# SEATTLE | Public Transport



## crazyjoeda

How much track will seattle have by 2009 between lightrail and the monorail.


----------



## rise_against

thats kind of strange to have a monorail and LRT but its knid of neat.


----------



## MSPtoMKE

crazyjoeda said:


> How much track will seattle have by 2009 between lightrail and the monorail.


Well, the initial segment of Light Rail is 14 miles. The monorail is also 14 miles, but that is looking more like a 2010 opening date now (assuming that it will be built, that is). So both of those, along with the 1.7 mile airport extension of the light rail (supposed to open about 6 months after the initial segement does) makes 29.7 miles or 47.8 km. Seattle will also probably have another 2.6 mile streetcar line opening by as early as fall 2007.


As to why both Light Rail and monorail are being built, that is a much more complicated question. The light Rail is being built by Sound Transit, a regional transit agency that is building transit projects for an area made up of parts of 3 counties. The monorail is being paid for by city residents.


----------



## crazyjoeda

MSPtoMKE said:


> Well, the initial segment of Light Rail is 14 miles. The monorail is also 14 miles, but that is looking more like a 2010 opening date now (assuming that it will be built, that is). So both of those, along with the 1.7 mile airport extension of the light rail (supposed to open about 6 months after the initial segement does) makes 29.7 miles or 47.8 km. Seattle will also probably have another 2.6 mile streetcar line opening by as early as fall 2007.


Is there doubt to the Mono Rail being built?




> As to why both Light Rail and monorail are being built, that is a much more complicated question. The light Rail is being built by Sound Transit, a regional transit agency that is building transit projects for an area made up of parts of 3 counties. The monorail is being paid for by city residents.


Can you transfer to and from light rail and the monorail on the same fare?


----------



## rise_against

Other than the fact that the monorail looks really cool, why did you guys choose to build it?


----------



## reluminate

rise_against said:


> Other than the fact that the monorail looks really cool, why did you guys choose to build it?


The monorail has been there since the 1962 World's Fair. What's in question is an extension to the monorail.


----------



## MSPtoMKE

Its not really an extension, the current monorail that was built for the 1962 fair will be torn down with the construction of the new one, although it will follow most of the same route of the current one down 5th Ave., but the stations will be in slightly different places. Is there doubt that it will be built? Most of the doubt has passed (like when there was the recall initiative about it last year and voters overwhelmingly rejected scrapping the project) but they are still technically in negotiations with the consortium that is to build it, and there probably a few more hoops to jump through, but it is looking quite likely. But lets just say i will beleive it when they start construction 

I am not sure about the transfer issue, whether it has even been decided or not. There is a regionwide "Puget Pass" that i would think that the monorail would likely join, but it is possible that there could be an addition transfer fee required, i am not sure. 

As to why it is being built? Well, the simple answer is that Seattle voters approved the taxation and construction, 4 times. Seattle residents recognized the need for rapid transit in the city, and through a grass roots process, got the whole project off the ground. Definately a unique way of getting a transit project built. Plus, Seattlites love the monorail they already have, so they are probably more open to using the technology than most places. It should be noted, that although the initial light rail segement and the monorail are both 14 miles, somehow, monorail is projected to cost significantly less than the light rail line (and must stay within that cost, under contract). Topography is one issue that makes things challanging. Whether or not it will be successful is still to be seen, but i am hopeful. Hopefully it pays off for Seattle to be bold.


----------



## starbuc jupiter

Aside from the cool factor it looks like the parts of the city that will get monorail with the green line would have a hard time getting other typs of transit. The fact that the monorail guidway can fly over water and can casue a very small stuctual footprint at streetlevel is very important.


----------



## crazyjoeda

Maybe I dont know enough about these projects but it seems a little odd to have two different companies building publicly funded rapid transit lines that follow a similar route, and if you cant freely transfer between the lines on one pass they will be compeating against each other. 

Anyway I hope Seattle has success when it finally gets rapid transit. Hopfully you guys dich your cars and clear up all that afull traffic.


----------



## VansTripp

sequoias, Good for you.

I don't care if you add me to ignore list so that be great news for me though.


----------



## nikko

Blink182 said:


> sequoias, Good for you.
> 
> I don't care if you add me to ignore list so that be great news for me though.


Um...what the hell does that have to do with the Seattle LRT?

Anyway, looks good. I'm looking forward to "hopefully" seeing the final product in person. How much is tunneled?


----------



## sequoias

nikko said:


> Um...what the hell does that have to do with the Seattle LRT?
> 
> Anyway, looks good. I'm looking forward to "hopefully" seeing the final product in person. How much is tunneled?


The downtown bus tunnel (completed in 1989 or so), it's about 1.2 miles long.

Beacon hill tunnel is about 1 mile long going thru the hill since light rail can't go over a steep hill and there's lot of houses in the way, too. They will be boring the tunnel this fall with the brand new boring machine assembled in Tacoma, parts made in Japan.

P.S. don't mind blink182.


----------



## greg_christine

*Cascadia Monorail Design, Build, Operate, and Maintain Contract*

On June 20, the Seattle Monorail Project made public details of the contract that has been negotiated with the Cascadia Monorail consortium. 



















The contract still must be approved by the Board of the Seattle Monorail Project and then the funding plan for the project must pass a financial review coordinated by the Seattle City Council.

The line is approximately 14 miles long. It will feature single track segments at its ends plus there will be a single track segment over the West Seattle Bridge. Providing double track over the bridge would result in substantial additional cost due to the need to reinforce the bridge:










The system will utilize 2-car Hitachi Standard Type monorail trains. There are presently 13 trains in the contract, which is enough to provide service at 8-minute intervals. There is an option to purchase 4 additional trains at $8 million dollars each. This would allow the service interval to be reduced to 6 minutes. The option must be executed within one year of signing the contract. The ultimate desire is to provide service at 6-minute intervals at the ends of the line and 3-minutes intervals downtown. There are further options to purchase trains at $11 million each:


























































The guideway will feature several different column types. Much of the guideway will follow the conventional side-by-side configuration. Sections of the guideway will utilize an "Iris" arrangement with one guideway beam higher than the other to allow a station off to one side of the street to service trains on both beams. The columns will be generally at one side of the street. In some areas, the cross-head supporting the guideway beams will be offset to provide greater clearance between the trains and the buildings:









Seattle Center








Second Avenue








Pioneer Square








West Seattle









The stations will be open to the air but will feature roofs and wind protection:


















The following figures illustrate some of the typical station configurations:


























The plan is for the system to open on December 1, 2010 provided that Cascadia can be given instructions to proceed by August 15 of this year:










For more information, see the Cascadia Monorail and Seattle Monorail Project websites:

http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/
http://www.elevated.org/

For an overview of the Cascadia contract, see the following links:
http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/content/docs/cascadia_exec_sum_0605.pdf
http://www.elevated.org/_downloads/project/reports/contract/OverviewBooklet.pdf


----------



## ssiguy2

Yes, of course it will help Seattle. For a city that has always prided itself on its progressive views Seattle has been kicking and screaming into RT. 
Still $2bilUS for 14 miles?!?! Vancouver's Millenium Line SkyTrain just completed 2 years ago cost $1.1bilCDN for 21km {14miles} and its elevated. 
I think Seattlites are getting screwed big time.


----------



## greg_christine

*Team Monorail claims it can build a better system for less.*

Team Monorail (Bombardier) has updated their website to claim that they can build a better system for less than Cascadia Monorail (Hitachi). It should be noted that Team Monorail has not formally submitted a proposal to the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP). Team Monorail was unable to meet the liability requirements imposed by the SMP. The tentative contract that is presently being debated in Seattle is with Cascadia Monorail. The following comparison is from Team Monorail's website ( http://www.teammonorail.com/seattle/monorail-news/side-by-side.shtml ):

Trains and System Capacity: Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Number of trains: 13 / 22 
Station platform length: 90' / 130' 
Initial capacity per train: 200 / 225 
Maximum capacity per train: 200 / 300 
Initial peak system capacity: 1500 passengers/hr / 3375 passengers/hr 
Max system capacity - Downtown: 4000 pax/hr / 9000 pax/hr 
Max system capacity - West Seattle and Ballard: 2000 pax/hr / 9000 pax/hr 
Sufficient capacity to handle estimated north and southbound traffic (SMP estimates up 3000 passengers/hr or more will be needed by 2020): No / Yes 

Train Service : Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Rush hour train frequency: Every 8 Minutes / Every 4 minutes 
Max train frequency - Downtown: 3 Minutes / 2 Minutes 
Max train frequency - West Seattle and Ballard: 6 Minutes / 2 Minutes 

Stations: Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Number of stations included in contract: 16 / 19 
Downtown Madison Station included in contract price: No / Yes 
Avalon Station in West Seattle included in contract price: No / Yes 
Elliott & Mercer Station included in contract price: No / Yes 
Walking distance from 5th & Stewart Station to Metro Bus Tunnel, Westlake Center and downtown retail core: 3 Blocks / Direct Link 

Single Beam: Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Dual beam guideway over West Seattle Bridge: No / Yes 
Max pax capacity across the West Seattle Bridge 2000 pax/hr / 9000 pax/hr 
Sufficient capacity to handle estimated traffic across West Seattle Bridge (SMP estimates over 2000 passengers/hr will be needed by 2020): No / Yes 
Ability to expand single beam guideway and stations in Ballard to dual beam: Unknown / Yes 

Columns & Guideways: Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Guideway beams: 7' 6" tall / 5' tall 
Guideway columns: 4' 9" to 6' 9" wide / 4' wide 
View blocking Iris columns along 2nd and 5th Avenue: Yes / No 
Switch platforms placed on West Seattle streets: Yes / No 

Cost: Cascadia Monorail / Team Monorail 

Estimated cost of DBOM contract: $1.6 Billion / $1.3 Billion 
Cost of additional trains and stations: over $100 Million / no additional cost 
Total estimated cost of DBOM contract: over $1.7 Billion / $1.3 Billion 
Estimated borrowing requirements: $2.1-$2.2 Billion / $1.7-$1.8 Billion 
Estimated annual O&M costs: $39-$45 Million/yr / $30 Million/yr 

Cost estimates based on Team Monorail's final working estimate in August 2004. 

Team Monorail Bombardier Train









Cascadia Monorail Hitachi Train









For more information, see the following websites:

Team Monorail
http://www.teammonorail.com/

Cascadia Monorail
http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/

Seattle Monorail Project
http://www.elevated.org/


----------



## sequoias

The bombaider comparsion to the hitachi one is a bang for the buck, dual beams instead of single beams, why did Team Monorail (bombaider) reject the liabity requirements in the first place and decide to compet with Hitachi with better options, something's fishy and I hope it's not a low quality trains or the guideways. Bombaider already have reliabity problems in Las Vegas when it opened in 2004.


----------



## greg_christine

sequoias said:


> The bombaider comparsion to the hitachi one is a bang for the buck, dual beams instead of single beams, why did Team Monorail (bombaider) reject the liabity requirements in the first place and decide to compet with Hitachi with better options, something's fishy and I hope it's not a low quality trains or the guideways. Bombaider already have reliabity problems in Las Vegas when it opened in 2004.


The Seattle Monorail Project requires Joint and Several (J&S) liability guarantees from the consortium that builds the system. Under J&S liability, all the members of a consortium are financially responsible for correcting problems that are caused by any other member of the consortium. For instance, the Las Vegas Monorail was built by a consortium that included Granite Construction as the builder of the civil structures, Bombardier as the supplier of the trains, and Alcatel as the supplier of the automation system. There was a J&S liability agreement in place. The system opened several months late due to problems with the automation system. The consortium was assessed penalties of $85,000 per day for the delay. Granite Construction faced the possibility of being financially liable for the penalties even though the problems were due to Alcatel's automation system. Granite Construction was to be a part of the Team Monorail consortium for the Seattle Monorail Project (SMP). After the problems occurred in Las Vegas, Granite Construction dropped out of the consortium and Team Monorail announced that it would not submit a proposal because it could not meet the J&S liability requirement. In contrast to Team Monorail, the members of the Cascadia Monorail consortium were able to meet the SMP's J&S liability requirement.


----------



## Cloudship

Can anyone tell me where to find a larger version of the expansion plan maps?


----------



## greg_christine

Cloudship said:


> Can anyone tell me where to find a larger version of the expansion plan maps?


Second phase planning maps are available on the Seattle Monorail Project's website at the following webpage:

http://www.elevated.org/project/secondphase/

The first thing to note is that the maps define general corridors rather than specific streets along which future lines would run.

The second thing to note is that future expansion is dependent on the initial line being built. Given that the funding plan has been vetoed, there is no certainty that the project will go forward.


----------



## crazyjoeda

I heard the Monorail project is dead. So is it all over?


----------



## greg_christine

ssiguy2 said:


> ...
> Most lines of lrt come in at approx $30mil to $90mil USD which is why they are being built, depending on if tunnelling is required.
> ...


LRT lines typically have costs in the range that you have mentioned when they can take advantage of pre-existing railway corridors or when they are built on street medians. Seattle did not have a pre-existing rail corridor to exploit. One section of the Central Link light rail line will be on the median of a street but this was not a viable approach along most of the route because the streets are narrow and steep. Also, building on the street impacts system performance by limiting the speed at which trains can operate and the minimum headway between trains.

Regarding subway tunnels, the cost in the United States now starts at about $300 million/mile. The cost can be much higher depending on geological conditions and the complexity of stations.


----------



## ssiguy2

Calgary's CTrain uses only 17km existing rail, the rest they built from sratch. 
Vancouver's RAV will not be using any existing railor ROW and neither will Edmonton's LRT south expansion, not Toronto's Spadina line, nor most of DART or TRAX. 
Yer getting screwed.


----------



## [email protected]

^ Labor is much more expensive and have a much greater shortage in the USA. Plus like RAV, large segments of the Seattle LRT is tunneled, hence the costs. HOWEVER, at least in the USA, people actually get to vote for or against the megaprojects, unlike RAV whose high costs were imposed by the Vancouver westside creme de la creme...


----------



## Plumber73

Wally said:


> creme de la creme...


 hno: :eat:...


----------



## ssiguy2

Vancouver has Canada's highest cost of living with skyrocketing labour costs due to home construction and massive building projects due to the 2010 Olympics.


----------



## crazyjoeda

I think its for the best the LRT you guys are building is a way better idea.


----------



## [email protected]

ssiguy2 said:


> Vancouver has Canada's highest cost of living with skyrocketing labour costs due to home construction and massive building projects due to the 2010 Olympics.


That is meaningless though since Seattle is not in Canada. Its a different country, hence different cost structure. Even with a strong Canadian dollar, you can still buy more for a US dollar than a Canadian dollar right now anyway.


----------



## starbuc jupiter

If your city can't find the political courage to build such a great project do not feel alone. Atlanta is struggeling to build a really great transit idea called the Beltline. The process that a city must go through just to build transportation is outrageous.

In both cases the systems need to be built and they need to do it now. Stop all the wranggeling and do it.


----------



## rj2uman

This will never happen for so many reasons and many of them posted by other forumers throughout this thread. I feel the main reason why it is failing is because of lack of political will to have this actually completed. There are too many transportation issues that all have been needed to get done for the last 20 years and it has split the attention of gov't at the city, county and state level. Everyone one wants the "it" project. But there are too many! The Alaskan way viaduct. The new 520 floating bridge. The I-90 LTR. The Monorail. It goes on and on and on......


----------



## sequoias

well, yeah. There is a ton of projects going on, so WA state/county/city level is overwhelmed with the cost, so they're all at once not one at a time because of the earthquakes and the age of the infrastructre and explosion of growth and economy, many reasons.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle Monorail headed for a 5th vote in November*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002517084_monorail24
m.html

Saturday, September 24, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidebar:
The ballot measure:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/09/23/2002516940.gif
The route:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/09/23/2002516828.gif
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Shorter monorail route on November ballot

By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times staff reporter

Seattle Monorail Project

Voters will pass judgment on the Seattle monorail in November for a
fifth time, though it may be too late to resuscitate the city's
transportation dream.

The Seattle Monorail Project board yesterday agreed, under duress,
to ask voters to either trim the Green Line by three miles so it
runs from Alaska Junction in West Seattle to West Dravus Street in
Interbay, or shut the project down. Just a few hours earlier, the
Seattle City Council had joined Mayor Greg Nickels in demanding an
end to the project.

An SMP attorney dropped off the hastily written ballot language at
King County Elections with about an hour to spare before the 4:30
p.m. deadline.

"It's time for the people to decide whether they want to save the
people's train," said Kristina Hill, SMP board chairwoman, who had
argued for weeks that the agency's much-maligned finance plan is
solid, and that she saw no need to vote again.

"The mayor's position is simple. It's too late. The city has lost
all confidence in the board," said spokesman Marty McOmber.

Nickels will encourage lawmakers to dissolve the state-authorized
SMP next year.

Pat Flaherty, a vice president for lead monorail contractor Fluor
Enterprises, said late yesterday he was cutting his Cascadia
Monorail team from about eight people to two to work on other
projects, and packing boxes to take from the team's Westlake Center
office. The group, which has spent well over $10 million of its own
money, is through unless the City Council, Nickels and SMP rally
behind the project.

"We've made a decision we're not going to spend any more money or
risk until we see a level of support to the city," he said as got
ready to board a plane back to his London home.

The proposed shortening of the planned 14-mile line would cut about
$250 million from Cascadia's $1.64 billion contract offer. The new
line leaves out Ballard, and a tall monorail bridge across the Lake
Washington Ship Canal.

SMP's decision to seek a public vote was a deathbed conversion:

• A week ago, Nickels, a longtime monorail supporter, yanked permits
for SMP construction on city streets.

• Without city approval, the line cannot be built.

• And in December, Fluor's contract offer expires, leaving SMP
without a builder, after spending close to $200 million in land and
planning costs.

Both Nickels and the council ran out of patience late Thursday, when
SMP board members voted 6-2 not to meet the city's demand that they
write a ballot measure. The board also portrayed the continuing
financial problems as a misunderstanding by city officials.

Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said the mayor hasn't decided whether to
actively campaign against the new monorail measure, which will go
before voters Nov. 8.

A key pro-monorail campaign message, said SMP board member Cleve
Stockmeyer, should be that elevated monorail tracks, at around $150
million a mile, are a good deal because they're one-third the price
of light-rail tunnels. Tunnels have far greater passenger capacity.

Contractors do not intend to help bankroll a campaign, Flaherty
said. Dozens of SMP consulting firms and would-be builders did
contribute to previous monorail campaigns.

After the SMP vote, board member Steve Williamson called on Hill to
resign from the board to improve credibility with the city. Hill
replied she would confer with other board members about who should
be chair.

After voters approved the Green Line in 2002, the City Council
mostly embraced the agency. Several council members have come to
feel a sense of betrayal at the monorail board's response to its
financial problems, mainly a one-third shortage in car-tab tax
income.

"It is time for Seattle to stop living this dream transformed into a
nightmare and start a new day," David Della said.

Jean Godden cried as she called for an end to SMP.

"I'm angry and I think a lot of citizens are going to be angry as
well," Councilman Nick Licata said before the board wrote its ballot
measure. "Citizens supporting the monorail are going to be angry we
spent so much money and still don't have a monorail. ... They [SMP]
must have a skull thicker than an ox that they could not hear
citizens' concerns."

Monorail board member Cindi Laws fired back in a Northwest Cable
News interview. "The council didn't jerk the permits. It jerked the
voters," she said. One-third of the council members would be dead
within 10 years, she said, while the monorail would serve future
generations. Pro-monorail propositions passed in 1997, 2000 and
2002, and a repeal measure failed in 2004.

Licata softened his words at day's end, after SMP capitulated to a
ballot measure.

"I would hope that if the citizens do approve a monorail one more
time, that the city will cooperate to get it built," he said.

Last night, anti-monorail state Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle, said
he would propose legislation to count the SMP's car-tab tax as a
credit against any future car-tab taxes for regional roads and
transit.

There could be an overlap of roughly one year when SMP collects the
tax to help pay off a $110 million debt and a possible regional car-
tab tax begins. Seattle residents wouldn't get double-charged,
Jacobsen explained.

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/242121_monorail24.html

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Monorail will go to voters for 5th time
Board reverses decision after City Council drops support

By LARRY LANGE AND KATHY MULADY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

Seattle voters will get a fifth chance to approve a new city
monorail, this time a 10.6-mile segment from West Seattle to
Interbay forced to the ballot Friday by a City Council and mayor
skeptical about the viability of a longer system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidebar:

P-I GRAPHIC
Monorail: Then and now

The P-I has prepared a graphic detailing the major events in the
life of the monorail project, including maps of the most ambitious
system imagined by planners versus the reality of the truncated 10.6-
mile proposal headed for voters (PDF, 260K).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050924/monorail0924.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Seattle Monorail Project directors, who just hours earlier had opted
not to put the line to a November vote, had their minds changed
abruptly Friday when City Council members voted unanimously to
withdraw support from the project.

Thursday night, monorail board members resisted pressure from Mayor
Greg Nickels and the council to approve a live-or-die ballot
proposal, hoping to continue refining the finance plan for the $2.1
billion line, trying to reduce costs and getting approval from the
city as they went.

They said those efforts would continue, but Friday the council ended
what one member called a "game of chicken" by withdrawing support
for the monorail project, affirming Nickels' cancellation of an
agreement allowing the system to be built in city streets and
threatening to block construction permits.

Council members said the project board hadn't adequately
acknowledged the lack of money to build the 14-mile line and didn't
act when the mayor and council asked them to put the line to voters
again.

Board members "put a bullet to their skull and not to their foot,"
said Councilman Nick Licata, previously a longtime monorail backer.

Less than four hours later, board members unanimously approved
putting the shorter system on the November ballot as a sudden-death
measure that says the shorter segment would proceed with voter
approval but "if rejected, no new monorail would be built."

Board members had hoped the city would give them enough time to
develop a new finance arrangement, having jettisoned the original
$11.4 billion one in June, and to reduce costs in the line to come
up with a new plan the city could support.

"There really has not been enough time to make the case,
apparently," acting board Chairwoman Kristina Hill said before the
vote.

"It is so sad that it has come to this point," said City
Councilwoman Jean Godden, also a longtime monorail proponent.
Several council members said the board had lost credibility.

The final straw for several council members came Friday when they
learned of an apparent distortion in monorail forecasts for growth
in the license tax revenue. The forecaster, EcoNorthwest of
Portland, tested its model against 1990 and 1991, the years the
state changed its way of calculating the tax, and indicating a
higher rate.

Then, after the analysis was redone, the company decided to use a
national, rather than local, inflation rate, raising questions about
the analysis, including how conservative the forecast really is,
said city Finance Director Dwight Dively.

"It's another indication of why I think this revenue forecast is
very risky," Dively said.

In response, EcoNorthwest economists said the recalculations suggest
the average 6.1 percent annual revenue growth forecast might be
lowered slightly but that it "remains essentially unchanged if based
on the revised computations."

The council's resolution said members support developing an
integrated, cost-effective transit system for the city that will
also serve the region. The monorail, originally intended to link
Morgan Junction in West Seattle to Northwest 85th Street in Crown
Hill, was to have been part of a citywide system but plans for
extensions weren't completed.

Council President Jan Drago expressed fear that not building the
monorail segment means "we will pass it to future generations" to
build an integrated system.

Nickels and monorail officials had informally discussed building an
even shorter segment, from Alaska Junction to South King Street, but
monorail officials said it would have required a different operation-
center location at higher cost.

A monorail board resolution for the ballot proposal says the
monorail agency could add the deleted line segments north of
Interbay and south of Alaska Junction later, with city approval.

It wasn't immediately clear what the price of the shortened line
would be or how long the 1.4 percent vehicle license tax would have
to continue to support a shortened system. Board member Cleve
Stockmeyer estimated the savings in design, construction and
operation cost would be $250 million.

That's enough, by one consultant's estimate, to reduce the total
financing cost from $11 billion to less than $5 billion, but
monorail Director John Haley said the number needs further
refinement. Ridership likely would be less on the shorter line
because it would eliminate three stations in Ballard and Crown Hill,
but monorail officials said they haven't yet calculated the new
figure or how it would affect farebox revenue. Lower ridership could
affect the system's plan to break even by 2020.

