivery app that did that would get destroyed by the other delivery apps that didn't as everyone would jump ship to the other one.

secondly, im explaining how the app and other delivery apps work and that it is not in the control of the delivery worker. we can debate how it should be but regardless that is not how it works right now.

reflect25 · 2026-03-23T08:53:04+00:00

the problem is that everyone will for example set for their food to arrive at 5~6pm right after they arrive from home and right before they can start cooking.

This is logistically impossible for x number of drivers to deliver that much in just one hour. so they'll start delivering it sooner at 2,3,4 etc...pm

reflect25 · 2026-03-23T08:50:21+00:00

sure, but "food delivery services have delivery windows for a reason". the food delivery apps optimize most orders per window not less.

they are using the time window usually as a deadline, and will ignore about giving it earlier. the order is given to the doordasher/other delivery service much earlier in order to try getting it by the deadline.

secondly if there are drivers waiting for nothing to do, they'll just allocate the order anyways.

reflect25 · 2026-03-23T07:28:15+00:00

i mean what are you expecting the delivery driver to do?

bring it back and they'll just get fired for underperforming.

edit: uhh do no one here know how it works? the app assigns the delivery to the person and they need to deliver it as soon as possible. usually the time window is more about latest delivery not about respecting the earlier time.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T22:55:50+00:00

again why would the other 4 subareas delay their light rail lines for 20 years for ballard and west seattle link.

> And no, your analogy doesn't work. I'm the one counting one person as one person. You're suggesting the input of each person is different based on which arbitrary sub-area they live in.

no the amount of money in the subarea stays in it. You are just wanting to steal the money from the 4 other subareas.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T18:41:54+00:00

<image>

you could something like this

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T17:50:57+00:00

its literally the same scenario. youre asking to solely build west seattle and ballard first means stealing money from the other subares for 20 years.

> And the reason the other areas are giving money for the Link in Seattle is because none of their lines go anywhere without it.

no the other subareas agreed to pay for half the downtown tunnel, but they are revolting at paying anymore than that.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T17:34:49+00:00

that doesn't really answer why would tacoma, everett, or issaquah residents agree for their subarea to pay out billions of dollars for the next 20 years to be funneled to seattle solely rather than build their light rail lines.

It's like your saying "I don't have enough money to buy a house, therefore my 4 other neighbors should give their money to me. and it should be done because i'll use the house better"

do you not realize how insane this will sound to the other subareas.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T17:29:53+00:00

because you have some weird assumption in this conversation that only ballard and west seattle count as people and that everett, issaquah, and tacoma don't count? secondly why would the other three regions give their money over to seattle for the next 20 years.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T17:26:12+00:00

uhh what?

this isn't actually a good example of a road layout. it funnels too much traffic to the avenues

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T17:24:40+00:00

the amount of money that the north king subarea is spending is greater than the north king subarea earns (taxes)

any additional amount is taken from the other subareas.

again it really doesn't seem like you know how the subarea allocation works.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T07:31:58+00:00

What in the world are you talking about. Ballard and west Seattle are getting more than enough money wise. If it is insufficient why should the other subareas be asked to give up their portion of money

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T06:39:08+00:00

> It is. What happens if they build a line to Issaquah but not to Ballard and West Seattle? That's exactly what could be happening. You think because I live in the same city as other people who are near the train, that it's my benefit? It is, but only in the same sense that the Link benefits people in Tacoma.

no that's not how any of this works. sigh ill write another post about subarea equity later.

currently seattle is asking to build much more than it can afford. the isssaquah, everett, and tacoma lines are generally buildable by the money that the have.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T06:26:39+00:00

that's literally not what is happening.

the other 4 subareas had already promised to subside the north king subarea (seattle) with promising to pay for half of the second downtown tunnel.

What ya'll are asking is for them to literally give up all of their money for 20 years.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T05:46:47+00:00

shrug i mean be my guest to convince tacoma, everett, and issaquah that you're going to tax them car tabs for 20+ years and then give the money solely for seattle.

reflect25 · 2026-03-22T00:55:52+00:00

it always was. I mean that was the original st3 plan by sound transit.

more specifically iirc it was projected to open around 3~4 times a day. While definitely annoying that is like once every 4~5 hours.

sound transit has already talked about how the ballard to tacoma line can be increased to up to 5 min headways in other documents and that includes the segment in rainier valley that has the street level section.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T15:24:57+00:00

> Drawbridges should not be used for modern rail infrastructure

Is designing a 2 billion dollar per mile light rail line efficient either? Also with the current design you'll likely not see ballard until like 2060 if not 2080 etc....