Some City Council members said shortening the line would create new
problems, while others said it could be just the answer. Most said
they would wait for details.

"They will still have to come up with a financing plan," said
Councilman Richard Conlin. "They are still several hundred million
dollars short. This isn't solved." He called the board's reversal "a
desperation move."

But Councilman Nick Licata said the shorter line makes sense.

"It is the only shot they have at success," said Licata. "I think
all the finances will be aired. I am certainly going to look at the
numbers. I still think the monorail is the appropriate technology
for Seattle and for that corridor."

Council support is critical to the prospective construction
contractor, Cascadia Monorail Co., if it's to proceed, said Cascadia
President Patrick Flaherty.

Flaherty said the new monorail is "a great project" and his company
can negotiate changes to shorten the line. But the proposed contract
expires Dec. 15 if not executed, and Flaherty worried aloud about
the prospects given the council's action and the need for full city
backing.

"You're a day too late to get that support," he told board members.

The final move to the ballot ended a day filled with maneuvering and
finger pointing. Friday morning, Drago asked that the council
meeting be adjourned without action until Monday so council members
could meet privately with city lawyers to understand legal
implications. Drago said she was concerned the monorail agency might
sue the city and that the legal risks needed to be known.

But Conlin said the council had studied the issue "a long, long
time" and pushed with other members to get the vote.

Later, before the monorail board voted on the ballot measure, board
member Steve Williamson asked for Hill's resignation as acting
chairwoman, criticizing her for continually blaming critics for
being "confused" about the monorail and misunderstanding issues.

Hill, an appointed member who doesn't intend to seek reappointment
when her term expires at year's end, didn't offer to quit but said
she'd ask other board members if they want to pick new leadership.
She left the meeting without further comment.

Monorail backers have said they're ready to campaign in force in
favor of a ballot measure. In addition, some may campaign against
Nickels and other city officials who've opposed the monorail. One
group, Friends of the Monorail, has endorsed Paige Miller, Conlin's
opponent, in her race for the council seat he holds.

Full city support for the ballot measure has yet to develop.
Councilman Peter Steinbrueck said he won't try to defeat the measure
but won't endorse it. Nickels won't support it either, said
spokesman Marty McOmber.

The monorail board's action "comes too late. The city has lost
confidence in this board to build the project," McOmber said.


WORD ON THE STREET

In Ballard and West Seattle, feelings about the proposal to shorten
the monorail line were as mixed Friday as they were when the city's
voters narrowly approved a 14-mile line in 2002. To some, the
monorail was a bad idea in the first place, and now that it would be
four miles shorter, an even worse one. To others, a shorter line is
better than nothing.
"Proposed Land Use Action ... Construction of a 13,846-square-foot
monorail transit station."

"The Seattle Monorail is coming to Crown Hill to serve You."

"Attention: Progress in Progress"

"Business Closed. Thank you for supporting this business over the
past years. I appreciate the friendships that I've made."

-- Signs at the now-empty Sunhill Food Store at 15th Avenue
Northwest and Northwest 85th Street, in Crown Hill just north of
Ballard.

"I was never interested in the monorail coming to Ballard. It would
have disrupted the neighborhood, the whole community. ... I've seen
the monorail, and Fifth Avenue is ugly. I didn't want to see that
happen to 15th Avenue Northwest. I think that Ballard is a nice
neighborhood. It's a quiet, pleasant neighborhood and having a
monorail come through here would have adversely affected that."

-- Jerry Harter, 57, eating at a teriyaki restaurant at what would
have been the Crown Hill station. The proposed station would have
been the monorail's northern terminus.

"I agreed with it at first. But the line is so much in debt, it
should be stopped."

-- Candace Kenoutt, 46, waiting to cross 15th Avenue Northwest at
Northwest 85th Street.

"As a Ballard resident and a Seattle resident, we should do whatever
we can to help get cars off the street and reduce traffic. I've been
paying a big add-on to my car tabs (fee). I'd hate to think that was
for naught."

-- Meg Jolin, 25, walking by the proposed Crown Hill station, on why
she supports even a shortened monorail line.

"I've been in limbo. It's been very stressful. I don't think people
will go for it. Really it's going to do less, when it wouldn't have
done much to improve the traffic situation (before)."

-- B.J. Marsh, owner of the Dealers Millwork Supply Inc., which
would have been torn down with the mini-mart, the teriyaki
restaurant and a karate school to make room for the Crown Hill
station.

"We have to do something. There's no room to have wider streets, so
you have to go up."

-- Lon Herstad, 31, waiting for a bus at Alaska Junction in West
Seattle, on why he still supports the project.

"It should have been built in 1965. It would have saved us billions
of dollars. Seattle has pretty much missed the bus in terms of
transit."

-- Rodney Kay, 53, waiting for a bus at Alaska Junction, on why he'd
support a shorter monorail line.

"It's not going to go anywhere. How many people come here?"

-- John Devitt, 41, waiting for a bus at Alaska Junction, on why he
opposes the project.

"We're here."

-- Kay, in response to Devitt.

"Something's better than nothing."

-- John Herman, 31, smoking a cigarette outside Easy Street Records
at Alaska Junction.

P-I reporter Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or
[email protected]


----------



## [email protected]

I find it quite amazing that democracy is alive and well in the United States. If the voters truly want the monorail at its high cost, then the people have spoken. If they don't, then the people have spoken. Afterall its their taxdollars and its only rightfully so that people are formally asked on what to do with it.

For Vancouver's RAV Line, people who pay the tax aren't consulted by a fair and democratic process. The basis for its support are surveys done in a mall. And when it was rejected twice, the transport ministry of the provincial government made it clear that if you don't approve it, all other transportation projects desperately needed by the rest of the region ain't happening (e.g. the Golden Ears Bridge, the Coquitlam LRT). No referedum was done and that was sad. If the people from West Vancouevr to Maple Ridge to White Rock truly support the line at whatever costs, then so be it. But it should be done in a fair and democratic process similar to Seattle's. And if the referendum "costs too much", well that is the price that you pay for democracy and its well worth the price.

Whatever the outcome, I am proud of my American side for having known such democratic process still exist in the land of the free and home of the brave (I am dual American/Canadian citizen)! kay:


----------



## crazyjoeda

Wally said:


> I find it quite amazing that democracy is alive and well in the United States. If the voters truly want the monorail at its high cost, then the people have spoken. If they don't, then the people have spoken. Afterall its their taxdollars and its only rightfully so that people are formally asked on what to do with it.
> 
> For Vancouver's RAV Line, people who pay the tax aren't consulted by a fair and democratic process. The basis for its support are surveys done in a mall. And when it was rejected twice, the transport ministry of the provincial government made it clear that if you don't approve it, all other transportation projects desperately needed by the rest of the region ain't happening (e.g. the Golden Ears Bridge, the Coquitlam LRT). No referedum was done and that was sad. If the people from West Vancouevr to Maple Ridge to White Rock truly support the line at whatever costs, then so be it. But it should be done in a fair and democratic process similar to Seattle's. And if the referendum "costs too much", well that is the price that you pay for democracy and its well worth the price.
> 
> Whatever the outcome, I am proud of my American side for having known such democratic process still exist in the land of the free and home of the brave (I am dual American/Canadian citizen)! kay:


Funding is coming from 3 levels of Goverment, you can posibly think a national referendum on a local transit line is appropriate. The democratic process is you elect Mayors and Councillers to the Translink board and they vote on Transit issues. You didn't get a vote on the NE Sector light rail line why arn't you complaing about that or the new trolly buses they purchesd with out consulting you. 

You may be a citizen of both countries but I think if you look south you will find many more problems with democracy. You accuses Canada of being an undemocratic country, why don't you come invade us. :rofl: 

You think RAV is a waste of money, look at your Iraq war did you vote on that? :hahaha:


----------



## [email protected]

The role of the Feds is just to help financially and so should the province. But if RAV didn't exist, then the money would have went elsewhere. The decision was still Translink to make but the provincial government called the shots indirectly by blackmailing them, as previously mentioned. Given that this is a regional project and affects regional taxpayers the most, then all residents of the GVRD should have a say on the project, not just the creme de la creme. 

Despite this, its better than the elected dictatorship you have there where sound transit decisions are ignored and these sexy mega projects are driven by the wealthy elite. If Americans choose to fund highways or monorails, its their choice to make and they have to live by the consequences. GVRD residents don't have that choice. Even in other projects like the Port Mann Bridge twinning and Highway One widening, there seems to be some public opposition to it but again, the provincial government's transportation ministry is ignoring them and not putting it into a referendum. So its not really limited to RAV. There is something wrong with the way transportation projects are done in the Vancouver area and you should acknowledge that fact.

I'm a Democrat, btw, and proud of it. But the people in the US has spoken, they wanted Bush so they wanted the Iraq war. Its not what I want but I will just have to accept it. Democracy isn't perfect but its still the best system we have. And before I forget, the idea of invading Canada isn't exactly a bad thing. During the Chretien years, one Calgary oil exec once said, "Maybe the US should invade Canada just like they did Iraq for we need a regime change too..." :lol:


----------



## greg_christine

Wally said:


> I find it quite amazing that democracy is alive and well in the United States. If the voters truly want the monorail at its high cost, then the people have spoken. If they don't, then the people have spoken. Afterall its their taxdollars and its only rightfully so that people are formally asked on what to do with it.
> ...


I'm all for giving the citizenry the opportunity to vote on transit projects, but voting five times seems a bit excessive. I would have preferred that the monorail agency be given further options such as re-bidding the project or delaying construction in order to build a down-payment. Neither of these options would have required a revote. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the mayor has decided to give the monorail agency no choices other than to submit a ballot measure to shorten the line or increase taxes.

There is quite a contrast between the way the monorail agency's financial problems are being handled compared to Sound Transit's Central Link light rail project. The voters approved a plan to build Central Link as a 25-mile system with a cost of about $2 Billion. Following the vote, Sound Transit found that their cost estimates were off by a factor of more than two. Sound Transit resolved the problem by cutting the line to 14 miles and allowing the cost to grow to $2.4 Billion. There is presently no firm schedule for building the remainder of the line. They will build it when and if funds are available. There has been no revote of the Central Link project. Incidentally, the current mayor was the financial chair of Sound Transit at the time that the financial problems were made public.


----------



## crazyjoeda

Wally said:


> I'm a Democrat, btw, and proud of it. But the people in the US has spoken, they wanted Bush so they wanted the Iraq war. Its not what I want but I will just have to accept it. Democracy isn't perfect but its still the best system we have. And before I forget, the idea of invading Canada isn't exactly a bad thing. During the Chretien years, one Calgary oil exec once said, "Maybe the US should invade Canada just like they did Iraq for we need a regime change too..." :lol:


Well people in the Lower Mainland and BC voted in a huge BC Liberal majority even if it is down from there almost total sweep 4 years ago. If you say voting for Bush means voting for the Iraq War then by your logic voting Liberal means you accept RAV and the HWY1 expantion. 

Every public opinion poll has shown that RAV has good public support in Greater Vancouver and it doesn't matter what people in Portland or Saltspring Island think.


----------



## [email protected]

I am referring to the second election in which reelecting Bush show support for the Iraq war (in the first one, Bush stole the election). RAV and Highway One Expansion was not in the initial BC Liberal agenda in 2002 and only came up after so the voters wouldn't know. the issue for the victory is economy and that is something the BC Liberals have delivered successfully. But note that the NES rapid transit is in the BC Liberal agenda for the recent BC election and the people have voted them in as well. 

And if it doesn't matter what I and that salt spring island think, you seem to be quite emotional about it whenever we bring it up. ssiguy2 hasn't even made a post about it and you brought him to the discussion. And note that my initial comment was to compare the process between the Greater Vancouver area and the Seattle area and clearly, Seattle's is a much more superior and fairer process. Do you deny that? 

So they vote five times on the monorail...so what? The people wanted it, the monorail people screwed up the financing. But instead of just killing it against the people's initial wishes, why not just ask them again for a compromise, which is the shorter route? Yes I agree with greg that there is problem with how the financing was handled. Given the financing problem, then all the more reason why the people should be asked. And if the people still want it, then it will enable the monorail people to continue on resolving the problem and get it built one way or the other. Confirming the will of the people in such a huge megaproject is the right thing to do. Its too bad the people of the GVRD had no choice to participate in a fair democratic process and will now be screwed over with high property and parking taxes, transit fares, and little bang for the buck when it comes to overall regional transportation improvements for the next 35 years. And what is the basis on that "public support"? Surveys done in a mall and telephoning solely the Vancouver and Richmond residents.


----------



## crazyjoeda

^ I agree Seattle's prosses is more fair, but at the end off the day Vancouver has a rapid transit line and Seattle may have wasted millions. 



> I am referring to the second election in which reelecting Bush show support for the Iraq war (in the first one, Bush stole the election). RAV and Highway One Expansion was not in the initial BC Liberal agenda in 2002 and only came up after so the voters wouldn't know. the issue for the victory is economy and that is something the BC Liberals have delivered successfully. But note that the NES rapid transit is in the BC Liberal agenda for the recent BC election and the people have voted them in as well.


As for that comment... Bush didn't say in 2000 vote for me and I will invade Iraq, in 2004 they knew Iraq was in his platform and American's voted for hin. You say that means they approve the War in Iraq. 

Gordon Campbell didn't say in 2001 to vote for him because he was going to build RAV. This Spring people knew the Liberals were in part responisible for approving RAV, they won so by your logic that means RAV is supported by the public. 

You say the polls arn't accurate because they were conducted by phone, I doubt that they are off by more then + or - 5% and every one I have talked to is excited about the new line.


----------



## Plumber73

Could someone please enlighten me?  How often does Seattle get to vote on projects on average? Are they only for the mega projects or do they come as small as a traffic light? Spare me the small details. :cheers: 

I like the idea of having more control over where dollars are spent. I'm not so sure if putting decisions on transportation in the hands of the general public is always a good thing. I believe you need people with vision and an understanding of where the city is headed. If people can be educated on issues, fair enough. If they only care about number 1, then what's the point? Nothing gets done, or the wrong things get done. I know in Vancouver people are mailed letters to inform them of projects being proposed in their area. They also have a chance to voice their concerns, opinions. In fact in my neighbourhood, we turned down plans for a new Home Depot. There's some democracy going on there somewhere, just not a lot of voting.


----------



## mic of Orion

sade news for Seattle,. Stupid Mayor, vote new one in, he care's not for his voters,


----------



## greg_christine

Plumber73 said:


> Could someone please enlighten me?  How often does Seattle get to vote on projects on average? Are they only for the mega projects or do they come as small as a traffic light? Spare me the small details. :cheers:
> ...


The answer seems to be that Seattle votes on projects when there is no network of political insiders to get a deal completed without going to the public for a vote. Some examples of projects that did not involve public votes include the following:

New City Hall: $72 million
New Central Library: $165 million
New Aquarium: $180 million ($21 million from the city)
South Lake Union Streetcar: $45 million

The Central Link light rail system had one vote in 1996 as part of a larger transportation package. Sound Transit is now an integral part of the insider political network and has been able accommodate cost, scope, and schedule changes without going to the voters for approval.


----------



## greg_christine

The monorail appears headed for defeat in the election that is about ten days from now. Supporters have been printing flyers and doing their best to gain public support for the new monorail plan:










The Seattle Monorail Project has answered the mayor's demand to shorten the line and devise a finance plan that will accommodate a motor vehicle tax growth rate of 5.1% or less and a maximum bond period of less than 40 years:



















The mayor still opposes the plan. The reduced route length is unpopular. Current polls show the voters rejecting the ballot measure for the shortened line by a large margin.


----------



## greg_christine

The ballot measure to allow the Seattle Monorail Project to shorten the Green Line from 14 miles to 10.6 miles has been defeated by a vote of 36% in favor and 64% against. This terminates the project. The land that has been acquired for stations will be sold and the taxes that were to fund the monorail will end once the monorail agency's debts are paid.



















The city will initiate a study to review options for providing transit to West Seattle and Ballard. The study is expected to take about a year to complete.


----------



## ssiguy2

Can the Monorail. 
For the money it is costing you could practically build a subway. 
This is an outrageous price and for that matter so is your LRT. 
I strongly support transit and it is disgraceful that a large city that prides itself on being progressive doesn't have rapid transit. That said, you don't build at any price. 
It has to be cost effective and get good ridership levels neither of which will happen in Seattle.


----------



## crazyjoeda

Well Seattle continues with its legacy as a transit free zone. My travel advice for visitors to Seattle, bring a car.


----------



## Cloudship

Still say it's time for a new referendum-

No money can be spent on any major highway rebuilding or construction until a grade separated mass transit system linking Bellvue, West Seattle, and Downtown.


----------



## greg_christine

ssiguy2 said:


> Can the Monorail.
> For the money it is costing you could practically build a subway.
> ...


The future Westlake Mall to University of Washington subway section of the Central Link light rail project is expected to cost $1.7 billion for a 3.1 mile route that only adds two stations. This works out to be $548 million per mile, which is three to four times as expensive as the monorail depending on whose numbers you use. The most recent cost numbers are as follows:

Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment
$2.4 billion / 14 miles = $171 million per mile
Central Link Airport Segment (Including cost of necessary changes to adjacent roads)
$300 million / 1.7 miles = $176 million per mile
North Link to the University of Washington
$1.7 billion / 3.1 miles = $548 million per mile
Total for Central Link from University to Airport
$4.4 billion / 18.8 miles = $234 million per mile

Green Line Monorail - Seattle Times stated cost based on total agency spending
$1.84 billion / 10.6 miles = $174 million per mile
Green Line Monorail – SMP stated cost including operating subsidies until 2020
$1.7 billion / 10.6 miles = $160 million per mile
Green Line Monorail – Cost of DBOM construction contract
$1.4 billion / 10.6 miles = $132 million per mile

The monorail line would have been less expensive than the light rail line.


----------



## carpanatomy

*Seattle monorail*

i was reading on the newspaper earlier today, and notice Seattle Centre monorail had collission.

Two monorail head-on each other........

How does it possible?????? are they suppose be on two different elavated guideway?


----------



## [email protected]_Coast

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002650818_monorail28m.html

done and done!


----------



## crazyjoeda

Yeah I read that too. It was on the second page of the Vancouver Sun. Maybe it was better they didnt expand that thing.  Also didnt it catch on fire once? It wasn't working when I was there last November.


----------



## Frungy

That's just hilariously incompetent... squeezing tracks together without some sort of automatic safety system in place? Thank goodness nobody was seriously injured.


----------



## crazyjoeda

What crap. Who designed it like that?








No emergency escape guidways. Im never going on that thing, it should be illigal.


----------



## Cloudship

Given the fact that there are lights, it is a known bad spot, and there are only 2 trains on such a short track, it had to be a pretty dumb thing to drive on that section of track wit the other monorail there. 

Do youthink this could have been done on purpose?


----------



## greg_christine

This accident waiting to happen was not part of the original World's Fair Monorail design. When it debuted for the 1962 World's Fair, the Westlake Center end of the line was similar to the Seattle Center end in that it had a station that straddled both guideway beams. Both trains could use the stations simultaneously. In 1988, the Westlake Center end of the line was rebuilt to accommodate the development of a shopping mall. The choices were to build a switch so that only one guideway beam entered the Westlake Center Station or to squeeze the two giudeway beams together so that trains on either beam could be accessed from a single platform via retractable ramps. The retractable ramp option must have been cheaper because that is what was built.

The now defunct Green Line monorail project would have replaced the World's Fair line. The existing guideway would have been torn down and an entirely new guideway would have been built. The transit way agreement with the city required that the new guideway be higher than the existing guideway and be biased to one side of the street rather than along the center of the street. The Westlake Center Station would have been relocated. The new system would have eliminated the pinched guideway arrangement and would have incorporated an emergency walkway along the entire length of the line.

Known deficiencies of the World's Fair guideway include 1) the pinched guideway arrangement, 2) the lack of an emergency walkway, and 3) not being designed to current earthquake standards. The city will have to think seriously about either replacing the line or tearing it down.


----------



## Bitxofo

^^That must be a joke...^^
:sleepy:


----------



## reluminate

Its a good thing the cars didnt tip over. From looking at the picture, that thought doesn't seem to crazy.


----------



## C|2azyCanuck

After riding on the super smooth (mostly) skytrain my monorail experience was interesting. Very turbulent. 

Poor Seattle...lose the waterfront streetcar, lose the monorail (not that it was a good project anyways) and now this.


----------



## ScraperDude

What I find funny is its only one mile long.....


----------



## crazyjoeda

^ I know its pointless. It costs $3.50US, and goes from downtown Seattle to the space needle. Its more of a ride then a transportation system.


----------



## Bitxofo

crazyjoeda said:


> ^ I know its pointless. It costs $3.50US, and goes from downtown Seattle to the space needle. Its more of a ride then a transportation system.


LOL
:rofl:


----------



## reluminate

Was it ever really intended to be a full scale transportation system? It's purpose was really just to be an exhibit for the 1962 World's Fair. Its really just a "futuristic" 1960s dream. A monorail was also built in NYC for the 1964 World's Fair, although it only went around the fairhrounds, and is long gone now. The monorail is really only a tourist attraction, and should have been torn down years ago.


----------



## hkskyline

*Monorail accident caused by human error *
30 November 2005

SEATTLE (AP) - Human error caused the Seattle monorail accident. The inbound driver failed to yield to the other train at the point where the track are too close together for passing, officials said Wednesday. 

"The incident is a sad situation for all concerned and we are very relieved that no one was seriously injured," said Stuart Rolfe, a Seattle Monorail Services partner, in a statement. "The inbound driver was an experienced individual who made some very unfortunate and costly errors." 

Seattle Police reported Wednesday that drug tests on both drivers by an independent lab showed "illegal substances were not a factor in the accident." 

The monorail's only two cars sideswiped each other on a curve near the downtown station Saturday evening, and both ground to a halt. Fire crews helped the 84 passengers down from the 28-foot-high tracks. There were no serious injuries. 

City officials have been working with towtruck and crane companies to separate the trains and bring them back to the maintenance facility near the Space Needle in the Seattle Center. The trains were separated Monday night. By Wednesday morning, they were about three-fourths of the way to the shop. Officials said the project would take at least one more night. 

This is the first time both trains have been out of commission since the monorail was built for the 1962 World's Fair. 

A signal system has prevented similar accidents at the curve, where the tracks are too close together for the two trains to pass freely. The southbound train is supposed to stop and wait for the northbound train to pull out of downtown Westlake station before passing the curve. 

Investigators found the accident was not caused by failure of the signal system or the trains themselves. The internal review exonerated the northbound driver. 

Monorail officials have said they would not be able to estimate how long it will take to get the monorail running again until the trains are returned to the service facility. 

The line was shut down for more than six months last year, after a smoky fire stranded about 100 riders. No one was seriously hurt. 

Popular with tourists, the Monorail carries as many as 23,000 riders a day. A 13-year campaign to expand the system met with sound rejection by voters this month -- the first no vote on the issue in five elections over eight years.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA

I didn't take the monorail when I was there, I took bus most time or my friend gave me a ride. God, Puget Sound is so beautiful.


----------



## Frungy

I don't understand what the point of signals are if people can just ignore them and go right through them. It can't be that difficult or expensive to put in an ATC or ATS system, can it?

Like the time when a freight train went for hundreds of miles without a driver a few years back...


----------



## Ar3Man

I took that during the time of 12o'clock on 5th Ave.
Full Size Here


----------



## officedweller

*Seattle Link LRT Construction Photos*

Click on the Peter deLory Photos box in the lower right corner of the screen for lots of B&W 2005 construction pics - organized by month - 10 pics per month.

http://www.soundtransit.org/projects/svc/link/default.asp










Plus Tukwila segment color photos here - one tall station there (Tukwila Int'l Blvd)!!

http://www.soundtransit.org/projects/photos/link_tukwila.asp


----------



## mic of Orion

Nice kay: looks impresive  :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## Frank J. Sprague

Sound Transit has long range plans for other projects.










Their website shows North Corridor incuding starter light rail in Lynnwood and Everett, East Corridor with light rail to Bellevue and Redmond, and the South Corridor with LRT extended between Tacoma and SeaTac Airport.


----------



## spongeg

at one point was there not plans to expand the monorail into a full blown system? but they decided to go with the LRT thats is going in now?

I remember seeing something when visiting seattle and they showed maps that showed it going to the new stadiums and up more to the north of downtown


----------



## mr.x

spongeg said:


> at one point was there not plans to expand the monorail into a full blown system? but they decided to go with the LRT thats is going in now?
> 
> I remember seeing something when visiting seattle and they showed maps that showed it going to the new stadiums and up more to the north of downtown


the $2 billion monorail project ballooned to $12 billion, due to loan interest. nuff said.


----------



## Cloudship

They were never mutually exclusive. The LRT line is going a different place than the monorail would have. The Seattle Center line would not have been extended, but rather replaced. Alas, while the actual construction costs would have been lower than the equivalent length LRT line, all the problems with limits on paying and financing it made the costs astronomical. It goes to show you that the real influencing factor over rapid transit is politicians, not technology.


----------



## spongeg

ah this is the map i had seen before

the green is the monorail and the red is the LRT


----------



## eurogator

looking at all these posts, it seems seattle is cursed with their transportation. hopefully the LRT works out better than the monorail and the afore-mentioned streetcar.


----------



## spongeg

seattlle traffic is a nightmare

we drove from marysville through seattle tacome - trying to get to portland - and it took us over 2 1/2 hours from marysville to get past tacoma  in afternoon rush hour

on the way back it took us like 3 hours from Portland to Marysville :O


----------



## Trae

Seattle's monorail is like an amusement park ride.


----------



## greg_christine

Trae said:


> Seattle's monorail is like an amusement park ride.


As with all monorails, the Seattle monorail shares a few characteristics with amusement park rides in that it is fun to ride and provides a great view of the surrounding area. The line is short, 1 mile (1.5 km), and it does connect a downtown mall with an entertainment area, Seattle Center.

The 4-car trains are 122' (37.2 m) in length and 10'-3" (3.1 m) in width. The claimed maximum speed is 70 mph (112 km/h) and the operating speed is 50 mph (80 km/h). Unlike smaller monorail trains, the interior is not segmented. The entire length of the train is usable passenger space. The trains have seats for 124. By comparison, a typical 70% low floor articulated light rail vehicle has a length of 90 ft (27.4 m), a width of 8'-9" (2.7 m), a maximum speed of 55 mph (90 km/h), and seating for about 70.











The trains built by MTrans for Kuala Lumpur are closely based on the Seattle trains. The Kuala Lumpur trains presently feature just two cars; however, there are plans to add a third car and the stations are sized to handle even longer trains. The Kuala Lumpur system has a length of 8.6 km and features 11 stations.










A unique feature of the design is that the cars feature banks of seats on the centerline that serve as wheel wells for the bogies. The trains used on the Tokyo-Haneda Airport line also share this configuration.


----------



## KPX express

*Seattle Mass Trans Update Needed*

Somebody fill me on the mass trans in Seattle


----------



## greg_christine

The only mass transit services presently available within the city limits of Seattle are buses (diesel, hybrid, and electric trolley buses). There is the Sounder commuter train service that connects Seattle to communities to the north and south and there is a streetcar line in Tacoma. Regarding other services within the city of Seattle, I can offer the following: 

1. The Seattle waterfront streetcar service has been replaced with a bus. The streetcar was shutdown so that the maintenance barn could be bulldozed to make way for a sculpture garden. A location for a new barn has been proposed in Pioneer Square. There is not yet a plan to implement this:

http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/wfsc/waterfront_streetcar.html

2. Seattle is building the Central Link light rail system. The line from downtown to the Airport should open in 2009. An extension to the University of Washington is funded and is presently in the design stage:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x1171.xml

3. Future extensions of Central Link are being planned that could extend the system all the way from Everett to Tacoma and across Lake Washington to Redmond. A ballot measure to fund the trans-Lake Washington line may appear on the ballot next year; however, the state legislature has mandated that it be linked to a plan to fund a regional highway construction plan:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/traffic/2003256532_eastlink13e.html

4. Seattle is building a streetcar to connect the downtown area to the southern shore of Lake Union. The southern terminus of the streetcar line will be about a block north of the underground Central Link light rail station at Westlake Center:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/stcar_slu.htm

5. The future extension of the Central Link light rail line to the University of Washington will bypass an important service area at First Hill due to tunneling complications. As a consequence, First Hill is often cited as a possible destination for an expanded waterfront streetcar line. There is not yet any plan in place to accomplish this:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/stcar_broadway.htm

6. This fall, there will be a ballot measure to fund a plan for expanded bus service for King County. Parts of the plan are advertised as BRT; however, the buses would not have dedicated traffic lanes in way of critical choke points:

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/

7. There was a plan to build a 14-mile monorail transit line through the city; however, it was sent back to the voters and defeated due to a funding shortfall. Some former monorail supporters championed the creation of a city-wide streetcar system. The streetcar proposal included the possible replacement of the World's Fair/Seattle Center monorail along 5th Avenue with a streetcar. The proposal does not appear to have gained adequate support either among the general public or among city officials.

8. The World's Fair/Seattle Center monorail remains shutdown due to reliability problems. Money has been budgeted to renovate the system:

http://www.seattlemonorail.com/


----------



## en

How come there aren't ever any new updates regarding Seattle's light rail construction. I guess there aren't many Seattle forumers...


----------



## PDXPaul

I guess we're all very busy living here. Hectic fast pace life, ya know?

PWright I believe on SSP posted a lot of pictures just a while ago. The project is nearly halfway done.


----------



## kub86

^^ tunnel reopens next September. Do you think light rail sharing with busses is a good idea??? Is it common for the two to mix?


----------



## guinessbeer55

kub86 said:


> ^^ tunnel reopens next September. Do you think light rail sharing with busses is a good idea??? Is it common for the two to mix?



I dont know I think it will take some time to get used to it but Im sure itll work, and its a new Idea. What part of Seattle do you live in??


----------



## BoulderGrad

*East Side*

Have there been any plans to expand the system inside the city limits (besides the extension to Northgate)? A line over to magnolia/ballard along the water front would be cool, but I guess the city is so long and narrow, the one line through the middle will do for a good while. I know there's also been talk of expanding our two developing trolley systems:

South Lake Union Street Trolley (under construction):
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/stcar_slu.htm

Waterfront Street Trolley (only bus service until new maintenance facility is finished in Pioneer Square):
http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/wfsc/waterfront_streetcar.html


----------



## Mongo8780

guinessbeer55 said:


> I dont know I think it will take some time to get used to it but Im sure itll work, and its a new Idea. What part of Seattle do you live in??



It's not completely a new idea:

http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm


----------



## guinessbeer55

Mongo8780 said:


> It's not completely a new idea:
> 
> http://pghbridges.com/pittsburghW/0584-4475/mtwashingtonPAT_tun.htm


What city is that in??


----------



## coreyt

pittsburgh.


----------



## guinessbeer55

Check this video out of the train rolling out.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQC6j26fv4


----------



## guinessbeer55

does anyone know when there starting work on universiy link


----------



## sequoias

guinessbeer55 said:


> does anyone know when there starting work on universiy link


2008 at the earliest.


----------



## guinessbeer55

this is really good...

I also heard that theyll be expanding the streetcar... adding lines on first hill, 5th avenue, and 3rd avenue


----------



## kub86

^^ Really? Are you talking about the waterfront line? I know they're expanding the SLU one to the U District; though I don't know when. Do you have a map of the expanded routes?

EDIT: never mind. I noticed bouldergrad already posted links I might find useful.


----------



## kub86

BoulderGrad said:


> Have there been any plans to expand the system inside the city limits (besides the extension to Northgate)? A line over to magnolia/ballard along the water front would be cool, but I guess the city is so long and narrow, the one line through the middle will do for a good while.


I know the next phase in Sound Transit is for the northgate extension plus East Side extensions. So maybe after that? But the Mag/Bal line that you're talking about was the monorail line.


----------



## guinessbeer55

I think it would be great if in place of the monorail line, sound transit would built an extention to queen anne, fremont, and ballard, and then also over to west seattle.


----------



## BoulderGrad

kub86 said:


> I know the next phase in Sound Transit is for the northgate extension plus East Side extensions. So maybe after that? But the Mag/Bal line that you're talking about was the monorail line.



Maybe since the monorail project got cancelled, they'll follow that route with a light rail expansion.


----------



## greg_christine

Since the demise of the Green Line monorail project, the only substitute project that civic leaders have advanced is a bus rapid transit plan:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ballard_westseattle.htm

Unfortunately, the plan lacks the dedicated traffic lanes through choke points that are necessary to make bus rapid transit effective.

Several years ago, the city performed the "Intermediate Capacity Transit Study" (ICTS) to evaluate options for transit service to Ballard and West Seattle:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ppmp_ict_stage2.htm#recommendations

A key finding was that a streetcar line would be effective for serving West Seattle. A branch of the Central Link light rail line to West Seattle along the route intended for the Green Line monorail would make perfect sense. Unfortunately, this is not on the planning horizon. Sound Transit's first priority within the city limits of Seattle is the extension of Central Link to the University of Washington. The next priority is the further extension to Northgate. Sound Transit's funding is divided by service areas. Taxes collected in one service area cannot be spent in another service area. This is the reason that the Tacoma Streetcar can be free while Sound Transit struggles to find money to complete its projects in Seattle.

Service to Ballard is more complicated. The ICTS study concluded that an elevated transit line was the most effective option to serve Ballard. Monorail remains a very attractive option for that route. It is unlikely that a light rail line on an elevated viaduct would be acceptable through the northern end of the downtown area due to the shading of the street and the noise. The only other option for light rail would be to put the line in a tunnel, which would be prohibitively expensive. Regardless, Sound Transit isn't likely to have funds available for such a route for many years.


----------



## guinessbeer55

greg_christine said:


> Since the demise of the Green Line monorail project, the only substitute project that civic leaders have advanced is a bus rapid transit plan:
> 
> http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ballard_westseattle.htm
> 
> Unfortunately, the plan lacks the dedicated traffic lanes through choke points that are necessary to make bus rapid transit effective.
> 
> Several years ago, the city performed the "Intermediate Capacity Transit Study" (ICTS) to evaluate options for transit service to Ballard and West Seattle:
> 
> http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ppmp_ict_stage2.htm#recommendations
> 
> A key finding was that a streetcar line would be effective for serving West Seattle. A branch of the Central Link light rail line to West Seattle along the route intended for the Green Line monorail would make perfect sense. Unfortunately, this is not on the planning horizon. Sound Transit's first priority within the city limits of Seattle is the extension of Central Link to the University of Washington. The next priority is the further extension to Northgate. Sound Transit's funding is divided by service areas. Taxes collected in one service area cannot be spent in another service area. This is the reason that the Tacoma Streetcar can be free while Sound Transit struggles to find money to complete its projects in Seattle.
> 
> Service to Ballard is more complicated. The ICTS study concluded that an elevated transit line was the most effective option to serve Ballard. Monorail remains a very attractive option for that route. It is unlikely that a light rail line on an elevated viaduct would be acceptable through the northern end of the downtown area due to the shading of the street and the noise. The only other option for light rail would be to put the line in a tunnel, which would be prohibitively expensive. Regardless, Sound Transit isn't likely to have funds available for such a route for many years.


How could the city waste their money on building a bus rapid transit system, uhhhh its so unappealing


----------



## sequoias

That data is old (transit planning), back in 2001. There's no immediate plans so far we know.


----------



## guinessbeer55

I definatly think the first thing we should do is expand it to the eastside... I mean you have microsoft... and bellevue is becoming huge now too with more upscale shopping opening soon like neiman marcus and saks new york. 
So it would be a wise investment.


----------



## BoulderGrad

guinessbeer55 said:


> I definatly think the first thing we should do is expand it to the eastside... I mean you have microsoft... and bellevue is becoming huge now too with more upscale shopping opening soon like neiman marcus and saks new york.
> So it would be a wise investment.


First things first. You need to provide a way to get over to the east side. Things seem to be getting contentious over how to re-do the 520 bridge, and I'm not sure if the I-90 bridge is rated for light rail traffic too. But before that we have to worry about finishing the original line, replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Replacing the 520 bridge, re-paving I-5, etc. 

So many transportation projects... so little time and money.... 

We'll see how it all pans out in the next few years


----------



## sequoias

BoulderGrad said:


> First things first. You need to provide a way to get over to the east side. Things seem to be getting contentious over how to re-do the 520 bridge, and I'm not sure if the I-90 bridge is rated for light rail traffic too. But before that we have to worry about finishing the original line, replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Replacing the 520 bridge, re-paving I-5, etc.
> 
> So many transportation projects... so little time and money....
> 
> We'll see how it all pans out in the next few years


They already tested I-90 bridge for light rail traffic, it's strong enough and will do just fine. It should be used on the express lanes of I-90 from Seattle to extreme West of Bellevue. They used semi trucks with a huge load of dirt equal the weight of the light rail which is 107k lbs each car, several times on the bridge.


----------



## guinessbeer55

greg_christine said:


> Yes, plans are underway to restore service on the line. The following blurb is from the King County Metro website < http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/wfsc/waterfront_streetcar.html >:
> 
> _Ongoing improvements to downtown's north waterfront area, including construction of the Olympic Sculpture Park and work on the northern end of the seawall, have necessitated the temporary suspension of the George Benson Line Waterfront Streetcar vintage Trolley service.
> 
> Metro is providing replacement service with special Route 99 Waterfront Streetcar Line buses. Bus routing and stop locations do not exactly duplicate the Streetcar, however the same neighborhoods are served - the Waterfront, Pioneer Square and Chinatown/International District._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is another blurb from the King County Metro website < http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/wfsc/wsc_newhome.html >:
> 
> _Waterfront streetcar gets new home that saves money and opens views from new sculpture park_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The beloved George Benson Waterfront Streetcar will have a new home in historic Pioneer Square, and people of the region will be able to enjoy beautiful views and sculpture in a new waterfront park in legislation proposed by King County Executive Ron Sims today.
> 
> The proposals meet the county's goals of supporting the Seattle Art Museum's new sculpture park, while preserving the waterfront streetcar line. It will also cost less than half the amount compared to an earlier proposal to locate a facility on Port of Seattle property.
> 
> Metro Transit will provide free bus service beginning Nov. 19 through the construction of the sculpture park. The buses will feature specially designed graphics and will still link the International District/Chinatown, Pioneer Square and the Waterfront communities. The fare will be free, because the route will be within Metro's Downtown Seattle Ride Free Area.
> 
> "This is a victory for streetcar riders, the Pioneer Square community, transit passengers, and the citizens of the region who will get to enjoy a spectacular new park," said Sims. "Having the streetcar maintenance garage in Pioneer Square not only saves $11 million dollars, but it also opens new possibilities for extending the popular streetcar service and builds much-needed market rate housing."
> 
> The Main Street location was one of the highest-rated sites in a Metro Transit study in October 2004 analyzing potential sites. The city and the port would each pay $1 million, and the county would pay $7 million. A Port proposal to locate the facility north of the new sculpture park would have cost more than $20 million.
> 
> In an agreement reached with the Seattle Art Museum, the museum will demolish the streetcar maintenance barn, Broad Street passenger station, and tracks and then replace them with new tracks and a passenger station that links to the pedestrian sky bridge in the new Olympic Sculpture Park. In a separate agreement, a private developer will include a new $9 million streetcar maintenance facility in a mixed use building at Main Street and Occidental Park.
> 
> "This proposal accomplishes what I've advocated for three years: an affordable plan that ensures both great assets are available to the public," said King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips. "By moving the trolley barn from the site of Olympic Sculpture Park, we are opening up the view of the Olympics and access to Elliott Bay to citizens for decades to come. Our region will keep waterfront trolley service and gain a new park to treasure."
> 
> Locating the new maintenance facility at Occidental Park will enable the county to resume full operations of the current streetcar line and provide the capability to extend the line in the future.
> 
> The developer, Center of Pioneer Square LLC, of Seattle, will build badly needed market rate housing in a building that includes retail space that will open directly onto Occidental Park. The county would enter a lease-to own agreement for the streetcar maintenance garage.
> 
> The maintenance barn will be demolished one week following the Nov. 19 transition from streetcar to bus. The historic streetcars should be back on track in 18 to 24 months. The goal is to have the streetcars back in service by the tourist season in 2007._


so does that mean it will be back in service this summer??


----------



## greg_christine

guinessbeer55 said:


> so does that mean it will be back in service this summer??


Actually, I have been unable to confirm the status of the project. The following is the most recent newspaper article that I could find:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...slug=trolley15m&date=20061115&query=streetcar

_Local News: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 

Council mulls using streetcar money for suburban bus shelters

By Stuart Eskenazi

Seattle Times staff reporter

One year after the Metropolitan King County Council agreed to spend $7 million on a new maintenance barn in Seattle for Metro's waterfront streetcars, some council members are expressing interest in spending that money instead on bus shelters in the suburbs.

Councilman Dow Constantine has written a letter to the Seattle City Council asking for a status report on the barn project — a clear warning that the county's financial commitment to the project could be in jeopardy if the city doesn't move on it soon.

Developer Greg Smith was set to build the barn as part of a larger condominium project in Pioneer Square, across from Occidental Square park. But he pulled out of the deal in June, citing city delays in granting him a zoning change that would allow him to erect a taller building.

The deal was struck last November. Along with the county's $7 million commitment, the city and Port of Seattle each pledged $1 million.

At the time, there was urgency to find a replacement for the streetcar barn near Pier 70 so the Seattle Art Museum could tear it down and move forward with its Olympic Sculpture Garden as designed.

The old barn has been torn down, and service on the streetcar line was suspended a year ago with the intent to bring it back — using the new maintenance facility — by the 2007 tourist season. Meeting that target date is no longer possible.

The waterfront streetcar would have to be taken offline again — perhaps for as long as a decade — during construction on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Now, given that the barn project has not broken ground, Councilwoman Julia Patterson is wondering whether it could be finished before viaduct construction begins.

If it can't, the $7 million essentially would be paying for a trolley garage, said Jon Scholes, Patterson's chief of staff. Patterson, who opposed the $7 million expenditure last year, was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

"The case was made last year when the council took action that we could have this thing built in 18 months, and therefore have a window of opportunity of one or two years where we could run the trolley along the waterfront," Scholes said. "That window is now closed."

Three City Council members — Peter Steinbrueck, Nick Licata and Jan Drago — responded to Constantine's letter, asking the county to keep its $7 million earmarked for the trolley barn.

"We plan to move forward with this project in 2007," their letter says.

Stuart Eskenazi: 206-464-2293

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company_


----------



## guinessbeer55

well, the city messed up on that... why would you build another art museum in place of one of the only transportation lines we had during the time.


----------



## Car Free 2

The waterfront trolley was essentially a tourist line. Although I'd like to see it run again (and expanded), it's not missed by anyone who relies on transit and it has no impact on Seattle's transit situation, even in our densest urban areas. The promise of the waterfront trolley lies in its future expandability and its future utility for neighborhoods that are becoming denser, not in its present ridership.

The bus I normally take to work (No. 10) carries more people each day than the waterfront trolley normally carried in at least a week, maybe even longer. From personal experience, it's standing room only during the morning and evening rush on my bus and on many of the bus routes (11, 26, 43, 2 or 13, sometimes 49) which I've taken in Seattle.


----------



## guinessbeer55

Is sound transit planning to expand light rail to cities like Lynwood, Kirkland, Issaquah, and Woodinville?


----------



## BoulderGrad

guinessbeer55 said:


> Is sound transit planning to expand light rail to cities like Lynwood, Kirkland, Issaquah, and Woodinville?


From what I've read on this thread so far, the plan is to get to Northgate, then start heading over to the east side (renton, bellvue, etc.). Extension to Lynnwood (and hopefully everett) is later down the line I'd guess


----------



## sequoias

I read that it is the first light rail to use 1500 volt power in North America. Normally most light rail use 600 or 750 volt power in North America. It's due to the bigger light rail trains that has demand with high riderships close to the heavy rail. The trains are 95 feet long each car.


----------



## greg_christine

sequoias said:


> I read that it is the first light rail to use 1500 volt power in North America. Normally most light rail use 600 or 750 volt power in North America. It's due to the bigger light rail trains that has demand with high riderships close to the heavy rail. The trains are 95 feet long each car.


My understanding is that a principal reason for the 1500 VDC power supply is that it allows longer distances between electrical substations than 750 VDC. This was a concern for the Beacon Hill Tunnel, which would have required an electrical substation inside the tunnel if 750 VDC had been used.


----------



## guinessbeer55

yeah tacomas light rail only runs on 750 i think...


----------



## guinessbeer55

I drove down I5 today and I was stunned to see how far they have gotten!!!!!!


----------



## newyorkrunaway1

this would be a great project for Seattle, seeing as they only have the one monorail line and the commuter rail line to Tacoma. I wish Nashville would do something like this, or at least plan something like this. We have the one communter rail line here too.


----------



## Facial

Interesting. Is this Seattle's first light rail line?


----------



## sequoias

Facial said:


> Interesting. Is this Seattle's first light rail line?



Yes and no, the first since 1940's. There were a network of streetcar routes and they destroyed it in 1940's. 
There's also the short 1.3 mile long streetcar line currently running, but on hold due to the construction of Olympic art park at the downtown waterfront area.
Streetcar is a old name for light rail, basically.


----------



## sequoias

greg_christine said:


> My understanding is that a principal reason for the 1500 VDC power supply is that it allows longer distances between electrical substations than 750 VDC. This was a concern for the Beacon Hill Tunnel, which would have required an electrical substation inside the tunnel if 750 VDC had been used.


I see, I guess it was due to cost of construction so they wanted to have less substations.


----------



## guinessbeer55

so theyve started testing trains on monday... they will be now until service starts... and seattle is supposed to get at least six inches of snow tonight and more tomorrow, i wonder if theyll still be testing... i think it would be a good idea to know how to operate the trains in cold icy weather.


----------



## BoulderGrad

guinessbeer55 said:


> so theyve started testing trains on monday... they will be now until service starts... and seattle is supposed to get at least six inches of snow tonight and more tomorrow, i wonder if theyll still be testing... i think it would be a good idea to know how to operate the trains in cold icy weather.


Where are they testing them?


----------



## aznichiro115

BoulderGrad said:


> Where are they testing them?



in SODO along the busway


----------



## PDXPaul

Highway construction was suspended for the snow, I'd suspect light rail construction was suspended also.


----------



## sequoias

Hmmm, Sound Transit's web site says the train's maximum speed is 55 mph, but Kinki Sharyo's web site says the maximum speed of Sound Transit central Link LRV is 65 mph. 

I don't know which one is the correct answer. 65 mph sounds more impressive and a little bit quicker to move passengers in some areas between stations, depending on the length and the grade seperation.


----------



## guinessbeer55

sequoias said:


> Hmmm, Sound Transit's web site says the train's maximum speed is 55 mph, but Kinki Sharyo's web site says the maximum speed of Sound Transit central Link LRV is 65 mph.
> 
> I don't know which one is the correct answer. 65 mph sounds more impressive and a little bit quicker to move passengers in some areas between stations, depending on the length and the grade seperation.


im pretty sure its 65 mph... they said the trains would run at higher speeds on the elevated and tunnel portions of the line.


----------



## getontrac

Okay,

Just to double check: the Rainer Valley section is surface but on an exclusive RR ROW? Not between a road, correct?

I think that section may have to be grade-seperated eventually, because I do not see how this system can handle much ridership growth without going over capacity in short-order. Heavy rail conversion would seem to be inevitable.

Are those E/W proposed extensions envisioned as grade-seperated as well?

Nate


----------



## sequoias

getontrac said:


> Okay,
> 
> Just to double check: the Rainer Valley section is surface but on an exclusive RR ROW? Not between a road, correct?
> 
> I think that section may have to be grade-seperated eventually, because I do not see how this system can handle much ridership growth without going over capacity in short-order. Heavy rail conversion would seem to be inevitable.
> 
> Are those E/W proposed extensions envisioned as grade-seperated as well?
> 
> Nate


Yes, Rainier Valley light rail corridor is on the median of Martin Luther King Way with priority signals when the train is coming. San Francisco muni light rail has part of them on the median of the street I forget name. That's the nature of light rail to be on a median of streets in many cities worldwide.