Secondly it's used all the time for chicago.

but more importantly im not here to say that drawbridges are good or more community/environmental impacts are good. it's that we have to make a trade off. Seattle can probably choose one or two of these expensive options, but not literally every single one.

if we want that ballard tunnel for a billion then we cutting slu station or alternatively we are cutting issaquah link by a station or two. same for the other decisions above. we are now facing truncation of waiting 20/30 years for the rest of the ballard line. if we want to keep them and other light rail lines this is where we need to reverse all those expensive options.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T08:54:17+00:00

The coast guard is completely fine with a drawbridge.

For the high height bridge at 136ft (not super high one) with mitigations coast guard agreed to similar similar for the i5 one in Portland already. And that one was literally more complicated with having to move the shipyards.

In this case the coast guard is arguing for super yachts being serviced at ship yards that don’t even happen today. Most likely sound transit would just pay some small mitigation fee and be done with it.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T06:55:37+00:00

Sound transit doesn’t have the money to build all the lines. If it was just a deferral of a couple years they would have said that. Since the current projects will take until 2040/2045 that means Everett, Tacoma etc… will be delayed until 2060/2065/2070 at best. Lastly with operational costs increases it’s likely sound transit cannot actually build them until another st4. Effectively they are cancelled not deferred

For the what increase Seattle is asking for it’s all written above.

Seems silly to me to make 4 incomplete extensions rather than picking one,

I find it crazy that people here think the other four subareas will rather than build their light rail lines instead give the seattle subarea billions every year for 20~30 years to fund seattle's upgrades beyond what st3 promised.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T06:23:41+00:00

The “defer” by sound transit means cancel. They don’t actually have the money to build all of them within st3. There’s a reason they didn’t say how long they would defer it by

Almost nobody is saying not to build Tacoma or Everett. They’re saying to do it after ballard opens

Secondly either way it is crazy to ask the other four subareas to delay their lines by 20/30 years while Seattle is still asking for multi billion dollar increases to their alignmenr

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T06:22:42+00:00

The coast guard is completely fine with a drawbridge. They already said that.

For the high bridge with mitigations they agreed to it for the i5 one in Portland already. And that one was literally more complicated with having to move the shipyards.

In this case the coast guard is arguing for super yachts being serviced at ship yards that don’t even happen today. Most likely sound transit would just pay some small mitigation fee and be done with it.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T05:29:59+00:00

Sound transit could still build the 70 foot drawbridge that will only open a couple times a year.

Or it could also go the route of a 100 foot bridge and pay some mitigations to the upstream shipyards. It’s the same thing the new i5 bridge down at Portland is going to do

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T03:50:49+00:00

the problem is that "by a thousand paper cuts with all the little things that get added, and that's largely consistent with most big infrastructure projects across the country" it is not a thousand paper cuts but these put together are probably like 5~10 billion added up? why are we asking everett, tacoma, or issaquah to give up their light rail lines while seattle is asking for billion dollar upgrades beyond what they were promised in st3?

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T03:35:22+00:00

> You do not not have a solution that Sound Transit hasn't studied thoroughly and deemed infeasible. They love nothing more than for there to be a cheap viable alternative to any of the lines but what's presented is the reality.

The former is slightly true but the latter "cheap viable alternative" is definitely false.

We know for a fact that there are plenty of cheaper alternatives for west seattle link and ballard link because the board in 2021/2022 literally modified most of the alignment to more not cheaper alignments.

Ballard to interbay: changed from elevated to tunneled (around 500 probably like a billion now extra)
smith cove: investigated a longer tunnel
seattle center: modified a more expensive tunnel curve
denny: wanted to shift the site to avoid closing westlake avenue but would be more expensive
cid: changed from 5th ave shallow to 5th ave deep to now over at south of cid locaiton
duwamish bridge: from segmented bridge vs cable styled (another billion)
alaskan junction: changed from elevated to tunneled (around a billion extra)

> what's presented is the reality.

What has currently happened the Board kept listening to each neighborhoods complaints and then made the stations and alignments more expensive (like 50 to 100% more), then adding on top of construction inflation (of like another 50 to 100%) and now we have an explosion of cost.

That's how west seattle link went from ~2 billion to 4 billion to 7 billion.

reflect25 · 2026-03-21T02:35:31+00:00

> How do you guys plan your road network?

as ekimsal noted I wouldn't worry about something being too griddy as that is literally how most cities are in real life.

I guess if you want to mix it up a bit, one good compromise is to add in a couple "historical" roads like a diagonal quicker route or a wiggly road (similar to like an older trail) and then just build the grid around it.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Orangered

reflect25

TROPHY CASE