----------



## guinessbeer55

PDXPaul said:


> Cost- 11 Billion 2006 Dollars
> Ridership- 300k Daily on Link
> 
> Voters will be asked to pass a half cent sales tax increase to pay for this next year. It's going along with a package of taxes for roads that if either ballot fails, they both fail. The roads ballot is worth 9 billion.


Where did you find this map??


----------



## getontrac

sequoias said:


> Yes, Rainier Valley light rail corridor is on the median of Martin Luther King Way with priority signals when the train is coming. San Francisco muni light rail has part of them on the median of the street I forget name. That's the nature of light rail to be on a median of streets in many cities worldwide.


So, it's in a median of a roadway? Not a pre-existing or otherwise exclusive ROW?

How wide is the median?

Either way, I think the system will be in trouble operationally if it truly expects the ridership density I hear posted.

Does anybody know was the anticipated average travel distance (ATD) is expected to be?

Nate


----------



## BoulderGrad

guinessbeer55 said:


> Where did you find this map??


http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml


----------



## BoulderGrad

getontrac said:


> So, it's in a median of a roadway? Not a pre-existing or otherwise exclusive ROW?
> 
> How wide is the median?
> 
> Either way, I think the system will be in trouble operationally if it truly expects the ridership density I hear posted.
> 
> Does anybody know was the anticipated average travel distance (ATD) is expected to be?
> 
> Nate


Heres a bit on the testing as well: http://www.soundtransit.org/x2622.xml


----------



## kub86

So I saw the maps of the northgate extension...and I'm wondering: Why didn't they add a station at Greenlake?! Isn't it one of the most popular parks/neighborhoods in the city? If they just bent the tracks to the left a bit, they could've added a station there. It bothers me that ST only has commuter-related traffic on their minds.


----------



## sequoias

getontrac said:


> So, it's in a median of a roadway? Not a pre-existing or otherwise exclusive ROW?
> 
> How wide is the median?
> 
> Either way, I think the system will be in trouble operationally if it truly expects the ridership density I hear posted.
> 
> Does anybody know was the anticipated average travel distance (ATD) is expected to be?
> 
> Nate


They're rebuilding the WHOLE Martin Luther king corridor from Rainier Ave intersection all the way to near the ramp to I-5. Nothing is existing left, it's a complete rebuild of the street. 

They are stripping off the old roadway, widening the street with new streetlights, traffic signals, new roadway and a median for the light rail that's wide enough for the trains. They also have brand new sidewalks, too. They have recolated the utilities underground already. The south part of the roadway is complete torwards the elevated section going to the airport. For the most part, it's still under construction. I think most of it will be complete by 2008 and the trains will be having test runs on the light rail corridor.

The corridor has already had explosion of 3 major housing developments of Rainier Vista, Ohetto station and New Holly. 

The elevated section is roughly around 6 months to a year left to be complete.


----------



## BoulderGrad

kub86 said:


> So I saw the maps of the northgate extension...and I'm wondering: Why didn't they add a station at Greenlake?! Isn't it one of the most popular parks/neighborhoods in the city? If they just bent the tracks to the left a bit, they could've added a station there. It bothers me that ST only has commuter-related traffic on their minds.


The proposed stop is in Roosevelt on 65th street which is about 7 blocks from Greenlake, just on the other side of I-5. I can see the proposed sight for the stop from my apartment building


----------



## PDXPaul

It's in the median, but it's pretty seperated. I think they can travel 30mph like that. In Portland the interstate max(yellow line) is like that. It's elevated maybe a foot and a half on the concrete pedestal and there's sort of a fence seperating it. Same way on burnside in gresham.

I think they're proposing 4 car trains, the biggest the max can run is 3. Some systems only run 1 or 2 car trains. Just to get an idea of the scale we're doing here.

But then again if that whole system gets built out, we'd have 300k people on it, which is what the BART system carries daily.


----------



## Jaxom92

There has been numerous revisions to MLK Way as previous posters have said. In addition to a complete rebuild of the street, namely widening, there are many cross streets that no longer go through MLK Way as well as numerous left-hand turn prohibitions from MLK Way itself. All these and the safety features such as signaled crossings, sidewalks, and fencing off the tracks allow for the trains to travel the posted speed limit on the road itself.

Indeed there are worries about the train frequency once the system ramps up to the full capacity that ST projects. One of the mitigating factors is that ST Link Light Rail can have four cars per train and thus not necessitate as short headways to accommodate peak time traffic. (As opposed to MAX in Portland where the trains are limited to two [or is it three?] cars due to the short block length in the downtown.)

It is these issues and the construction impacts from the rebuild of MLK Way (among other places) that kept light rail from become a reality quicker than it has. Seattle residents did not accept the individual cost incurred to their personal property and lively hoods as an acceptable cost to pay for improved public transportation. Discussions/arguments piled up on how, where, and when the light rail (if rail at all) should be built.


----------



## Jaxom92

Sorry about the double post, but there's a bit of interesting news about the University Link extention as taken off the Sound Transit website. A lot of it is repeating info from other parts of the site, but that's okay:

*President’s budget offers $10 million surprise for University Link light rail *

_February 06, 2007_

Sound Transit today received a $10 million surprise in President George W. Bush’s proposed FY 2008 budget. Along with the expected $70 million for building the initial light rail segment, the budget also includes an unexpected $10 million in proposed funding for extending light rail to the University of Washington. The University Link Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension is one of two projects nationwide listed in the president’s budget as “Proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA).” Sound Transit intends to complete and submit its FFGA application for University Link later this year. 

The proposed $10 million represents the first New Starts funding proposed by the federal government for University Link and sends a positive message about Sound Transit’s efforts to start building the extension as soon as 2008. University Link has received the Federal Transit Administration’s highest-possible rating in the competitive federal New Starts funding process. The $10 million would apply against the $750 million Full Funding Grant Sound Transit is seeking for University Link. 

“I am pleased that the President's budget continues to make good on a commitment to support Sound Transit’s bold transportation goals to improve transit service in the region,” said Senator Patty Murray. “The President’s budget also signals a willingness to partner in proposals that will expand bus and rail transit systems in the future. I am glad that I was able to help support Sound Transit by highlighting these projects while touring our state with Transportation Secretary Mary Peters in November.” 

“We can only wish surprises like this came every day,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg. “This proposed funding shows the Bush administration is ready to continue helping our region. We’re fortunate to have the support of the administration and Senator Murray’s strong leadership in our congressional delegation.” 

The $70 million for current light rail construction represents the next installment of Sound Transit’s $500 million full funding grant agreement for the initial segment. Sound Transit is on schedule to open light rail between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport in 2009. 

When University Link is completed, Sound Transit will have built almost 19 miles of light rail between the University and the airport with the taxes that regional voters approved in 1996. Sound Transit recently received approval from the FTA to proceed to final design on the University Link project — another positive signal from “the other Washington.” 

Located entirely underground, the 3.15-mile University Link extension will travel east in a tunnel to a Capitol Hill station located east of Broadway near Seattle Central Community College. From there the line continues north, crossing under the Lake Washington Ship Canal’s Montlake Cut to a station just west of Husky Stadium on the University of Washington campus. 

The projected 2020 daily ridership for the 15.6-mile light rail segment that is currently under construction between downtown Seattle and the airport is 45,000. The University Link project alone is projected to increase the regional light rail system’s 2030 ridership to more than 114,000 a day. Further light rail extensions to the north, east and south are proposed as part of the November 2007 regional Roads & Transit ballot measure. 

University Link will provide a reliable option for drivers and transit users who are stuck on I-5, a facility that operates over capacity for up to eight hours a day, with vehicle speeds running between 15 and 35 mph. Already, buses can run up to 30 minutes behind schedule due to congestion. The population of the corridor served by University Link is projected to go up 56 percent from 2000 to 2030, further increasing congestion. 

Compared to bus service, University Link travel times will be almost three times faster. From the University District, it will take 9 minutes instead of 25 minutes to get downtown and 3 minutes instead of 22 minutes to get to Capitol Hill. The light rail system will also ease pressure on the region’s roadways. 

Construction of the 13.9-mile Central Link light rail segment between downtown Seattle and Tukwila is now more than half finished, and last summer Sound Transit began construction of the 1.7-mile Airport Link extension. Both projects are on schedule to open in 2009. The 1.6-mile Tacoma Link light rail line opened in 2003, with ridership immediately exceeding 2010 projections.


----------



## guinessbeer55

Jaxom92 said:


> Sorry about the double post, but there's a bit of interesting news about the University Link extention as taken off the Sound Transit website. A lot of it is repeating info from other parts of the site, but that's okay:
> 
> *President’s budget offers $10 million surprise for University Link light rail *
> 
> _February 06, 2007_
> 
> Sound Transit today received a $10 million surprise in President George W. Bush’s proposed FY 2008 budget. Along with the expected $70 million for building the initial light rail segment, the budget also includes an unexpected $10 million in proposed funding for extending light rail to the University of Washington. The University Link Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension is one of two projects nationwide listed in the president’s budget as “Proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA).” Sound Transit intends to complete and submit its FFGA application for University Link later this year.
> 
> The proposed $10 million represents the first New Starts funding proposed by the federal government for University Link and sends a positive message about Sound Transit’s efforts to start building the extension as soon as 2008. University Link has received the Federal Transit Administration’s highest-possible rating in the competitive federal New Starts funding process. The $10 million would apply against the $750 million Full Funding Grant Sound Transit is seeking for University Link.
> 
> “I am pleased that the President's budget continues to make good on a commitment to support Sound Transit’s bold transportation goals to improve transit service in the region,” said Senator Patty Murray. “The President’s budget also signals a willingness to partner in proposals that will expand bus and rail transit systems in the future. I am glad that I was able to help support Sound Transit by highlighting these projects while touring our state with Transportation Secretary Mary Peters in November.”
> 
> “We can only wish surprises like this came every day,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg. “This proposed funding shows the Bush administration is ready to continue helping our region. We’re fortunate to have the support of the administration and Senator Murray’s strong leadership in our congressional delegation.”
> 
> The $70 million for current light rail construction represents the next installment of Sound Transit’s $500 million full funding grant agreement for the initial segment. Sound Transit is on schedule to open light rail between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport in 2009.
> 
> When University Link is completed, Sound Transit will have built almost 19 miles of light rail between the University and the airport with the taxes that regional voters approved in 1996. Sound Transit recently received approval from the FTA to proceed to final design on the University Link project — another positive signal from “the other Washington.”
> 
> Located entirely underground, the 3.15-mile University Link extension will travel east in a tunnel to a Capitol Hill station located east of Broadway near Seattle Central Community College. From there the line continues north, crossing under the Lake Washington Ship Canal’s Montlake Cut to a station just west of Husky Stadium on the University of Washington campus.
> 
> The projected 2020 daily ridership for the 15.6-mile light rail segment that is currently under construction between downtown Seattle and the airport is 45,000. The University Link project alone is projected to increase the regional light rail system’s 2030 ridership to more than 114,000 a day. Further light rail extensions to the north, east and south are proposed as part of the November 2007 regional Roads & Transit ballot measure.
> 
> University Link will provide a reliable option for drivers and transit users who are stuck on I-5, a facility that operates over capacity for up to eight hours a day, with vehicle speeds running between 15 and 35 mph. Already, buses can run up to 30 minutes behind schedule due to congestion. The population of the corridor served by University Link is projected to go up 56 percent from 2000 to 2030, further increasing congestion.
> 
> Compared to bus service, University Link travel times will be almost three times faster. From the University District, it will take 9 minutes instead of 25 minutes to get downtown and 3 minutes instead of 22 minutes to get to Capitol Hill. The light rail system will also ease pressure on the region’s roadways.
> 
> Construction of the 13.9-mile Central Link light rail segment between downtown Seattle and Tukwila is now more than half finished, and last summer Sound Transit began construction of the 1.7-mile Airport Link extension. Both projects are on schedule to open in 2009. The 1.6-mile Tacoma Link light rail line opened in 2003, with ridership immediately exceeding 2010 projections.



I think no matter what, Seattle will beat out all the other major cities for federal funding because we dont have any big transit system, so this money might be a regular thing everytime we start a light rail extention!!!


----------



## getontrac

Why didn't they simply elevate on MLK?

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

getontrac said:


> Why didn't they simply elevate on MLK?
> 
> Nate


It either has to do with money (as in surface is cheaper) or resident preference. It could be both too. I do know Rainier Valley --- well, heck, all of the Seattle neighborhoods light rail is running through --- put up a great fuss over having it in their neighborhood and causing disruptions. I would guess that they didn't want the shadow of the trackway. Furthermore, elevated structures have a physical closing off feel that a surface line does not. Sort of neighborhood spatial disruption.


----------



## PDXPaul

Rainier Valley wanted a tunnel. And only a tunnel. They aren't happy with the at grade stuff being built there, but there isn't much they can do about it. I think the rest of the region would have preferred aerial, but I'd imagine the neighborhood opposition would have been too much to handle.


----------



## sequoias

http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/rainiervalleymap.htm

Lots of info about train collosions predictions at Rainier Valley area. That's gonna be really nasty once it opens. Too bad it's not elevated or as a tunnel, it would be lot safer for sure. Houston has one of the worst safety records for their light rail, they get countless of crashes. 

Please discuss.


----------



## guinessbeer55

sequoias said:


> http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/rainiervalleymap.htm
> 
> Lots of info about train collosions predictions at Rainier Valley area. That's gonna be really nasty once it opens. Too bad it's not elevated or as a tunnel, it would be lot safer for sure. Houston has one of the worst safety records for their light rail, they get countless of crashes.
> 
> Please discuss.


i dont understand how its gonna be a bad area... as long as the people just stop at the gates... i mean they cant be that stupid...


----------



## kub86

PDXPaul said:


> Rainier Valley wanted a tunnel. And only a tunnel. They aren't happy with the at grade stuff being built there, but there isn't much they can do about it. I think the rest of the region would have preferred aerial, but I'd imagine the neighborhood opposition would have been too much to handle.


Actually, I think RV wanted at-grade to spur development and to have a more community-friendly transportation system---just cross the street to catch a train rather than going underground. ST respected this. The rest of the system preferred grade-separated. ...So i blame RV for the fact we're not fully grade-separated LOL. Mt. Baker station is elevated though. Currently, businesses aren't happy because construction is going on and they're losing money---same complaints when tacoma link was being built.

How gentrified do you think that area (Rainier Valley) will get after these stations are built? Are there any transport-oriented-devps being designed?


----------



## sequoias

guinessbeer55 said:


> i dont understand how its gonna be a bad area... as long as the people just stop at the gates... i mean they cant be that stupid...


It says that there are no gates, only traffic signals. Drivers would race across the street last minute when the light is red and the train would hit the car at 35 miles per hour. That happened several times when drivers rammed into gates and they had to replace the gates, it happened in Minneapolis.


----------



## BoulderGrad

*Construction crash at Beacon Hill tunnel site*

Speaking of crashes:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003560711_webtransitfatal07.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302716_accident07ww.html


----------



## guinessbeer55

BoulderGrad said:


> Speaking of crashes:
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003560711_webtransitfatal07.html
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302716_accident07ww.html


that was sad... i hope it doesnt effect the outcome of the line...


----------



## getontrac

sequoias said:


> http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/rainiervalleymap.htm
> 
> Lots of info about train collosions predictions at Rainier Valley area. That's gonna be really nasty once it opens. Too bad it's not elevated or as a tunnel, it would be lot safer for sure. Houston has one of the worst safety records for their light rail, they get countless of crashes.
> 
> Please discuss.



I bound to agree, here. I think Link LR will have either a) ridership shortfalls, b) overloaded trains, or c) both.

As a Baltimore resident, I can attest to the the problems of this type of mixed traffic LR. In 2001, our Light Rail had an average of 1 collision every 16 days.

Our Metro, had one collision (with itself), once in 18 years of operation.

With the ridership density expected, this line will struggle to operate effectively as LR. Short headways will overwhelm MLK. This line will need conversion to heavy. Light just doesn't make sense.

Wouldn't it have been better to cutoff a few more streets, and the remaining streets simply bridge over and then come back down to surface?

Or, perhaps later, gradually "duck" the streets beneath or above the line. 

Baltimore is in the midst of the throes of bad transit planning due to ignorant business leaders and (formerly) anti-transit gubernatorial admin. We're working to get Heavy Rail back on the study table, because LR in Baltimore make about as much sense as flushing money down the toilet. I think Seattle is at the point in size and density, where HRT is the only workable option in the long run.

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

Admittedly, running trains on the surface with multiple automobile and pedestrian crossings increases the probability of accidents. What I'm reading out of that is that accidents due to malfunction of driver or systems is only what counts in the accident numbers. Is that a good way of counting it? I don't know. It depends on what they mean by safety. Safety of the systems or safety in general?

There will be lighted and flashing signals (audio for the seeing impaired) to indicate a train is coming. I don't think we should blame Sound Transit and Seattle for people failing to pay attention when they cross the street or trying to beat the train. I call that behavior at worst stupid or at best, negligent. Yeah, it is a terrible situation when someone gets hurt or even dies, but despite not wanting to blame someone who got seriously injured or killed, blaming the person responsible for the accident is, well, reasonable.

I don't know why there aren't any gates. It's probable ST might add them afterwards if these projections turn out to be true.


----------



## spongeg

are peopl just stupid that they don't know of or see the trains? or are they taking chances? 

i can't imagine a big train coming at you would be that easy to miss


----------



## Jaxom92

Perhaps it would be prudent to hold community meetings that teaches those living in the vicinity of the light rail about train safety. I know we had a little course like that in elementary school, because we have a large rail yard in my town. Why not something geared towards the general community. It will both address the safety problem on the citizen's side and promote a healthy relationship between Sound Transit and the community.

Maybe a short 15 - 20 minute video or presentation and a Q & A session. Doesn't need to be longer than an hour. 45 minutes maybe.


----------



## getontrac

This just happened yesterday, not at a grade crossing, but at a station!

[More Light Rail malaise...] mine.

Train strikes woman in Linthicum, severs foot
MTA: Pedestrian did not move from tracks as train approached



By a Sun Reporter

February 7, 2007, 9:09 AM EST

A woman lost a foot after being struck by a light rail train this morning in Linthicum, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Transit Administration said.

At about 7 a.m., a pedestrian who appeared to be in her 30s stepped in front of a moving train at the BWI Business Park stop, according to Holly Henderson, an MTA spokeswoman. The operator of the train sounded the horn several times but the woman did not respond or move from the tracks, Henderson said.

The pedestrian was struck by the train and -- while being dragged for about 20 feet -- her foot was severed, according to Henderson.

The woman, who has not been identified, was taken to the Maryland Shock Trauma Center. Her condition is unknown.

Light rail service resumed after 8 a.m. and trains were running about 20 minutes behind schedule, Henderson said. 
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery 

> Get news on your mobile device at www.baltimoresun.com

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

^^ It seems to be another case of not paying attention, though we don't know if the woman might have been deaf or not. In that case, there'd be some concern over the safety systems and stations and crossings as it relates to informing deaf people. Otherwise, an unfortunate accident that could have been avoided by being more aware of the surroundings.

Also, I'm assuming the train made an effort to stop. The posted article doesn't say so, but it would be reasonable to assume such. Also, how fast was the train moving? Light rail can stop much faster than heavy rail such as commuter trains or freight trains, but it's still a train.


----------



## greg_christine

getontrac said:


> I bound to agree, here. I think Link LR will have either a) ridership shortfalls, b) overloaded trains, or c) both.
> 
> As a Baltimore resident, I can attest to the the problems of this type of mixed traffic LR. In 2001, our Light Rail had an average of 1 collision every 16 days.
> 
> Our Metro, had one collision (with itself), once in 18 years of operation.
> 
> With the ridership density expected, this line will struggle to operate effectively as LR. Short headways will overwhelm MLK. This line will need conversion to heavy. Light just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been better to cutoff a few more streets, and the remaining streets simply bridge over and then come back down to surface?
> 
> Or, perhaps later, gradually "duck" the streets beneath or above the line.
> 
> Baltimore is in the midst of the throes of bad transit planning due to ignorant business leaders and (formerly) anti-transit gubernatorial admin. We're working to get Heavy Rail back on the study table, because LR in Baltimore make about as much sense as flushing money down the toilet. I think Seattle is at the point in size and density, where HRT is the only workable option in the long run.
> 
> Nate


The Rainier Valley segment of Central Link won't be as awkward as the Howard Street segment of Baltimore's light rail line. Due to the narrowness of Howard Street, the northbound light rail tracks are forced to zig zag back and forth across the northbound motor vehicle lane so that the trains can serve platforms built into the sidewalk:





































At the south end of Howard Street, both the northbound and southbound light rail tracks are in the middle of the street. Then the northbound track and northbound motor vehicle lane switch positions so that the northbound track is alongside the sidewalk. The southbound motor vehicle lane ends so that the southbound track is alongside the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from the northbound track. Then the northbound track and northbound motor vehicle lane again switch positions. Then both light rail tracks switch positions with the northbound motor vehicle lane before diverting off of Howard Street. It is very confusing for motor vehicle drivers who are not familiar with the track arrangement.

The design of the Baltimore light rail line was very much cost driven. When it first opened, much of the line was single-track. The line has been gradually upgraded so that it is now entirely double-track. The Central Link line in Seattle is much more heavily engineered. The only segment on which Sound Transit has skimped has been the Rainier Valley segment. Without resorting to a full elevated viaduct or tunnel, it might have been possible to provide short trench segments in way of intersecting streets so that the streets could cross above the tracks on bridges. The Newark City Subway took advantage of an old canal to create this type of alignment:


----------



## greg_christine

The vast majority the collisions between light rail vehicles and motor vehicles are clearly the fault of the drivers of the motor vehicles. It is customary for traffic planners and light rail advocates to dismiss such accidents as being due to inattentive drivers. A subset of these accidents involving emergency vehicles is more difficult to dismiss. Many emergency vehicles carry equipment to give them priority at traffic lights. Many light rail lines utilize the same equipment. What can be expected to happen when an ambulance or fire truck with traffic signal priority crosses paths with a light rail vehicle with traffic signal priority?

Denver, Colorado, January 2005. Ambulance knocks light rail train off the tracks.









Hillsboro, Oregon, January 2005. Light rail train collides with fire truck.









Bloomington, Minnesota, July 2006. Ambulance collides with light rail vehicle.









Los Angeles, California, December 2006. Light rail trains collides with fire truck.


----------



## sequoias

Wow, I never thought or heard about that issue. That's very interesting. Wait a minute, I didn't know that Salem, Oregon has light rail line.


----------



## greg_christine

sequoias said:


> Wow, I never thought or heard about that issue. That's very interesting. Wait a minute, I didn't know that Salem, Oregon has light rail line.


Oops! I apologize for the mistake. The accident occured in Hillsboro, which is on one of the Portland MAX lines.


----------



## kub86

^^ugh, just another reason why I think at-grade heavy-rail systems with street crossings is ridiculous.Rainier Valley will have close to 20 intersections where cars can cross tracks. *sigh*

has Tacoma Link had any accidents? I don't think I've heard of any...?

Anyway, I love this trolley-bus disguised as a streetcar. So sleek! I think that's a faster, easier, cheaper way of installing streetcar systems rather than laying down tracks...just trick people into thinking they're riding something other than a bus. Might boost ridership.  










unimportant rant: I hate Sound Transit's wave design. It's so tacky. I think the simpler---like above, the better. (had to get that off my chest)


----------



## getontrac

I'm pretty sure HRT has sharper deceleration curves than LRT.

Either way, it doens't matter if it's the train's fault or not, the accidents destroy the efficiency and reliability of the system.

Nothing is as absurd as Howard St in Baltimore--which is part of the reason why it's the biggest failure of a light rail line in the history of the US if not North America.

Nate


----------



## sequoias

greg_christine said:


> Oops! I apologize for the mistake. The accident occured in Hillsboro, which is on one of the Portland MAX lines.


Ahh, I thought that was a mistake. I figured it was in Portland metro area.


----------



## Jaxom92

From seeing those pictures, I definitely agree that is an _extremely_ poor design. They ought to get rid of the auto lane and make it transit only street. There's something similar on the alignment of Tacoma Link on the single track section but it's only for a three or four blocks and has only two lane switches. In the dark, it's a little hard to see where the auto lane goes and where the train lane goes.

I have been in Tacoma Link twice when a pedestrian ignored the train coming an decided to cross anyway. Once we had to break pretty hard and I must say those trains have incredibly loud horns! One other incident involved someone stopped in the intersection and the train had to wait. Then the lights switched and people started driving in front of the train even though we were blocking half the intersection ourselves. No sudden breaking but mixing trains and traffic is highly problematic.

Portland, Oregon is putting light rail down 5th and 6th streets (the Portland Mall) and the trains switch lanes with a dedicated bus line repeatedly. The auto lane doesn't have any interaction with the train lane except at intersections.

And those whole emergency vehicle priorities are a problem that should probably be addressed. Perhaps a system should be put in place that alerts either the train or the emergency vehicle or both to each other's approach. It ought to be fairly easy since there's already signals going out to change the lights to give priority. Furthermore, many transit agencies use vehicle tracking systems to do eta's and perhaps that can be of use. Or a GPS system or something.


----------



## Jaxom92

Sound Transit has just released their fourth quarter 2006 ridership numbers. While this doesn't directly pertain to the Seattle Light Rail, I think people here might be interested anyway.

Summary: http://www.soundtransit.org/x3821.xml

Detailed Report: http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q4_2006.pdf


----------



## guinessbeer55

kub86 said:


> unimportant rant: I hate Sound Transit's wave design. It's so tacky. I think the simpler---like above, the better. (had to get that off my chest)


really,!!!! I love it...


----------



## sequoias

Jaxom92 said:


> Sound Transit has just released their fourth quarter 2006 ridership numbers. While this doesn't directly pertain to the Seattle Light Rail, I think people here might be interested anyway.
> 
> Summary: http://www.soundtransit.org/x3821.xml
> 
> Detailed Report: http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q4_2006.pdf


I just saw it before you posted it on soundtransit's web site. Nice increase on riderships in the whole ST's agency. I find the numbers of average weekday ridership not being that impressive on the sounder commuter rail and the ST express buses. I hope 2007 will get a huge surge in ridership, though. They had a increase of 2 million MORE riders from 2005 to 2006.


----------



## Jaxom92

Today Sound Transit has released their service implementation plan for 2007. You can reach the pdf directly at: http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/SIP/2007SIP_final.pdf (*CAUTION*: 111 eleven pages of dry, technical reading.  )

I think what concerns this discussion the most is ridership projections once Central Link opens in June 2009. The numbers are in the form of boardings. A boarding is counted every time someone enters or exits the train/bus. Therefore, divide these numbers by two to see the actual number of people or riders that are carried on the train.

*Link Light Rail*

_2007:_
Weekday........Annual
2,835............0.9 mil

_2009:_
Weekday........Annual
22,963...........3.9 mil

_2010:_
Weekday........Annual
35,580...........10.9 mil

Notes: The 2007 ridership numbers are reflective of Tacoma Link only, since Central link opens in 2009. The 2009 numbers are reflecting only six months because the line opens in June 2009. The 2010 number reflect the extension to the airport and a full year's operation.


----------



## sequoias

Sounds like a low ridership for a light rail line compared to other cities like Salt Lake City or others. I don't know why they count people 2 times (boarding and leaving the train) Why don't they "count" each person riding the train.


----------



## Jaxom92

It seems to me one should be able to come up with a technology that can detect direction of travel when counting the people entering and leaving the trains. It'd be nice not to have the implicit deception from the numbers. Many people don't even know that boardings are counted that way.

The real problem with the low ridership is that the highest ridership generating population is in the University of Washington and Northgate section of the line, which isn't going to be open till later.


----------



## sequoias

Jaxom92 said:


> It seems to me one should be able to come up with a technology that can detect direction of travel when counting the people entering and leaving the trains. It'd be nice not to have the implicit deception from the numbers. Many people don't even know that boardings are counted that way.
> 
> The real problem with the low ridership is that the highest ridership generating population is in the University of Washington and Northgate section of the line, which isn't going to be open till later.


yeah because light rail don't have turnsicles to count how many people are riding the train. I guess they count it from people buying tickets at the ticket vending machine or whatever.


----------



## kub86

I think I get it...

2835 is Tacoma's daily "boardings." So hypothetically, let's pretend all of them were commuters. So 1417 people used it to work; and 1417 used it coming back? Is that how they count ridership?


----------



## Jaxom92

kub86 said:


> I think I get it...
> 
> 2835 is Tacoma's daily "boardings." So hypothetically, let's pretend all of them were commuters. So 1417 people used it to work; and 1417 used it coming back? Is that how they count ridership?


Aye, or any other demographic. You got it.



sequoias said:


> yeah because light rail don't have turnsicles to count how many people are riding the train. I guess they count it from people buying tickets at the ticket vending machine or whatever.


Since Tacoma Link is free, we don't have to purchase tickets. The way they count the boardings is by sensors in the doorways of the train. I think they have implemented similar systems on some of the buses and will probably do the same for Central Link.


----------



## getontrac

Reitterating the collision likelyhood....THE VERY NEXT DAY AFTER THE FOOT SEVERING INCIDENT ON THE BALTIMORE LIGHT RAIL....

From the Baltimore Sun 

*6 hurt as truck, light rail collide
Accident ties up rail service to Hunt Valley; tractor-trailer driver is given traffic ticket*


By Nick Shields and Andrew Schaefer
sun reporters

February 10, 2007

A light rail train driver and five passengers were taken to hospitals with minor injuries after the train and a tractor-trailer truck collided yesterday in Hunt Valley, authorities said.

The train was derailed by the collision, leading to an interruption of service in the area.

The truck driver was traveling south on Gilroy Road near Schilling Circle about 10:45 a.m. when he made a left turn to cross the tracks, according to Maj. Stanford Franklin, a Maryland Transit Administration police spokesman.

The driver is accused of failing to heed a sign that lights up as trains approach, prohibiting left turns at the crossing, MTA officials said. The sign was functioning at the time of the accident, the officials said.

The driver, identified as Marshall F. Hartsell Jr., 65, of Prescott, Mich., was given a citation charging him with failing to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left turn, MTA officials said. The truck is owned by T.S. Expediting Services of Toledo, Ohio, according to the MTA.

There were 20 passengers on the northbound train at the time of the accident, officials Two people were taken to Greater Baltimore Medical Center and four were taken to St. Joseph Medical Center, authorities said.

After the collision, the train remained upright, but the front section was pushed several feet off the track. A damaged door from the train was in a nearby snowy area. Because the derailment disrupted light rail service, MTA provided buses for train passengers, officals said.

About 2 p.m., the train was moved to a maintenance facility, MTA officials said. Shortly thereafter, light rail service was restored, officials said.

Damage to the light rail train was estimated at $100,000, MTA officials said.

[email protected] [email protected]
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun | Get Sun home delivery


----------



## Jaxom92

I have a discussion question: what would Baltimore and Seattle do at this point to reduce the number of injury/fatal accidents with light rail trains?

I don't know Baltimore, so I can't talk about specifics, but I suggest for Seattle something that's been pointed out as a lack: crossing guards at street crossings. I am unfamiliar with the detailed specifics of the traffic engineering through the Rainier Valley, mainly the pedestrian crossings. A Seattle Times article referenced here implied that there would be separate pedestrian crossings over the light rail alignment outside of the normal street intersections. Each one of these and the street intersections ought to have some physical barrier to eliminate driver error caused by not paying attention - i.e. negligence. (I wouldn't consider running through a physical barrier as preventable).

I have found a document studying light rail safety that can be accessed here: http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_69.pdf

The full title of this document is as follows: Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety

Now, I have not looked through the entire 150 pages, but I have looked specifically at the Portland section of the study because I am familiar with that alignment. One key paragraph talks about how, after numerous accidents after the opening of the west side extension to Hillsboro, TriMet (the Portland transit authority) implemented a number of safety enhancements.



TCRP Report 69 said:


> After a thorough review of the pedestrian treatments along the west-side extension, numerous safety enhancements were undertaken, including installation of pedestrian automatic gates, pedestrian swing gates, pedestrian audible warning devices, and active Train Coming/Look Both Ways signs for pedestrians.


More specifically:



TCRP Report 69 said:


> The safety review focused on the following key factors:
> • Pedestrian awareness of the crossing: Passive signing, tactile warning strips.
> • Pedestrian awareness of approaching LRV and ability to see the LRV: Pedestrian audible warning devices, active LRV Approaching signs, adequate sight distance.
> • Pedestrian path across the trackway: Pedestrian channelization, swing gates, pedestrian automatic gates.
> • Pedestrian understanding of potential hazards at grade crossings: Increased public education and outreach, development of a multijurisdictional task force, and use of the Internet.


This sort of thing can be implemented in Seattle. I'm especially quick to point out that the last bullet because I suggested something of the sort in a previous post. Now, I imagine Sound Transit might do something like the outreach program closer to 2009 when light rail opens. I hope they do at any rate.

Now, this report was done in 2001 so the full data on the effectiveness of these measures was not included. Furthermore, the study only focused on the section of trackway where trains travel faster 55 kph. This part of the trackway is not within the median of Burnside, which is the section that resembles Rainier Valley. In essence, the report is not comprehensive on Portland's specific case, but there are ideas and methods within that play logically as effective deterrents to pedestrian and vehicular crossing.

Again, Sound Transit would do well to implement some of these features if they aren't being implemented currently. If the latter is the case, I'm certain it will take one too many fatalities to get the ball rolling on better safety designs.

By the way, Baltimore was also part of the study.


----------



## sequoias

Wow this thread has been dead for a while.


----------



## Jaxom92

Only a few days. If it didn't keep up, I'd double post. I don't normally like to do that. Anyhow, here's a news story that came out a couple days ago that outlines Sound Transit's ballot initiative for November 2007. It's part of the joint roads and transit package being put forward.

http://www.soundtransit.org/x4781.xml



Sound Transit said:


> The Roads & Transit package will present to voters a unified program of investments in freeways, light- and commuter-rail, HOV lanes, park/ride lots, and express and local bus service. Key features include:
> 
> *Reduction in traffic delays
> *Faster travel times
> **42 miles of new light rail*
> *Major improvements to “highways of regional significance” and chokepoints- I-5, I-405, SR 167, SR 9, SR 509, US 2, SR 522
> *10,000 new park-and-ride stalls
> *New HOV lanes
> *Bike lanes, side walks, better connections
> *Major freight routes improved
> 
> The Roads and Transit plan is a combined effort by the Regional Transportation Investment District Board (RTID) and Sound Transit. Both agencies are governed by local elected officials in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.


I highlighted the major point relevant to this discussion: a whopping 42 miles of light rail. Do you all think they can pull this off - voter, money, and time wise?


----------



## ajmstilt

Well going form memeroy here:

Dallas' DART was voted into existance in 1983, began rail construction construction in 1990, opened 11 miles in 96, 9 more miles in 97.

Today it has 43 miles, 

Currently adding 45 or so miles to be done by 2013.

so roughly First 20 miles took 7 years, next 20ish miles took 7 more years, and 45 more will be added 10 years after that...

So yeah SoundTransit *could* do it. 

However (and I'm going back to DART b/c that's what i know) When DART was created plans were for almost 200 miles of rail.. that was dropped to 140... then 90... and that's about where we'll be 30 years after creation.


----------



## getontrac

42 miles is meaningless figure in terms of money if we dont' know the alignment(s). At grade along existing RR ROW could be fairly inexpensive if build over a couple Federal cycles. Is that what you guys are looking at?

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

I think my concern is mainly political. We seem to be in a pro-transportation political climate amongst the Seattle-area voters. So, one one hand, the future is looking up for this proposal. On the other hand, there's the fight about the viaduct, mainly because of how to pay for it and where the money is coming from. This package together will total 11 _billion_ dollars. (At least, I believe that's the joint cost. It might just be ST's portion of the bill.) I'm split about what the voter response will be. Furthermore, Sound Transit's history is shaky, with major cost overruns plaguing it's first few years of life. The public tends to remember the failures and forget the successes (or take them for granted). I'm curious to know how that will affect the bill as well.

I'm optimistic by nature, so I believe it will pass. I also believe in the package itself, so my personal vote will be yes. But those don't keep me from looking at the larger regional picture and worry about some of the quirks politics.



getontrac said:


> 42 miles is meaningless figure in terms of money if we dont' know the alignment(s). At grade along existing RR ROW could be fairly inexpensive if build over a couple Federal cycles. Is that what you guys are looking at?


Most of the alignment has yet to be determined. Or I haven't seen an environmental impact statement yet on any alignment other than the portion to Northgate. Going south, I think most of it will be along SR 99, but whether that's in the median or elevated, I don't know. North, I have no clue. East it will be along I-90 over Lake Washington and then in a tunnel under downtown Bellevue. At least, the tunnel is the preferred option. Elevated and surface have also been studied.

So, I don't have specific information to the specifics of the ROW, and I think part of the plan is to use the money gained to complete EIS's and come to a hard decision on alignment.


----------



## guinessbeer55

I dont really care if its a tunnel, elevated, or at grade through downtown bellevue as long as it gets to redmond...


----------



## UrbanBen

*Let's talk about Link safety...*

There is a LOT of inaccurate information in this thread, and I think I can help with some of it.

Headways in the Rainier Valley will not get that low. The six-minute peak headway will serve the system for quite some time - the heavy ridership corridors are from Northgate to Seattle and Seattle to Bellevue, neither of which cross the Rainier segment. Trains are not in their own "lane" on the street, they are either slightly above or below street grade with curb separation - design standards here were significantly different from most at-grade light rail systems. A car can't simply wander into the train's lane. They do cross at streets, all of which are receiving new streetlights. Lights will be timed for the trains. You won't see significant numbers of accidents like you saw in Denver or Portland because the at-grade segment is not in a high density area, and there are very few large cross-streets. It's very, very clear to drivers that there's rail ahead - special lit signs will warn drivers.

Ridership is lowballed for the system, and any ridership projections you see today (unless otherwise labeled) are based only on Westlake to Sea-Tac. ST isn't allowed to overestimate ridership; they're using very conservative FTA modeling so they can get New Starts grants, one of which was secured for initial segment. Another is virtually assured for extension from Westlake north to Northgate, which will add 100,000 or more riders per day to the system by itself. Note that FTA models were most recently used for the new Hiawatha line in Minneapolis, which has beat projections by 40% - FTA models don't allow you to take into account new development, only existing conditions, as I understand it.

Maximum operating speed will be 55mph for grade-separated sections, and 35mph for at-grade. There wouldn't be a significant difference between 55 and 35 in the at-grade sections were they elevated; stations are close together. I've been told that total Westlake-SeaTac time would only be about three minutes shorter on with 55mph top speeds and separation, given the same station spacing.


----------



## Jaxom92

Thanks for clearing up that information, especially about the ridership projections. I don't know anything on how they are estimated, so it's nice to get a little info on that.


----------



## UrbanBen

ajmstilt said:


> Well going form memeroy here:
> 
> Dallas' DART was voted into existance in 1983, began rail construction construction in 1990, opened 11 miles in 96, 9 more miles in 97.
> 
> Today it has 43 miles,
> 
> Currently adding 45 or so miles to be done by 2013.
> 
> so roughly First 20 miles took 7 years, next 20ish miles took 7 more years, and 45 more will be added 10 years after that...
> 
> So yeah SoundTransit *could* do it.
> 
> However (and I'm going back to DART b/c that's what i know) When DART was created plans were for almost 200 miles of rail.. that was dropped to 140... then 90... and that's about where we'll be 30 years after creation.


Whoa. Be careful about claiming Sound Transit "could" do something. DART is built in completely different geography as well as using different funding sources. A lot of Sound Transit's project is underground: we have several very steep hills and a lot of existing high-density development that precludes building at or above grade. Dallas had a lot of options that Seattle does not.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> Thanks for clearing up that information, especially about the ridership projections. I don't know anything on how they are estimated, so it's nice to get a little info on that.


No problem. 

Alignment for East Link is approximate for now. Check out the project maps in the right-hand column on this page:
http://soundtransit.org/x3245.xml

Note that as with all projects, several alternatives are presented, including several at-grade sections, but cost projections for East Link are being based on elevated alignments with and without a tunnel under downtown Bellevue.


----------



## Jaxom92

I wasn't aware that they had maps on those pages. I have seen the maps before from a flier in the mail, but it's good to get more detailed maps. I know that Bellevue would prefer a tunnel and is vehemently opposed to an at grade option. I doubt Sound Transit will go for the at grade option, but I'm not there looking at the data, and a EIS has yet to be completed, so the final decision is still up in the air.

One of the biggest problems with light rail in Seattle is the topography and the necessity of tunnels for the majority of the alignment. It makes the project extremely expensive. Hopefully we won't have similar problems with tunneling that Portland had in their west hills. It seems to me it was a poor job on the geotechnic work, but that's an outsider relatively uniformed opinion. For the initial segment, it seems the tunneling is going fine, as the only portion of new tunnel is Beacon Hill. There was the accident and death, but that's not a geologic problem as seen in Portland.

Actually, it's questionable to consider it a problem beyond the monetary cost, considering tunnels reduce the surface footprint projects. It also allows for the trains to travel at maximum speed (barring physical impediments such as corners). It will decrease the travel time over a long distance even though the stations mitigate much of that gain over shorter distances.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> I wasn't aware that they had maps on those pages. I have seen the maps before from a flier in the mail, but it's good to get more detailed maps. I know that Bellevue would prefer a tunnel and is vehemently opposed to an at grade option. I doubt Sound Transit will go for the at grade option, but I'm not there looking at the data, and a EIS has yet to be completed, so the final decision is still up in the air.
> 
> One of the biggest problems with light rail in Seattle is the topography and the necessity of tunnels for the majority of the alignment. It makes the project extremely expensive. Hopefully we won't have similar problems with tunneling that Portland had in their west hills. It seems to me it was a poor job on the geotechnic work, but that's an outsider relatively uniformed opinion. For the initial segment, it seems the tunneling is going fine, as the only portion of new tunnel is Beacon Hill. There was the accident and death, but that's not a geologic problem as seen in Portland.
> 
> Actually, it's questionable to consider it a problem beyond the monetary cost, considering tunnels reduce the surface footprint projects. It also allows for the trains to travel at maximum speed (barring physical impediments such as corners). It will decrease the travel time over a long distance even though the stations mitigate much of that gain over shorter distances.


Jax, ST will certainly not go at-grade through downtown Bellevue - the only options under serious consideration there are elevated and tunneled. I don't know when the decision is likely to be made - a lot of the specific alignment decisions will happen after the vote. This is speculation on my part, but I suspect that's largely to keep from politicizing the route.

ST knows that a lot of Seattle's hills are clay, and is budgeting to that effect. Sure, there will be geologic issues - the Beacon Hill boring is going more slowly than it's supposed to be, for instance - and hitting a house-sized boulder will seriously mess with the schedule, but ST is learning from their experiences with Beacon Hill. I don't know what happend in Portland, though - can you fill me in a bit?

Personally, I see tunneling as the best option overall for urban or planned urban areas. Sure, south to the Airport is great elevated (and the view will be nice), and I think the same holds true for a few highway-aligned sections on the eastside, but anywhere that you are going to have decent pedestrian density, you have crossing issues for at-grade and shadow/noise issues for elevated systems. Your points are excellent - higher speed, lower surface footprint (allowing higher density development)... I'm glad North Seattle will be tunneled, and I do support a Bellevue tunnel for the same reasons.


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> This was part of my original point.
> 
> Almost nowhere does LRT run more frequently than 5 minute headways. 3 minutes with a mostly grade-seperated line is probably the practical limit....
> 
> ....I've got more on that later....
> 
> Nate


Nate, the low headway portions of Seattle's system will be entirely separated - headways will be lower in the Rainier Valley because the doubled-up section will be Northgate (and north of there) down to International District Station. South of there, some trains will go east to Bellevue and some will go down to the Rainier Valley; approximately doubling headways.


----------



## UrbanBen

alta-bc said:


> So Seattle can run 4 car trains (380ft) at a design capacity of 800 passengers total, every two minutes. Seattle is predicting 42,500 daily ridership by 2020 for the initial segment.
> 
> Vancouver can run 2 car trains (113ft) at a design capacity of 334 passengers total every 1 and a half minutes. Vancouver is predicting 140,000 to 150,000 daily ridership by 2020.
> 
> According to these numbers, either Seattle is totally overbuilding the LRT, or Vancouver is in for a system that is bursting at its seams from day one.


It's a little of both. Seattle won't be running 800-person trains to begin with, they'll be running 400-person (two car) trains. 42,500 passengers is with Initial Segment alone - we'll be looking at nearly 300,000 passengers per day with Sound Transit 2 built out, so we'll need that capacity.

Vancouver's 2020 is significantly lower than Seattle's 2020. Canada Line isn't being built for expansion, and Link is.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> I read somewhere that once the ridership grows there should be a minimum of 2 minute headways down from the opening of 6 minute headways in 2009 during peak hours. I can't imagine lot of trains passing the intersections in Sodo and Rainier Valley. Wouldn't that cause lot of congestion in car traffic when trains pass every 2 minutes? I wish it was grade seperated from traffic, though.


Phew. No way - Rainier Valley likely won't ever see headways lower than 5 minutes (they're not planned). Trains will operate at higher frequency through downtown, but most of those trains will then head to the eastside over I-90.


----------



## UrbanBen

mr.x said:


> The Seattle line has drivers right? That means with longer platforms, you can add capacity by having longer trains by building longer platforms instead of hiring more drivers....which is more expensive and complex.....which also means frequency won't likely change.


Mr. X, frequency is planned to go up to every 2.4 minutes through downtown, according to ST's 2005 long range plan.

(Hey, sorry if I'm flooding the thread - hopefully commenters are getting notification that they've been replied to.)


----------



## spongeg

seattle has never really had anything like the LRT so its really an unknown for the people of the city and the impact it will have in the coming years

currently people may say nah i probably won;t use it but oen day when they are sitting stuck in traffic and see the thing whiz by they may change their mind

and once given a chance to see just how good a service it can be they may change their minds


----------



## Slartibartfas

I saw that many posts in this thread are about accidents with light rail trains.

Those accidents are tragic, and one should do actively something in order to reduce their numbers. But to use it as argument why public transport is "dangerous" is in my eyes dead wrong. I am not sure anyone did so, but just in case someone did.

I think the number of accidents will decreas once people are used to this new form of transport.

My question would be, how fast those ligt railway trains cross intersections? And are the intersections kept free for those trains in block, in order to be able to drive through without even once stopping in front of a crossing? Or is it just that those trains get green light first, but have also wait from time to time?


I just have the comparision with Vienna. It has one of the largest tram networks in the world. No idea how many crossings, but a vast number for sure. Accidents with trams happen every now and then. Sometimes they are letal. But I can not remember that it is less secure than cars. 

Its simple, if you cross railways (no matter if you are a biker, pedestrian or car driver), you _always have to look if something is approaching. If you do so nothing can happen._


----------



## UrbanBen

Slartibartfas said:


> I saw that many posts in this thread are about accidents with light rail trains.
> 
> Those accidents are tragic, and one should do actively something in order to reduce their numbers. But to use it as argument why public transport is "dangerous" is in my eyes dead wrong. I am not sure anyone did so, but just in case someone did.
> 
> I think the number of accidents will decreas once people are used to this new form of transport.
> 
> My question would be, how fast those ligt railway trains cross intersections? And are the intersections kept free for those trains in block, in order to be able to drive through without even once stopping in front of a crossing? Or is it just that those trains get green light first, but have also wait from time to time?
> 
> 
> I just have the comparision with Vienna. It has one of the largest tram networks in the world. No idea how many crossings, but a vast number for sure. Accidents with trams happen every now and then. Sometimes they are letal. But I can not remember that it is less secure than cars.
> 
> Its simple, if you cross railways (no matter if you are a biker, pedestrian or car driver), you _always have to look if something is approaching. If you do so nothing can happen._


_

There's another interesting aspect of mass transit and safety that I think a lot of people miss:

A handful of accidents with two or three fatalities over many years (like Portland or Denver) is vastly lower than the dozens of annual fatalities you'd get with the same number of people in cars.

It's all about asking the right question: For the number of people who switch to transit when you install rail, is it safer to have them on a light rail train at-grade, or in their cars? Frame the argument in an appropriate context and the debate disappears._


----------



## kub86

UrbanBen said:


> Mr. X, frequency is planned to go up to every 2.4 minutes through downtown, according to ST's 2005 long range plan.
> 
> (Hey, sorry if I'm flooding the thread - hopefully commenters are getting notification that they've been replied to.)


Oh this is exciting news! I think I understand the system now. 

So if all built out, the trains with frequencies of 5 minutes in Rainier Valley and bellevue will "merge" at Int'l Station and continue north at 2.5 minute frequencies? Sweeet. By then, hopefully the buses will have cleared out because I can't imagine short frequencies mixed with buses in the bus tunnel.

So in theory, at Northgate, you can board an "airport train" or a "bellevue train?"

Phew. Now I'm not worried anymore about Rainier Valley ruining everything.


----------



## UrbanBen

kub86 said:


> Oh this is exciting news! I think I understand the system now.
> 
> So if all built out, the trains with frequencies of 5 minutes in Rainier Valley and bellevue will "merge" at Int'l Station and continue north at 2.5 minute frequencies? Sweeet. By then, hopefully the buses will have cleared out because I can't imagine short frequencies mixed with buses in the bus tunnel.
> 
> So in theory, at Northgate, you can board an "airport train" or a "bellevue train?"
> 
> Phew. Now I'm not worried anymore about Rainier Valley ruining everything.


Haha! Glad I've allayed your fears. 

At build-out (according to the '05 long range plan), you'll be able to board three kinds of trains at Everett, southbound: Tacoma trains (via SeaTac) every 5 minutes, Redmond trains (via Bellevue) every 7 (maybe 7.5?) minutes, and Issaquah trains (that hit Mercer Island and Eastgate) every 15 minutes. Combined, this gives you a little over 2 minutes.

I believe you're right that buses will be kicked out of the tunnel as headways decrease - I've heard that from more than one person. At that point, I should hope to see 3rd Avenue closed to cars entirely, but that's just me.


----------



## getontrac

UrbanBen,

Thanks for filling in some more details.

I'm not that familiar with Seattle, but your premise that the ridership figures are low-balled goes back to my initial concerns. How can this system possibly handle increased loads? LRT simply doesn't have that capacity with losing efficiency and rising per capita costs.

The 200 crush load for the train is non-sense. That's a vast overestimation. Studies show passengers WILL NOT tolerate loads like that as a routine. The 200 number is ridiculously high anyway. In Baltimore, the cars are 95 feet long, much wider, with 84 seats, and a crush load rating of 176.

Studies like those done at publictransit.us show that American ridership flattens between 90 and 100 for a 75-foot long Metro car, except where transportation conditions are extremely unfavorable otherwise (like NYC or Boston). Even in Chicago they rarely reach the estimated "crush". LRT tends to have lower loading tolerabilities than HRT, so for a (narrow) 95-foot LRT car, 120 people is probably the most reasonable routine rush-hour load to be expect. This is only about 60% of the idealized capacity of the system.

To reitterate (sorry): Knowing that LRT is difficult to operate below 5 minute headways without sacrificing reliability and/or speed, I don't see how this system won't either a) have ridership shortfalls, b) be overcapicity on day 1, or c) a combination of both. Everything says this line needs to be HRT to absorb long-term growth (if not immediately).

Thanks,
Nate


----------



## guinessbeer55

getontrac said:


> UrbanBen,
> 
> Thanks for filling in some more details.
> 
> I'm not that familiar with Seattle, but your premise that the ridership figures are low-balled goes back to my initial concerns. How can this system possibly handle increased loads? LRT simply doesn't have that capacity with losing efficiency and rising per capita costs.
> 
> The 200 crush load for the train is non-sense. That's a vast overestimation. Studies show passengers WILL NOT tolerate loads like that as a routine. The 200 number is ridiculously high anyway. In Baltimore, the cars are 95 feet long, much wider, with 84 seats, and a crush load rating of 176.
> 
> Studies like those done at publictransit.us show that American ridership flattens between 90 and 100 for a 75-foot long Metro car, except where transportation conditions are extremely unfavorable otherwise (like NYC or Boston). Even in Chicago they rarely reach the estimated "crush". LRT tends to have lower loading tolerabilities than HRT, so for a (narrow) 95-foot LRT car, 120 people is probably the most reasonable routine rush-hour load to be expect. This is only about 60% of the idealized capacity of the system.
> 
> To reitterate (sorry): Knowing that LRT is difficult to operate below 5 minute headways without sacrificing reliability and/or speed, I don't see how this system won't either a) have ridership shortfalls, b) be overcapicity on day 1, or c) a combination of both. Everything says this line needs to be HRT to absorb long-term growth (if not immediately).
> 
> Thanks,
> Nate


theyre not expecting 200 people on each car... thats just the absolute maximum each car can hold...


----------



## kub86

getontrac said:


> The 200 crush load for the train is non-sense. That's a vast overestimation. Studies show passengers WILL NOT tolerate loads like that as a routine. The 200 number is ridiculously high anyway. In Baltimore, the cars are 95 feet long, much wider, with 84 seats, and a crush load rating of 176.


Actually, 200 is about right for a car its size. Bombardier's site claims the minneapolis cars (same size as Seattle's) can fit 246. It's a combo of how many seats and how many standees / meter2 you use. Minneapolis has 66 seats and uses 6pax/m2. Seattle has 74 seats and uses 5pax/m2. Baltimore has more seats, and if you take out 8 of them, you'll have 200 capacity too. Some cities in Europe use 8pax/m2 to calculate crush loads.


----------



## kub86

getontrac said:


> To reitterate (sorry): Knowing that LRT is difficult to operate below 5 minute headways without sacrificing reliability and/or speed, I don't see how this system won't either a) have ridership shortfalls, b) be overcapicity on day 1, or c) a combination of both. Everything says this line needs to be HRT to absorb long-term growth (if not immediately).
> 
> Thanks,
> Nate


We're currently building probably the least-projected-ridership part of our system right now (seems backwards to me). So yeah, in my opinion, on day 1, it'll be under capacity. The only crush loads seattle will experience are from stadium games, and maybe after the extension to northgate. But crushloads there should disappear if frequencies are changed from 6 minutes to 3 minutes since that portion is grade-separated.


----------



## kub86

UrbanBen said:


> Haha! Glad I've allayed your fears.
> 
> At build-out (according to the '05 long range plan), you'll be able to board three kinds of trains at Everett, southbound: Tacoma trains (via SeaTac) every 5 minutes, Redmond trains (via Bellevue) every 7 (maybe 7.5?) minutes, and Issaquah trains (that hit Mercer Island and Eastgate) every 15 minutes. Combined, this gives you a little over 2 minutes.
> 
> I believe you're right that buses will be kicked out of the tunnel as headways decrease - I've heard that from more than one person. At that point, I should hope to see 3rd Avenue closed to cars entirely, but that's just me.


I think I just read the most recent plan (dec 06)...and Everett wasn't involved. It only went up to Lynnwood. Redmond has 1st priority for lightrail and Everett is 2nd, while Issaquah and Redmond via 520 are being studied for "high-capacity transit".

There are 3 lines:
1. Northgate - Port of Tacoma:...........4 car-trains 10mn peak; 15 offpeak
2. Lynnwood - Overlake via Bellevue:..4 car-trains 6mn peak; 15 offpeak
3. Lynnwood - Kent-Des Moines Rd:.....3 car-trains 15mn day; 20 night

So the northgate - downtown segment will have about 3 minute headways peak combined while offpeak will have about 5 minute headways!

I found it on one of their December reports online.

i made a simple map that shows the breakdown of the 3 lines with some stops. Of course this is waaay into the future and most likely will change.


----------



## greg_christine

kub86 said:


> I think I just read the most recent plan (dec 06)...and Everett wasn't involved. It only went up to Lynnwood. Redmond has 1st priority for lightrail and Everett is 2nd, while Issaquah and Redmond via 520 are being studied for "high-capacity transit".
> 
> There are 3 lines:
> 1. Northgate - Port of Tacoma:...........4 car-trains 10mn peak; 15 offpeak
> 2. Lynnwood - Overlake via Bellevue:..4 car-trains 6mn peak; 15 offpeak
> 3. Lynnwood - Kent-Des Moines Rd:.....3 car-trains 15mn day; 20 night
> 
> So the northgate - downtown segment will have about 3 minute headways peak combined while offpeak will have about 5 minute headways!
> 
> I found it on one of their December reports online.
> 
> i made a simple map that shows the breakdown of the 3 lines with some stops. Of course this is waaay into the future and most likely will change.



Thanks for the map! This is consistent with my understanding for the lines that are being considered for funding under the regional roads and transit ballot measure that is to be on the ballot in November. Extending the system to Everett and Issaquah has been discussed but is not on the immediate planning horizon.

The mix of train headways results in a total of 20 trains per hour through central Seattle, which should be readily feasible. An important factor impacting the minimum headways between trains is the amount of time required to reverse a train. A four-car Central Link train will be about 360 feet in length. At a steady 3 mph walking speed, it will require the driver about one minute and twenty seconds just to walk the length of the train. This leaves little time for other actions that are necessary to reverse a train. I see this issue presently being agonized over in Los Angeles where trains will have to reverse out of Metro Center station every two and a half minutes once the Blue Line and Expo Lines are both at capacity. There are some things that can be done to gain more time for train reversals. One option is to have the trains alternate tracks so that a train arrives on the right-hand track and the next train arrives on the left-hand track while the first train is being reversed. This approach makes a lot of sense as long as the station has a central platform between the tracks. Another option is to have one more driver than the number of trains so that a driver walks the length of the platform while a driver from the previous train reverses his train out of the station.

A more complicated issue is how to reverse a train mid-route as will be necessary at Northgate. The Metro in Washington, DC has a third set of tracks at some stations specifically for this purpose. Perhaps Sound Transit is planning to do something similar at Northgate.

The reversal of trains is one area where fully automated systems such as Vancouver Skytrain have a major advantage. Such systems can achieve headways of 90 seconds or even shorter in some cases.


----------



## kub86

greg_christine said:


> Thanks for the map! Extending the system to Everett and Issaquah has been discussed but is not on the immediate planning horizon.
> 
> A more complicated issue is how to reverse a train mid-route as will be necessary at Northgate. The Metro in Washington, DC has a third set of tracks at some stations specifically for this purpose. Perhaps Sound Transit is planning to do something similar at Northgate.
> 
> The reversal of trains is one area where fully automated systems such as Vancouver Skytrain have a major advantage. Such systems can achieve headways of 90 seconds or even shorter in some cases.


I just updated my map right after you posted. Anyway, what about a stub tunnel? Is that the 3rd rail you're talking about? That's what they're doing in downtown for reversing (which will probably be unused once north link is built). That's probably what they'll do for northgate.


----------



## greg_christine

kub86 said:


> I just updated my map right after you posted. Anyway, what about a stub tunnel? Is that the 3rd rail you're talking about? That's what they're doing in downtown for reversing (which will probably be unused once north link is built). That's probably what they'll do for northgate.


My guess is that the procedure for reversing trains in the rebuilt transit tunnel will be to first deposit passengers at the northbound platform, then proceed into the stub tunnel where the train will cross over onto the opposite track, and then proceed back into the station to pick up passengers at the southbound platform. My understanding is that the stub tunnel will eventually be part of the line to the University of Washington and points north.

On the Washington Metro, there actually is a third set of tracks at the stations that are used to reverse trains at intermediate points along the line. The following photo shows a train on the reversing track at the Silver Spring Metro Station on the Red Line:










Similar reversing tracks exist at Grosvenor Station on the Red Line and Fort Totten Station on the Green/Yellow Line. At both of those stations, the reversing tracks are in tunnels and are not readily visible from the platforms. There may be other stations on the Washington Metro that also have reversing tracks.


----------



## Jaxom92

I've seen a method used where a cross over track exists just before the end station so that trains can alternate which side of the platform they stop at. Once underway, they'll use the same cross over in order to put themselves on the correct set of tracks.

This is a new construction photo of the station at International Blvd in Tukwilla. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I just thought I'd add it in.










As for your request for more information about the problems in Portland, UrbanBen, I'll have to find specific information. I'm only generally aware that there were delays due to unforseen soil conditions. Again, specifics will need further research, but I should be able to search around for it. If I can't find it on the web, I'll be in Portland in a few weeks and can surely poke around in person.


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> UrbanBen,
> 
> Thanks for filling in some more details.
> 
> I'm not that familiar with Seattle, but your premise that the ridership figures are low-balled goes back to my initial concerns. How can this system possibly handle increased loads? LRT simply doesn't have that capacity with losing efficiency and rising per capita costs.
> 
> The 200 crush load for the train is non-sense. That's a vast overestimation. Studies show passengers WILL NOT tolerate loads like that as a routine. The 200 number is ridiculously high anyway. In Baltimore, the cars are 95 feet long, much wider, with 84 seats, and a crush load rating of 176.
> 
> Studies like those done at publictransit.us show that American ridership flattens between 90 and 100 for a 75-foot long Metro car, except where transportation conditions are extremely unfavorable otherwise (like NYC or Boston). Even in Chicago they rarely reach the estimated "crush". LRT tends to have lower loading tolerabilities than HRT, so for a (narrow) 95-foot LRT car, 120 people is probably the most reasonable routine rush-hour load to be expect. This is only about 60% of the idealized capacity of the system.
> 
> To reitterate (sorry): Knowing that LRT is difficult to operate below 5 minute headways without sacrificing reliability and/or speed, I don't see how this system won't either a) have ridership shortfalls, b) be overcapicity on day 1, or c) a combination of both. Everything says this line needs to be HRT to absorb long-term growth (if not immediately).
> 
> Thanks,
> Nate


Actually, 200 is the "routine" crush load. The absolute crush load of the vehicles was quoted to me today as 280.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> My guess is that the procedure for reversing trains in the rebuilt transit tunnel will be to first deposit passengers at the northbound platform, then proceed into the stub tunnel where the train will cross over onto the opposite track, and then proceed back into the station to pick up passengers at the southbound platform. My understanding is that the stub tunnel will eventually be part of the line to the University of Washington and points north.
> 
> On the Washington Metro, there actually is a third set of tracks at the stations that are used to reverse trains at intermediate points along the line. The following photo shows a train on the reversing track at the Silver Spring Metro Station on the Red Line:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar reversing tracks exist at Grosvenor Station on the Red Line and Fort Totten Station on the Green/Yellow Line. At both of those stations, the reversing tracks are in tunnels and are not readily visible from the platforms. There may be other stations on the Washington Metro that also have reversing tracks.


There are, in fact, a few of these third tracks along the system. There's one in SoDo, and one in the south Rainier Valley, just that I've seen built. I believe there's room for another in the northern Rainier Valley.


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> UrbanBen,
> 
> Thanks for filling in some more details.
> 
> I'm not that familiar with Seattle, but your premise that the ridership figures are low-balled goes back to my initial concerns. How can this system possibly handle increased loads? LRT simply doesn't have that capacity with losing efficiency and rising per capita costs.
> 
> The 200 crush load for the train is non-sense. That's a vast overestimation. Studies show passengers WILL NOT tolerate loads like that as a routine. The 200 number is ridiculously high anyway. In Baltimore, the cars are 95 feet long, much wider, with 84 seats, and a crush load rating of 176.
> 
> Studies like those done at publictransit.us show that American ridership flattens between 90 and 100 for a 75-foot long Metro car, except where transportation conditions are extremely unfavorable otherwise (like NYC or Boston). Even in Chicago they rarely reach the estimated "crush". LRT tends to have lower loading tolerabilities than HRT, so for a (narrow) 95-foot LRT car, 120 people is probably the most reasonable routine rush-hour load to be expect. This is only about 60% of the idealized capacity of the system.
> 
> To reitterate (sorry): Knowing that LRT is difficult to operate below 5 minute headways without sacrificing reliability and/or speed, I don't see how this system won't either a) have ridership shortfalls, b) be overcapicity on day 1, or c) a combination of both. Everything says this line needs to be HRT to absorb long-term growth (if not immediately).
> 
> Thanks,
> Nate


You know, let me address something here. We'll be operating our system at a minimum headway of 2.4 minutes upon buildout, when you start to see these loads. I'm not sure where you're getting some kind of inherent difference between LRT and HRT in minimum headway - is it possible you're confusing the term "LRT" with the definition "not grade separated"? The highest capacity portions of Link will be entirely grade separated.

How are you differentiating LRT and HRT, other than strict passenger capacity and overhead wire versus third rail (which is the most common distinction I'm aware of).


----------



## kub86

Will there be any sort of fare gates at the stations? The driver can't check...so will this be an honor system with random sweeps?


----------



## getontrac

UrbanBen said:


> Actually, 200 is the "routine" crush load. The absolute crush load of the vehicles was quoted to me today as 280.


I'm claiming that this value has no practical usefulness in any sense.

Observation of exisiting conditions do not reveal systems that exhibit 200 people per "routine" load, like rush hour. It doesn't happen, except in the busiest densest cities like NYC, and even then rarely at 200 people per 95-foot car. I think an estimate of 120 is pretty reasonable for Seattle, a little higher than average. In Baltimore, on our 75-foot, 10+foot wide Metro cars, when there are 100 people on board per car at rush you are bumping and brushing up against people. At this point, most would subjectively consider this tight for refererence purposes.

This has significant determinants on capacity, pariticularly peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded location. Do you have numbers for that?

Nate


----------



## getontrac

UrbanBen said:


> You know, let me address something here. We'll be operating our system at a minimum headway of 2.4 minutes upon buildout, when you start to see these loads. I'm not sure where you're getting some kind of inherent difference between LRT and HRT in minimum headway - is it possible you're confusing the term "LRT" with the definition "not grade separated"? The highest capacity portions of Link will be entirely grade separated.
> 
> How are you differentiating LRT and HRT, other than strict passenger capacity and overhead wire versus third rail (which is the most common distinction I'm aware of).


If the system is set up the way it appears in the above color maps, than my point may be moot. If the the high-frequency service areas are all grade seperated, than the concern diminishes somewhat.

Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!

I would consider HRT at minimum to be exclusive ROW with no auto or pedestrian crossings and high-platform cars. This is not necessarily full grade-seperation as the FRA would require it, but a few "HRT" systems operate as such like Chicago and PATH with at grade line crossovers and sharing with other systems.

I'd simply like to see some numbers, because I'm very skeptical about whether this system will be able to handle the loads properly, or whether the numbers are accurate and not inflated.

Any other technical data you may have would be helpful. I've never been to Seattle, so have mercy on my ignorance of your metro area. I've read numbers and looked at maps a bit, but despite not being actually familiar, I feel my points are cogent.

Thanks,
Nate


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> I'm claiming that this value has no practical usefulness in any sense.
> 
> Observation of exisiting conditions do not reveal systems that exhibit 200 people per "routine" load, like rush hour. It doesn't happen, except in the busiest densest cities like NYC, and even then rarely at 200 people per 95-foot car. I think an estimate of 120 is pretty reasonable for Seattle, a little higher than average. In Baltimore, on our 75-foot, 10+foot wide Metro cars, when there are 100 people on board per car at rush you are bumping and brushing up against people. At this point, most would subjectively consider this tight for refererence purposes.
> 
> This has significant determinants on capacity, pariticularly peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded location. Do you have numbers for that?
> 
> Nate


I think you're looking at the 200 maximum number and thinking that has something to do with ridership projections. It doesn't. That's just the maximum rated capacity of the vehicles. All our stations are built for 4-car trains, so a "reasonable" load would be 450-500 people.

I don't have information about peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded direction, but Sound Transit does. You'd want to email them: http://soundtransit.org/x2161.xml


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> If the system is set up the way it appears in the above color maps, than my point may be moot. If the the high-frequency service areas are all grade seperated, than the concern diminishes somewhat.
> 
> Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!
> 
> I would consider HRT at minimum to be exclusive ROW with no auto or pedestrian crossings and high-platform cars. This is not necessarily full grade-seperation as the FRA would require it, but a few "HRT" systems operate as such like Chicago and PATH with at grade line crossovers and sharing with other systems.
> 
> I'd simply like to see some numbers, because I'm very skeptical about whether this system will be able to handle the loads properly, or whether the numbers are accurate and not inflated.
> 
> Any other technical data you may have would be helpful. I've never been to Seattle, so have mercy on my ignorance of your metro area. I've read numbers and looked at maps a bit, but despite not being actually familiar, I feel my points are cogent.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nate


Hm. Well, the only high-density parts of the line are indeed completely grade-separated. Once you get south of downtown, the Rainier Valley is pretty low-density (and low car ownership). That map looks accurate to me - there's not going to be high frequency travel in the at-grade portions because there won't need to be for decades. By the time we need grade separation there, we'll have the density to separate or close the crossings.


----------



## kub86

getontrac said:


> Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!


30,000? I'm not familiar with passenger miles/route mile or how it's calculated. But with about 42,000 people using 15 miles of track; that's 2,800 pax/mile. Compared to 5000 for Houston and 8000 for Boston. When UW link is built, it should double to over 5000.


----------



## greg_christine

The passenger capacity numbers seem to vary widely depending on the source. A couple of years ago, the Seattle Times ran an article that was critical of the now defunct Seattle Monorail Project for projecting a passenger capacity of 206 passengers for a two-car Hitachi monorail train. The Seattle Planning Commission took the position that the capacity should be 155. The full article can be viewed at the following link:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...&date=20051011&query=monorail+new+york+subway

The article featured the following graphic:










The graphic shows the capacity of a four-car Central Link light rail train as 592 people, which works out to be 148 people per car. The capacity of a two-car Portland MAX light rail train is given as 266 people, which works out to be 133 people per car. Both numbers are well shy of the 200 people that is sometimes cited as the capacity of a Central Link light rail car.

The following are the dimensions for the Hitachi monorail train:
Length: 107 feet
Width: 9.5 ft
# of Seats: 70

The following are the dimensions for the Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles to be used for Central Link:
Length: 95 feet
Width: 8.7 ft
# of Seats: 74

The monorail train is longer and wider than the light rail vehicle but it should also be noted that the monorail train was to be totally automated with no cabs at the ends and the floor of the monorail train was entirely flat. By comparison, each light rail vehicle loses space to cabs for drivers at both ends and has a stepped floor design.

Based on the adverse comments concerning crowding on the monorail train with 208 passengers and the comparison of the dimensions with the Central Link light rail vehicles, I would conclude that the light rail vehicles would not be very comfortable with 200 passengers.


----------



## getontrac

^Informative chart.

Based on the evidence, 148 per a narrow 95-foot car is still probably not realistic, given the evidence of other transit agencies (unless Seattle (potential) riders are more willing to tolerate high crowding as a daily commute--a possibility(?)). This chart implies as many standees as seated--pretty darn crowded.

---

"Passenger-miles/route miles" is the most sigificant statistic that is used to justify higher modes of transit e.g. (van<bus<tic-bus<streetcar<mixed-traffic LRT<exclusive ROW LRT<grade seperated station elevated/tunnel LRT<HRT) because they would have an operational economy versus a lower mode.

It is a measure of system utilization and ridership density. It essentially measures how many people are using the system for a given distance throughout the day.

Passenger-miles/route miles are calculuted by multiplying daily ridership by the average travel distance (ATD) of the passengers, in other words, the distance the average rider travels per trip. That product is divided my the total route miles of the system.

Experience and studies have born out that to operate HRT more efficiently than a lower mode, you'd generally need at least 12,000-13,000 passenger-miles per route mile. (There are also studies that factor in capital costs into the figure).

"Passengers/route mile" is a useful stat to gauge the number of riders controlled for the length of track, but the former statistic is most useful in determining system performance.

The factor that can dictate which mode *must* be constructed is capacity. HRT is the only choice in some cities, because LRT _can't_ handle the capacity due to grade seperation issues and low-platform cars limit service frequency. (One could use lots of buses, but that would be quite expensive to operate--that's directed at you, Wendell Cox.)

All this had lead me to the questions about the Seattle system. I'm trying to determine why modes in new projects have been selected as they have. Seattle certainly paid a high price for LRT.

Thus far, the only system built as LRT in the US that I feel should have been built as HRT is the new L.A. Gold Line. That could have been an extension of their Red Line, but they had a ban on HRT. I'm still looking at Seattle and wondering. (The Baltimore Central Light Rail should never have been built.)

Does the entire system have high-platform stations?

Nate

EDIT:"30,000? I'm not familiar with passenger miles/route mile or how it's calculated. But with about 42,000 people using 15 miles of track; that's 2,800 pax/mile. Compared to 5000 for Houston and 8000 for Boston. When UW link is built, it should double to over 5000."

2,800 might not sound like much, but if the average person is riding 7 miles, that would give it a high system utilization. Most systems don't have an ATD that high. I think that if one back calculates the FTA's New Starts data on Link LR, one must conclude that the ATD is quite high to acheive the kind of time-savings, in hours, ST claims to acheive with the line. And time savings is the key metric in cost-effectiveness, which is the key component of Project Justification, which is the largest piece to getting the federal bacon along with your operating expense plan......


----------



## guinessbeer55

getontrac said:


> Does the entire system have high-platform stations?
> 
> Nate


I read somewhere that they were 14inch platforms...


----------



## kub86

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point now.

Maybe you might just have a problem with the fact that we're calling it LRT? 

Excluding Rainier Valley, we'll have 4-car articulated trains running at frequencies of 2.5-5 minutes underground from downtown to Northgate. That sounds like HRT to me. What would be the difference?

When compared to TRAX (utah's 18-mile line with 60,000 daily ridership) or MAX, where shorter trains are running at-grade with cars and pedestrians and maybe slower frequencies...you can see that Seattle's Central line is more HRT-oriented than LRT. ...That's just my opinion.

Also, what does platform height have to do with anything?


----------



## getontrac

High-platform cars allow _much_ quicker loading and unloading, which has an effect on service frequency. Rush hour LRT stops can have a very long station dwell time (like 45+ seconds). Quicker loading is esp. the case with wheelchair users. AFAIK, all HRT systems worldwide have high-platform. I know all those in the US have it. (I'd be interested to hear of those that don't ) 

On many stops of the Baltimore LR, the driver has to stop get out of his cab to lower the handi-cap lift.

Loading times for high-platform is generally half that for low-loading cars.

Seattle's certainly LRT, because it has to obey the speed limit on MLK. I estimate that portion of the line would be 50% faster elevated or tunneled. LRT has to build more contigency time into it's running schedule, knowing it will have more conflicts (it also must worry about accidents at intersections). The system cannot ever run automated. HRT is a closed system, so it only concerns itself with itself. 

Nate


----------



## getontrac

kub86 said:


> I think I just read the most recent plan (dec 06)...and Everett wasn't involved. It only went up to Lynnwood. Redmond has 1st priority for lightrail and Everett is 2nd, while Issaquah and Redmond via 520 are being studied for "high-capacity transit".
> 
> There are 3 lines:
> 1. Northgate - Port of Tacoma:...........4 car-trains 10mn peak; 15 offpeak
> 2. Lynnwood - Overlake via Bellevue:..4 car-trains 6mn peak; 15 offpeak
> 3. Lynnwood - Kent-Des Moines Rd:.....3 car-trains 15mn day; 20 night
> 
> So the northgate - downtown segment will have about 3 minute headways peak combined while offpeak will have about 5 minute headways!
> 
> I found it on one of their December reports online.
> 
> i made a simple map that shows the breakdown of the 3 lines with some stops. Of course this is waaay into the future and most likely will change.



3 minutes is pretty darn tight for high-speed LRT (unlike Boston/Philly/SF)--but near the practicable limit exhibited elsewhere. But someone mentioned 2.4 minutes earlier, so maybe the figures were rounded?

One accident on MLK, and the day is ruined for the whole system. hno: Well, several hours anyway. This is going to be a difficult system to keep on time, I bet.

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

I'm unsure of the definitions of high-platform, or low-loading cars, but each platform will be level with the boarding surface of the train. That is a special wheel chair ramp/lift is not required. The vehicle specs fact sheet says "low floors for easy, level boarding." You can see the whole vehicle spec sheet here:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/lightrail/central/CentralLinkVehicleSpecs.pdf

It sounds to me that we will have easy and quick boarding.

To answer the question about honor system on tickets, I'm fairly certain it will be such, with random checks. If Sound Transit continues to put a security guard on every train car like they do on Tacoma Link, then random checks won't exactly be random, but ensured.

As for the headways, I think it's reasonable predictions for an almost exclusively grade separated alignment. I don't think we'll be having as many problems on MLK way as some think. It'll be separated from the traffic and normal traffic lights will control traffic at crossings.

Tacoma Link is almost always on time, and they run in mixed traffic for a portion of the alignment, which is something I disagree with, incidentally. They only time I've seen a train seriously delayed there was yesterday when some police action was taking place and they required shutting down the line for five minutes as an ambulance came into the scene.


----------



## getontrac

Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is _flush_ with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.

I'm guessing Tacoma isn't or wasn't intended to be a "rapid transit" type system. Please, correct me if I'm wrong . The slower the trains run and more infrequent the service, the less there is a problem when something goes wrong. When you're running a high-speed system like what Link LR is intended to be--26mph average?--and uber-_tight_ headways, one ***** and the whole thing can go down on a 2-track system. (Thank God it's not like Baltimore's was until recently, only 2/3rds was 2-track. Half the time I rode the thing--it would stop mid-track, sometimes for more than 5 minutes--because of an accident, repairs, or just to let another train pass.)

I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work.  It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!:bash:  

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

No, Tacoma's system isn't supposed to be rapid. More street car like than light rail, though they call it light rail anyhow. And the headways are 10 minutes, which doesn't pose as many problems in the event of a service interruption as a 3 minute headway would.


----------



## kub86

getontrac said:


> I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work.  It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!:bash:
> 
> Nate


weakest link!! Ha, that's exactly what I originally thought. But I'm thinking this: Since the O&M facility or train barn is placed right between Downtown & Rainier Valley...in case something does go wrong on MLK, they can just make Lander St or SODO the temporary terminus, and have the trains enter/exit the O&M to not cause delay to the rest of the system. Will that work?


----------



## kub86

getontrac said:


> 3 minutes is pretty darn tight for high-speed LRT (unlike Boston/Philly/SF)--but near the practicable limit exhibited elsewhere. But someone mentioned 2.4 minutes earlier, so maybe the figures were rounded?
> 
> Nate


Concerning the 2.5min frequencies...I just did a mock-up timechart of the frequencies (I have a lot of time on my hands), and during peak-hour, it came out to a max 20 trains per hour. So that's 3 minute intervals---not 2.5. Off-peak was exactly 12 trains/hour in nice 5 minute intervals. That's for downtown.

In Rainier Valley, it's 6 minute peak and 7.5-10 minutes off-peak.


----------



## Jaxom92

getontrac said:


> Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is _flush_ with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.


I'm still unsure of the difference because our low-floor trains _will_ be flush with the station platform, hence why we will not require a special wheelchair ramp to deploy from either the train or the platform. It seems to me there are multiple methods to achieve the same effect. High platform to match a high floor train and low-platform to match a low floor train. It's just a matter of the height standard of either the train or the platform and conforming the other to meet it and thus create a flush boarding surface between the train and the platform.

As for the maintaince issues, I don't know anything about them. If a low-floor train is more difficult/costly to maintain, then a high-floor platform will be more cost-effective. (Even if the initial investment/capital costs of a high platform are higher than a low-floor train method, the long run cost-effectiveness will be higher.) But this cost-effectiveness has nothing to do with boarding speed and efficiency which again seems to be achievable via either method.


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is _flush_ with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.
> 
> I'm guessing Tacoma isn't or wasn't intended to be a "rapid transit" type system. Please, correct me if I'm wrong . The slower the trains run and more infrequent the service, the less there is a problem when something goes wrong. When you're running a high-speed system like what Link LR is intended to be--26mph average?--and uber-_tight_ headways, one ***** and the whole thing can go down on a 2-track system. (Thank God it's not like Baltimore's was until recently, only 2/3rds was 2-track. Half the time I rode the thing--it would stop mid-track, sometimes for more than 5 minutes--because of an accident, repairs, or just to let another train pass.)
> 
> I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work.  It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!:bash:
> 
> Nate


I really wish you'd step back and ask questions before making assumptions. Our system is flush with station platforms. There are no wheelchair ramps, there is no step up or down during boarding.

There's a serious problem here of attacking an improvement as "not good enough". Seattle has _buses_. We don't have any rail at all right now, and initial designs for this system were at more of a heavy metro level. We compromised, because construction cost inflation is ridiculous, to get _any system at all_. The warning system we've had in downtown Tacoma - much higher vehicle density than MLK - has had ZERO accidents in its several years of operation. We're using that same system with a higher degree of separation in MLK. Instead of focusing entirely on speculating about how awful vehicle traffic will be, could you take a moment to recognize that we're not making the same mistakes as Portland, Dallas and Denver?


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> I'm still unsure of the difference because our low-floor trains _will_ be flush with the station platform, hence why we will not require a special wheelchair ramp to deploy from either the train or the platform. It seems to me there are multiple methods to achieve the same effect. High platform to match a high floor train and low-platform to match a low floor train. It's just a matter of the height standard of either the train or the platform and conforming the other to meet it and thus create a flush boarding surface between the train and the platform.
> 
> As for the maintaince issues, I don't know anything about them. If a low-floor train is more difficult/costly to maintain, then a high-floor platform will be more cost-effective. (Even if the initial investment/capital costs of a high platform are higher than a low-floor train method, the long run cost-effectiveness will be higher.) But this cost-effectiveness has nothing to do with boarding speed and efficiency which again seems to be achievable via either method.


A low-floor train is slightly more costly to maintain, but the cost differential does not overwhelm the capital project cost differential of complete grade separation for 100+ years of operation.


----------



## UrbanBen

BoulderGrad said:


> Maybe they should fast-track the university link and northgate link so that its coming online soon after the viaduct closes for construction?


Who's "they"? Nobody can afford to fast-track without state support, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming.


----------



## getontrac

Rapid Transit doesn't necessarily reduce congestion. It more likely puts a lid on it. As more people ride Link, the more induction of driving and economic develop could occur to refill the interstates and through roads back up. 

It would certainly reduce traffic in a no growth scenario. Depending on "peak oil" issues and the like in the future, we may see growth rapidly decline.

Nate


----------



## getontrac

Again, not TOO familiar with Seattle's monorail plans/system. I know it has the one line (no interim stops, correct?).

I would avoid monorail as a form of rapid transit. It really only seams to work in select scenarios, like where only one track is needed like a short shuttle system. "Track" maintenance is apparently expensive, and switching tracks is not nearly as efficient as steel rail switches and interlockings. IMO, if more rapid transit expansions are the future of Seattle, stick with steel rail (light, hopefully heavy at some point).

Nate


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I think Light Rail project for Seattle is great! There are few things I am disappointed... One, they didn't put a station at Southcenter Mall which I think it should be added it would help reduce the traffic problem at that area and increase passengers on light rail trains. Two, they skipped a station at First Hill which I think it is really important to have a station there because that area has more than 22,000 workers and one of most dense neighborhoods in downtown Seattle area. I understand their reasons but still they can figure it out how to afford it. Three, it doesn't seen like it will go everywhere what most people wants to go to. 

I'm still upset that Seattle's monorail project died. I honestly think it will do great for City of Seattle for two reasons. It would solve the problem on Alaskan Viduct so we will not need elevated or tunnel highway at all because monorail will cover it since it has same route as highway 99. Second, it will make people's lives easier by able to go anywhere they want to go without being stuck in the traffic. I really think City of Seattle should try again with monorail of course new leaders and find better price for this project. 

Think about it if we have both light rail and monorail systems opened in 2009, most traffic issues in downtown Seattle area will be solved and reduce air pollution level.


----------



## guinessbeer55

I disagree... I think the monorails line was ridiculous... a line going from Ballard to West Seattle as a starter line wouldnt have served the city any good... Light rail(in the future hopefully heavy rail) is the way to go... and inner city streetcars serving the different neighborhoods of Seattle would be a bonus...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ If you think so, please explain why do I always see traffic jams on Denny from Ballard and I-5 from West Seattle? Monorail would solve that problem for sure.


----------



## Jaxom92

The monorail line would not completely solve the viaduct problem because a good portion of the traffic on the viaduct is through traffic not originating in downtown, West Seattle or Ballard nor having a destination in either of these locations. All this traffic would be pushed onto I-5 and surface streets and perhaps I-405 should an insufficient alternate be built (see the viaduct thread here:http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=427913). I don't necessarily disagree with the monorail, however. I do have problems with the way the project was handled, and as a result it has been unfortunately poisoned to the general population politically.

By the same logic, a light-rail line will not completely solve the traffic problem in general. When the system becomes more integrated with local bus lines and is built out more, then we might get a noticeable impact. As getontrac pointed out, a no-growth scenario is the only one where a reduction would be seen. In fact, given that another million people are expected in this region by about 2025, we'll more than likely see _increased_ congestion on our roads despite all we've done with mass transit up to that point.

However, a no-build scenario will significantly boost this increase, so I want to be clear this isn't an argument against light-rail or other forms of mass transit.



CrazyAboutCities said:


> If you think so, please explain why do I always see traffic jams on Denny from Ballard and I-5 from West Seattle? Monorail would solve that problem for sure.


Again, it will take some traffic off the streets, but won't take _all_ the traffic away. With the tremendous growth pressure in this region, and despite mass transit, we are unlikely to see significant reduction in traffic. Mitigation of the growth, yes. Reduction, no. Furthermore, the destination of a single line will not coincide with everyone's desired destination. As such, I think it is a too simplistic and somewhat unrealistic statement to say something will "solve that problem for sure."


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I think Light Rail project for Seattle is great! There are few things I am disappointed... One, they didn't put a station at Southcenter Mall which I think it should be added it would help reduce the traffic problem at that area and increase passengers on light rail trains. Two, they skipped a station at First Hill which I think it is really important to have a station there because that area has more than 22,000 workers and one of most dense neighborhoods in downtown Seattle area. I understand their reasons but still they can figure it out how to afford it. Three, it doesn't seen like it will go everywhere what most people wants to go to.
> 
> I'm still upset that Seattle's monorail project died. I honestly think it will do great for City of Seattle for two reasons. It would solve the problem on Alaskan Viduct so we will not need elevated or tunnel highway at all because monorail will cover it since it has same route as highway 99. Second, it will make people's lives easier by able to go anywhere they want to go without being stuck in the traffic. I really think City of Seattle should try again with monorail of course new leaders and find better price for this project.
> 
> Think about it if we have both light rail and monorail systems opened in 2009, most traffic issues in downtown Seattle area will be solved and reduce air pollution level.


On Southcenter: Go look at Google Maps. You'd have had to go south, then turn north again to get to the airport. Southcenter will be served in the 405 light rail corridor phase (probably phase 4) when Sound Transit builds from Lynnwood through Bothell, Kirkland, Renton, and Tukwila.

On First Hill: We would have lost the entire northern section of light rail if we had tried to build under First Hill. It's a 200 foot deep station in unstable clay soil; engineers said they'd have had to freeze the dirt the whole way down just to excavate. Again, you'd have had to turn south before going north to get there, too.


----------



## Jaxom92

Also, the cost of going to first hill and dealing with the extremely difficult soil conditions would be considerable, and it wasn't a risk Sound Transit was willing to take. I can understand this decision because of the history of cost overruns at the beginning of the agency's history as well as the problems that plagued the now-defunct monorail project.

To elaborate on the Southcenter station, Sound Transit will more than likely be looking at an I-405 route from the Tukwilla station to Bellevue with a station at Southcenter Mall. This isn't in the plans for ST2, but the agency has designated the route as a possible high-capacity transit corridor. We could call this ST3. Unfortunately, it will be some time before this becomes a reality.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Jaxom92 said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with the monorail, however. I do have problems with the way the project was handled, and as a result it has been unfortunately poisoned to the general population politically.


I agree completely with you about the way that monorail project handled. I am not happy about that. I honestly believe that monorail project could have another chance if City of Seattle re-structure the organization such as replace leaders and staff. Who knows if new people came along and make it happen for less and able to provide better route that will make most people around here more satisfied. 



Jaxom92 said:


> By the same logic, a light-rail line will not completely solve the traffic problem in general. When the system becomes more integrated with local bus lines and is built out more, then we might get a noticeable impact. As getontrac pointed out, a no-growth scenario is the only one where a reduction would be seen. In fact, given that another million people are expected in this region by about 2025, we'll more than likely see _increased_ congestion on our roads despite all we've done with mass transit up to that point.


That is very true because it will not go everywhere people wants to go to. It could reduce I-5 freeway traffics some since it go almost same route as I-5 freeway.

I think City of Seattle should think about having public transit system long time ago before Seattle boom. I guess no one really think Seattle is going to be big city within future at their time. It happened to many cities across the nation before their ciites get bigger. 



Jaxom92 said:


> However, a no-build scenario will significantly boost this increase, so I want to be clear this isn't an argument against light-rail or other forms of mass transit.


I am not arguing with anyone here. I just want to share my opinions and want to understand it. That's all.  By the way, I am not against any public transit projects around here. These projects have my 100% support. I just expressed my concerns about these projects. I think some of it could get better if it designed more thoughtful and think about what people needs. That's all.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

UrbanBen said:


> On Southcenter: Go look at Google Maps. You'd have had to go south, then turn north again to get to the airport. Southcenter will be served in the 405 light rail corridor phase (probably phase 4) when Sound Transit builds from Lynnwood through Bothell, Kirkland, Renton, and Tukwila.
> 
> On First Hill: We would have lost the entire northern section of light rail if we had tried to build under First Hill. It's a 200 foot deep station in unstable clay soil; engineers said they'd have had to freeze the dirt the whole way down just to excavate. Again, you'd have had to turn south before going north to get there, too.


Are you serious? I never heard anything about that before. Can you please give me the reference for possible phase four. BTW, I looked at google map a while ago, its very old. It was took pictures in around 2002 I think. 

I completely understand about First Hill situation. I still think it is very important to have it included too. Last time I heard that they plan to add something to connect to First Hill to Westlake Center station. I haven't hear anything about it for a while.


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Are you serious? I never heard anything about that before. Can you please give me the reference for possible phase four. BTW, I looked at google map a while ago, its very old. It was took pictures in around 2002 I think.
> 
> I completely understand about First Hill situation. I still think it is very important to have it included too. Last time I heard that they plan to add something to connect to First Hill to Westlake Center station. I haven't hear anything about it for a while.


The reason I'm suggesting you look at Google Maps is to get an idea of how far off course light rail would have to go to get to Southcenter. The station locations are all on Sound Transit's web site.

The Sound Transit 2 draft package includes a streetcar to connect Broadway and John streets (Capitol Hill Station) with 5th and Jackson streets (International District Station) via First Hill. It doesn't sound like you've looked at that package - have a look!

It's project N07a on this page: http://soundtransit.org/x3951.xml


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

UrbanBen said:


> The reason I'm suggesting you look at Google Maps is to get an idea of how far off course light rail would have to go to get to Southcenter. The station locations are all on Sound Transit's web site.
> 
> The Sound Transit 2 draft package includes a streetcar to connect Broadway and John streets (Capitol Hill Station) with 5th and Jackson streets (International District Station) via First Hill. It doesn't sound like you've looked at that package - have a look!
> 
> It's project N07a on this page: http://soundtransit.org/x3951.xml


I understand now. Thanks for being patience with me. Hehe! 

I looked at Sound Transit 2 draft package a while ago but I didn't see a streetcar to connect Broadway and John streets with 5th and Jackson street at that time. I think they just added it a while ago. I tried to find the details on that streetcar on that website. It is seem like they haven't put the details about it yet. I think adding third streetcar is great news!


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I understand now. Thanks for being patience with me. Hehe!
> 
> I looked at Sound Transit 2 draft package a while ago but I didn't see a streetcar to connect Broadway and John streets with 5th and Jackson street at that time. I think they just added it a while ago. I tried to find the details on that streetcar on that website. It is seem like they haven't put the details about it yet. I think adding third streetcar is great news!


Heh! Yeah, me too. Connecting them all will be pretty easy as we add more.


----------



## Jaxom92

If ST2 is passed in November, environmental impact statements will be pursued for every part of the approved extensions/projects, including the streetcar, so the details will probably be released at that time.

And I didn't think you were arguing about mass transit and the like, Crazy, just trying to make sure everything is clear.

Here are some news releases from today...

*Sound Transit Begins Intensive Light Rail Testing:*
http://www.soundtransit.org/x4961.xml

*Sound Transit Wins Federal Transit Administration Award:*
http://www.soundtransit.org/x5048.xml


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I will vote yes on that ballot. I support public transit system.

I have some concerns about light rail system. It said it will be very quiet. I know it is relief for many people who lives near the light rail route will not have to hear the trains all the time. I'm more concerned about the safety. I think the trains should add some sounds to warn people that trains are coming. Also I think the trains should add flashers for the Deaf so they can see that trains are coming. Also it is not just for the Deaf, its can help for people who are addicted to ipod and unable to hear the trains coming... They can see the flashers.


----------



## guinessbeer55

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ I will vote yes on that ballot. I support public transit system.
> 
> I have some concerns about light rail system. It said it will be very quiet. I know it is relief for many people who lives near the light rail route will not have to hear the trains all the time. I'm more concerned about the safety. I think the trains should add some sounds to warn people that trains are coming. Also I think the trains should add flashers for the Deaf so they can see that trains are coming. Also it is not just for the Deaf, its can help for people who are addicted to ipod and unable to hear the trains coming... They can see the flashers.


WHY IS AMERICA SO SCARED OF EVERYTHING!!!!!! Im sorry but in Europe people pay attention to their surroundings its too damn bad if they get hit by a train they should have been paying attention... Sorry its just my opinion 

And Im definatly gonna vote too


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

guinessbeer55 said:


> WHY IS AMERICA SO SCARED OF EVERYTHING!!!!!! Im sorry but in Europe people pay attention to their surroundings its too damn bad if they get hit by a train they should have been paying attention... Sorry its just my opinion
> 
> And Im definatly gonna vote too


I agree. Not every American will pay attention to anything which is why it should add something that will alert them. Do not forget about blind/deaf-blind people too. Seattle is known as largest deaf-blind community in the nation. I think it should provides special kind of alert system for that kind of people.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> ...
> The Sound Transit 2 draft package includes a streetcar to connect Broadway and John streets (Capitol Hill Station) with 5th and Jackson streets (International District Station) via First Hill. It doesn't sound like you've looked at that package - have a look!
> 
> It's project N07a on this page: http://soundtransit.org/x3951.xml


I just looked at the webpage at the above link. The line item for the Capitol Hill project is a link to a PDF file titled "Enhanced Transit: Streetcar or Bus Connection between Downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill Station via First Hill (John Street) (Seattle)". The PDF file can be found at the following link:

http://soundtransit.org/Documents/p...Seattle_to_Capitol_Hill_via_First_Hill_DP.pdf

The document provides the following numbers for the streetcar and bus options:

Average Weekday Ridership
Streetcar: 3,000 - 3,500
Bus: 2,000

Capital Cost (Millions)
Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2
Bus: $13.4 - $15.4

Annual Operating Cost (Millions)
Streetcar: $5.2
Bus: $3.5


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> I just looked at the webpage at the above link. The line item for the Capitol Hill project is a link to a PDF file titled "Enhanced Transit: Streetcar or Bus Connection between Downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill Station via First Hill (John Street) (Seattle)". The PDF file can be found at the following link:
> 
> http://soundtransit.org/Documents/p...Seattle_to_Capitol_Hill_via_First_Hill_DP.pdf
> 
> The document provides the following numbers for the streetcar and bus options:
> 
> Average Weekday Ridership
> Streetcar: 3,000 - 3,500
> Bus: 2,000
> 
> Capital Cost (Millions)
> Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2
> Bus: $13.4 - $15.4
> 
> Annual Operating Cost (Millions)
> Streetcar: $5.2
> Bus: $3.5


Indeed. If only we were a country that charged for emissions, eh?
As it stands, the ridership certainly justifies the increased operating cost - which is higher only because a base would be needed for the streetcars (they cost, per vehicle, less to maintain than buses).

Note that the buses are really in there just as any agency must consider more than one alternative - that's not something that they're really going to do.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

greg_christine said:


> I just looked at the webpage at the above link. The line item for the Capitol Hill project is a link to a PDF file titled "Enhanced Transit: Streetcar or Bus Connection between Downtown Seattle and Capitol Hill Station via First Hill (John Street) (Seattle)". The PDF file can be found at the following link:
> 
> http://soundtransit.org/Documents/p...Seattle_to_Capitol_Hill_via_First_Hill_DP.pdf
> 
> The document provides the following numbers for the streetcar and bus options:
> 
> Average Weekday Ridership
> Streetcar: 3,000 - 3,500
> Bus: 2,000
> 
> Capital Cost (Millions)
> Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2
> Bus: $13.4 - $15.4
> 
> Annual Operating Cost (Millions)
> Streetcar: $5.2
> Bus: $3.5


Thanks for the link. Its help me alot to get an idea what exactly third streetcar route would be like. It looks good!


----------



## getontrac

^I don't see the advantage to this. The ridership estimates versus costs are about the same (if we assume the average rider travels the same distance on bus versus streetcar).

The capital costs of the streetcar are an order of magnitute higher than bus. That money is far more logically spent on expanding the rapid transit system than duplicating an existing system.

Streetcars have far more ROW maintenance than do buses, so usually buses are cheaper to operate given ridership thresholds below 5000 passenger-miles/route mile.

And it would almost certainly have negative rider benefit, because a streetcar would be almost certainly be slower than a bus (which increases operating costs).

Long term, develop comprehensive rapid transit system that increases ridership base, THEN go back and convert bus lines to streetcar. By that time the ridership density would clearly make streetcar the better choice. 

Build what you don't have first, then rebuild what you've got. Streetcars are usually gimmicks in the US. 

Nate


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> ^I don't see the advantage to this. The ridership estimates versus costs are about the same (if we assume the average rider travels the same distance on bus versus streetcar).
> 
> The capital costs of the streetcar are an order of magnitute higher than bus. That money is far more logically spent on expanding the rapid transit system than duplicating an existing system.
> 
> Streetcars have far more ROW maintenance than do buses, so usually buses are cheaper to operate given ridership thresholds below 5000 passenger-miles/route mile.
> 
> And it would almost certainly have negative rider benefit, because a streetcar would be almost certainly be slower than a bus (which increases operating costs).
> 
> Long term, develop comprehensive rapid transit system that increases ridership base, THEN go back and convert bus lines to streetcar. By that time the ridership density would clearly make streetcar the better choice.
> 
> Build what you don't have first, then rebuild what you've got. Streetcars are usually gimmicks in the US.
> 
> Nate


Um. Look, I have no idea where you're coming up with these ideas, but we *had* streetcar density a hundred years ago, and we've got more density than that today. Yes, capital costs are high - but not as high as building it later when you decide it's a "better choice".


----------



## getontrac

Because Seattle had it then doesn't mean Seattle has it now. Density of people is independent of travel density of transit. Travel patterns and automobiles are other strong patterns in this picture.

That point is still independent of my argument that the capital expenses on a slow streetcar system are better spent on rapid transit, which everyone seems to think Seattle needs more of.

My ideas are well established in several analysis of transit economics. See Pushkarev, Zupan, et al (1982), Nehashi (1998), etc.

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

I don't know of any "gimmick" modern street car lines in the U.S. Our waterfront streetcar could be considered a tourist attraction (if they ever get that new maintenance shed built), but it is a legitimate form of public transportation. The monorail is more a gimmick than the streetcar line. Also, the history of urban streetcars in the U.S. is anything but gimmicky.

Portland has a very successful streetcar line that's currently under expansion. I think a network of neighborhood street car lines would create an extremely attractive environment. More so than buses. The general population is also more inclined to ride streetcars versus buses due to this attractive factor.

The speed of the street car isn't any slower than a bus. It is probably faster in most cases because buses must stop for traffic and lights while a street car has signal priority. Tacoma Link is essentially a streetcar system and even in light traffic it is faster than the buses that run on the same route (excluding headways, which are ten minutes). Heavy traffic it's a hands down win. First hill has a large work force due to the hospitals up there. Rush hour traffic is conceivably heavy because of this. I don't know this for sure because I've never been in the neighborhood. But the point is still valid.


----------



## getontrac

Well, put it this way:

Based on the pdf presented above the line would be 2.2 miles long, IIUC.
Even if the average passenger traveled 75% the length of the route the operating cost per passenger-mile for streetcar (3250 riders) would be 

$2.66 (7 day a week service)

For the bus:

$3.39 (only 6 day a week service with 2000 riders)

Here we see the streetcar has 28% greater operating efficiency than the bus. Either way these costs are *extremely high* by any standard.

The FTA's November 2006 listing for cost per passenger-mile for the University Link segment (I don't know if this includes or not the first segment in it's computations, but it doesn't take away from the point) is

$0.40. Pretty darn good. (Making a good case for Heavy).

The capital costs of a streetcar line are 10 times higher than for bus. The FTA's estimates for 'years of useful life for a mixed traffic guideway' is 20 years. That essentially means that every 20 years one is required to invest in the cost to rebuild the guideway at a similar cost, presumably at that $100+ million amount. (Fully grade-seperated surface and tunnel are rated at 125 years, FWIW).

Streetcars work best in small-medium, compact, relatively dense cities with very limited suburban extensions (like Europe and the US before WWII). Unless a city has an HRT system as the backbone, streetcars don't generally exist in big cities that lack density and compactness. Seattle may one day be transit oriented enough so that densities are higher on transit to justify streetcars (like most US cities).

The bus alternative would probably be more operationally economical than streetcar were the route longer, which should be easy to do. 2.2 miles is just too short. Making the streetcar longer would greatly add to its capital costs.

_Wouldn't Seattlites rather have that money going to ensure expansion of Link Light Rail?_

I'd say most are gimmicks from a cost/benefit perspective. It's mostly illusion and romance. You can bike faster than the Portland streetcar, I think; it averages between 6-7 mph or something.

Please audit this if I've made any math errors or interpretive mistakes about this project. It's late and I could have misread. 

Nate

Edit: Looking more closely, it seems the bus route is about 0.4 to 0.5 miles longer (the distance from John to Aloha). One might expect the average travel distance to decline as a percentage as the route becomes longer. At 70% of route length for the bus, and 7 days a week (I overlooked), the costs are more roughly equal, making streetcar less economically logical. Of course, one wouldn't expect weekday ridership on weekends, so the the per unit costs are higher still. I think the Link figure was for weekdays only.


----------



## getontrac

Apples to apples:

One can give the bus the same as the streetcar. Streetcar doesn't necessarily imply signal priority or pre-emption.

All things being equal, bus is usually faster. Streetcars are at the mercy of their slow braking systems and whatever might be in front of them.

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

I have a couple things today. First is a Seattle Times article that talks about the testing. The information is about the same as in the Sound Transit news release from yesterday, but the article also goes into more of the safety issues. While this article isn't in the editorial section, the implied opinion is that there isn't enough being done for safety in the Rainier Valley corridor.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003620720_railsafety16m.html

The second item is another photo, this time of trains testing in SODO.


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> Apples to apples:
> 
> One can give the bus the same as the streetcar. Streetcar doesn't necessarily imply signal priority or pre-emption.
> 
> All things being equal, bus is usually faster. Streetcars are at the mercy of their slow braking systems and whatever might be in front of them.
> 
> Nate


I think you may be missing the biggest impacts here - a streetcar is much more permanent than a bus. Portland's streetcar contributed to the attraction of over a billion dollars in new development.

Even the FTA recognizes that more people will ride a streetcar than a bus in the same corridor - there's already bus service in that corridor, and it's packed. The streetcar will add service that doesn't already exist, in a class that doesn't already exist. More importantly - that extra 1-3,000 riders a day will also ride other parts of the system - you're not just talking about that one corridor.

Arguing individual cost/benefit points doesn't work in transportation just as it doesn't work in any macroeconomic system. Once you take a more holistic view, I think you'll see why so many cities build streetcar lines - they have more benefits than just rider per dollar.


----------



## getontrac

Then I think we can agree to disagree here.

Seattle will gain more riders by spending that capital money on rapid transit than on an expensive variation low-ridership service. The project is a low ridership line, according to the numbers for a streetcar. 

I think my contention is truly much more holistic than building all these expensive streetcars. You've already got slow, local transit, do the bus alternative instead, save your pennies for what you don't have enough of--Link LR, the more Seattle saves now, the more it will be able to expand, sooner.

If funding is tight or problematic (as it certainly has been), direct your money toward your priorities. What is more important, getting a slow streetcar, or expanding Link faster? I get the impression Link is the bigger priority.

If you build the bus alternative, you've not spend $100 million that can be put toward Link. I think the $100 million toward Link LR will garner more riders than the differential between the bus and streetcar alternatives (1000-1500 riders).

I simply find this an illogical order of construction of capital projects.

What do others here think? 

If slow streetcars are more important than expanding fast Link quickly, than you may be making the best decision. Either way, the operating costs for the project cited are very high for so few passengers, which may cause budget and funding problems for ST. I don't know enough about WA govt to know much of problem that would be over the long term, but an issue to consider.

Nate


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> Then I think we can agree to disagree here.
> 
> Seattle will gain more riders by spending that capital money on rapid transit than on an expensive variation low-ridership service. The project is a low ridership line, according to the numbers for a streetcar.
> 
> I think my contention is truly much more holistic than building all these expensive streetcars. You've already got slow, local transit, do the bus alternative instead, save your pennies for what you don't have enough of--Link LR, the more Seattle saves now, the more it will be able to expand sooner.
> 
> If funding is tight or problematic (as is certainly has been), direct your money toward your priorities. What is more important, getting a slow streetcar, or expanding Link faster? I get the impression Link is the bigger priority.
> 
> If you build the bus alternative, you've not spend $100 million that can be put toward Link. I think the $100 million toward Link LR will garner more riders than the differential between the bus and streetcar alternatives (1000-1500 riders).
> 
> I simply find this an illogical order of construction of capital projects.
> 
> What do others here think?
> 
> If slow streetcars are more important than expanding fast Link quickly, than you may be making the best decision. Either way, the operating costs for the project cited are very high for so few passengers, which may cause budget and funding problems for ST. I don't know enough about WA govt to know much of problem that would be over the long term, but an issue to consider.
> 
> Nate


You can't put that $100 million toward Link. That's mitigation funding for losing the First Hill subway stop - it's politicized, it can't simply go to a "better project".

5,000 riders per day for a streetcar is quite good - better than most bus routes in Seattle.


----------



## getontrac

Can you tell me what prevents this liquidity of funds for transit? What's going on? I'm not up on all the history of the local politics, as you know. 

(5000 riders is okay, 3500 is a bit low; the lines really need to be longer than 2.2 miles to be economical versus standard bus service--$5.3M is a hell of a lot of money for only 3500 people).

Nate


----------



## SteveM

Another thing to remember is that streetcars typically allow boarding through multiple doors, and unlike buses, don't require driver accuracy to align a low-floor stop for easy wheelchair access. For short hauls with many stops, the time spent loading and unloading passengers through the single front door on a bus can be significant.

Obviously, you can buy bigger buses with bigger doors, switch to proof-of-payment systems for buses, build curb bulbs, etc., but the costs associated with those changes probably aren't included in the bus cost estimates here.

All that said, UrbanBen is right that this streetcar is a political rather than an engineering project: a sop to First Hill for being excluded from the light rail line owing to technological challenges and cost uncertainty.


----------



## getontrac

I think the bus alternative was intended to be more of a BRT-style operation anyway, so, in theory, it could incorporate "rapid"-type advantages in bus design.

Hmm....I say let First Hill pay a disproportionate amount then, IMO. They're really sucking funds up. I hate when politics undermines transit planning. Politics are everpresent, but transportation infrastructure is simply TOO expensive to get jerked around by bad political decisions. It'll be the death of this country...think of all those highways we'll have to rebuild once their useful life is up.....

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

Essentially, the streetcar is the worked out "deal" to make up for light rail not being there. As UrbanBen said, it is more of a political decision than an economic one (though the light rail line to first hill would have been much more expensive than the streetcar). Buses and a streetcar line were both looked at an it landed on streetcar.

I agree with Ben about the hidden benefits of the increased demand for development along street car lines (as opposed to bus lines). The benefits include increased property values directly from the street car construction, increased growth pressure and thus property values, and the increased tax-base as a result of the property value increase.



getontrac said:


> Hmm....I say let First Hill pay a disproportionate amount then, IMO. They're really sucking funds up. I hate when politics undermines transit planning. Politics are everpresent, but transportation infrastructure is simply TOO expensive to get jerked around by bad political decisions. It'll be the death of this country...think of all those highways we'll have to rebuild once their useful life is up.....


Unfortunately, politics is planning (and visa-versa). They've become an inseparable duo. Though there are benefits too. A democratic society necessitates a high level of political maneuvering in order to accomplish anything.


----------



## getontrac

To bad one couldn't just use the extra $100M for the streetcar to directly invest in (re)development in the area. 

Still, looking at the big picture, having a more extensive rapid-transit system sooner would jump values and development for the whole region and put Seattle in the league with Boston, Philly, DC, SF, and (maybe) Chicago.

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

getontrac said:


> Still, looking at the big picture, having a more extensive rapid-transit system sooner would jump values and development for the whole region and put Seattle in the league with Boston, Philly, DC, SF, and (maybe) Chicago.


You're quite right about the light-rail doing a greater job of raising development pressure and property values in the region, and specifically on the alignment, than the streetcar line. I don't know the exact figures for what light rail did for Portland, but I believe development directly spurred by has reached into the billions of dollars.


----------



## getontrac

Jaxom92 said:


> Unfortunately, politics is planning (and visa-versa). They've become an inseparable duo. Though there are benefits too. A democratic society necessitates a high level of political maneuvering in order to accomplish anything.


The problem is that politicians and the public at large (including the business community) don't understand transportation/transit very well, much less than other hot issues, and poor decisions often result. The advocacy group I'm involved with in Baltimore seeks to educate the public and root out the non-sense that gets put out by anti-transit politicians. Even with a new transit friendly gubernatorial administration, it's hard work. Many flat out don't understand the New Starts federal funding process. There's still a lot of "transit is good", "rail is good/better" (not always) stuff. The devil is in the details. But you've got to start out with a sound, open, long-term, planning process first. Study all reasonable alternatives...etc.

Nate


----------



## kub86

Yeah, the streetcar on First Hill was a "deal" between seattle and Sound Transit since no LRT can be built there. Sound Transit will be designing it instead of King County. 

And the First Hill Light Rail station would've cost an extra $320 million with the ridership projected at 5,500. So a streetcar is the 2nd best, connecting capital hill station, first hill, and int'l station. I looked at their frequency chart, and it's at 5 minutes peak; 10 minutes off-peak (better than the earlier proposal of 10mpeak/15m off peak).


----------



## UrbanBen

getontrac said:


> I think the bus alternative was intended to be more of a BRT-style operation anyway, so, in theory, it could incorporate "rapid"-type advantages in bus design.
> 
> Hmm....I say let First Hill pay a disproportionate amount then, IMO. They're really sucking funds up. I hate when politics undermines transit planning. Politics are everpresent, but transportation infrastructure is simply TOO expensive to get jerked around by bad political decisions. It'll be the death of this country...think of all those highways we'll have to rebuild once their useful life is up.....
> 
> Nate


First hill is paying a disproportionate amount - consider how much sales tax revenue they generate.


----------



## kub86

^^ Hey that's what I said! Read my post on February 8th page 9 (#190). I posted a pic of the baby (cuter) version of that...

Lyon has some pretty sleek trolleys and trams. I'm lovin it


----------



## Jaxom92

Seattle already has quite a network of the ETBs. If we were to go that route, it would probably just be another Metro route, since Metro is the agency that runs all the trolley buses in Seattle.


----------



## pwalker

*Bottom line...*

The details of all this are fascinating, but bottom line, I'm so glad this is finally coming to be reality (albeit 20 years late). Seattle's Metro Bus system is one of the finest in the country, but light rail will be "light" years ahead with the ability to move past congested traffic. I would vote for any and all extensions, the most important being north of UW to Northgate and beyond.
I really wondered if I would ever see the day this light rail system would be up and running, but now I can actually see the light at the end of the (excuse the pun) tunnel! In Seattle, in can be a long wait sometimes, but at the end it is a beautiful thing.


----------



## aznichiro115

Jaxom92 said:


> Seattle already has quite a network of the ETBs. If we were to go that route, it would probably just be another Metro route, since Metro is the agency that runs all the trolley buses in Seattle.


just paint it in ST colors and give it a 5XX route number, all of sound transits buses and routes are run by either pierce transit, community transit or King County Metro, like ST route 550 used to be KCM route 226.


----------



## Jaxom92

^^ Incidentally, the buses are a different style. Sound Transit uses coach style buses... like greyhound and such, whereas Metro and the rest of the county agencies just have the traditional "city bus". It's just semantics.  

I'm sure the bus lines will be reworked when the streetcar is in operation, ST and Metro.

And you're quite right Pwalker about Seattle _finally_ getting rapid transit online. It's been too long coming and the politics of Seattle are insanely depressing at times.


----------



## aznichiro115

Jaxom92 said:


> ^^ Incidentally, the buses are a different style. Sound Transit uses coach style buses... like greyhound and such, whereas Metro and the rest of the county agencies just have the traditional "city bus". It's just semantics.
> 
> I'm sure the bus lines will be reworked when the streetcar is in operation, ST and Metro.
> 
> And you're quite right Pwalker about Seattle _finally_ getting rapid transit online. It's been too long coming and the politics of Seattle are insanely depressing at times.


yes most do have high back seats and luggage racks reading lights and air-con. 

yes sound transit is different than Metro or local buses, but you can hardly compare them to greyhound. 

if you look at Sound Transit's Fleet 

K-Ran by Metro
P-Ran by Pierce Transit
C-Ran by Community Transit

(K)New Flyer DE60LF
(K/C)New Flyer D60LF
(K)New Flyer DE40LF
(P)New Flyer C40LF
(P)MCI D4500
(K/C/P)Gillig Phantom
(P)Orion V

Retired:
(K)Breda DuoBues

you see the only bus that is close it the MCI the others are bus type buses. they were added on to KCM orders. they orders the Gilligs with KCM and the 60 feet New Flyers, the Orions were borrowed from Pierce transit, the Breda were borrowed from KCM and the 40 foot flyers were added to the Pierce transit order.


----------



## Jaxom92

You clearly know more about the buses then I do. I heard the comparison to greyhound from someone else. I assumed it was a reliable comparison. I stand corrected on that issue as well as the rest of the bus type details.


----------



## Jaxom92

A couple things of interest... maybe. First is a follow up on the East Link Workshops information:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x5049.xml

Second is another photo. It isn't directly related to the light rail project, however. The capacity of the King Street station in Seattle is being expanded for future Sounder and Amtrak trains. The picture is of new tracks being laid under the Safeco Field roof.










I'm personally excited for the reverse commute train because it might be advantageous to me commuting to Tacoma for school on a daily basis. If I have classes that keep me at school all day, it would work nicely.


----------



## sequoias

aznichiro115 said:


> yes most do have high back seats and luggage racks reading lights and air-con.
> 
> yes sound transit is different than Metro or local buses, but you can hardly compare them to greyhound.
> 
> if you look at Sound Transit's Fleet
> 
> K-Ran by Metro
> P-Ran by Pierce Transit
> C-Ran by Community Transit
> 
> (K)New Flyer DE60LF
> (K/C)New Flyer D60LF
> (K)New Flyer DE40LF
> (P)New Flyer C40LF
> (P)MCI D4500
> (K/C/P)Gillig Phantom
> (P)Orion V
> 
> Retired:
> (K)Breda DuoBues
> 
> you see the only bus that is close it the MCI the others are bus type buses. they were added on to KCM orders. they orders the Gilligs with KCM and the 60 feet New Flyers, the Orions were borrowed from Pierce transit, the Breda were borrowed from KCM and the 40 foot flyers were added to the Pierce transit order.



The Breda Duobuses are not retired. They were converted to permanent trolley bus use, they removed the diesel engine and rebuilt the electronics, upgraded the lights, new seats, new paint, LED desination signs, etc. IT looks MUCH better than the old version of the Breda that were used for the seattle bus tunnel and on the highway. The DE60LF replaced the Breda Duobuses. The Breda are replacing many of the old M.A.N. articulated trolley buses. 

(Sorry for the off point since it's not related to Sound Transit)


----------



## aznichiro115

sequoias said:


> The Breda Duobuses are not retired. They were converted to permanent trolley bus use, they removed the diesel engine and rebuilt the electronics, upgraded the lights, new seats, new paint, LED desination signs, etc. IT looks MUCH better than the old version of the Breda that were used for the seattle bus tunnel and on the highway. The DE60LF replaced the Breda Duobuses. The Breda are replacing many of the old M.A.N. articulated trolley buses.
> 
> (Sorry for the off point since it's not related to Sound Transit)


well retired from the ST fleet anyways.

i have yet to have a chance to ride the referbished Bredas


----------



## greg_christine

Would Sound Transit actually operate the First Hill Streetcar/BRT line?

King County Metro operated the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar. I believe the plan is for King County Metro to operate the South Lake Union Streetcar.

Sound Transit is supposed to be the regional transit agency. The other transit agencies are supposed to serve the local areas. There do seem to be some exceptions. The Tacoma Link streetcars are painted in Sound Transit colors.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle P-I Columnist: No-no vote sets stage for 'Big One'*

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/307755_joel16.html

Last updated March 15, 2007 10:03 p.m. PT

No-no vote sets stage for 'Big One'

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

The no-no Alaskan Way Viaduct advisory verdict by Seattle voters was a Nisqually Quake-like warm-up for a bigger tremor at which we may soon find ourselves in the epicenter.

The "Big One" will very likely come this fall, when voters in four central Puget Sound counties are asked to fork up $15 billion or so for highways and Sound Transit light rail projects.

"We are headed for a train wreck in November," said John Stanton, co-founder of Western Wireless and a key player in the 2005 campaign that turned back Initiative 912 and sustained a three-phase, 9.5-cents a gallon gas tax increase.

The political class seems to be pulling out stops to increase chances of road kill at the polls.

A quartet of ruling Democrats -- Chris Gregoire, Greg Nickels, Frank Chopp and Ron Sims -- tussled with one another on the viaduct. Mayor Nickels claimed victory even though his tunnel vision captured just 31 percent of the vote.

As Sound Transit runs big ads and holds public workshops on its light rail plans, the agency lobbies backstage in Olympia to block legislation that would consolidate transportation projects under an elected body.

"The bill starts with the flawed premise that the current system is chaotic and devoid of coordination," Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg wrote to state senators.

Has this man been to Seattle lately?

Ladenburg listed the empires of which he is lord. He is chairman of the Puget Sound Regional Council, chairman of the Sound Transit board, and vice chairman of Pierce Transit. "I see examples of successful interagency cooperation daily," he wrote.

Have we seen that cooperation on the viaduct? Is everybody aligned on how to deal with the aging, overcrowded and earthquake- threatened state Route 520, the Evergreen Point Bridge? 

Is there an accord on Interstate 405 upgrades? Do we agree on how to get light rail across Lake Washington?

The legislation, SB 5803, would create a Regional Transportation Commission, with eight members elected from eight districts, and one member each appointed by the King, Pierce and Snohomish County executives.

Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) -- architects of this fall's likely train wreck -- would keep their independent taxing authority. But the regional commission would control and direct projects funding.

The advantages of this bill, sponsored by state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, are multifold.

Voters would be given hiring and firing power.

Sound Transit went through chaos early in the decade. Who got the ax? When he became chairman, King County Executive Ron Sims booted out then-County Councilman Rob McKenna, one board member who dared ask critical questions.

A process for planning and decision-making would be set up with a single, accountable regional body.

The current situation is akin to a bureaucratic Dr. Octavius, the crazed "Spiderman 2" villain who had found long snakelike artificial arms -- in this case reaching into our wallets.

Six separate agencies offer bus service in our local environs: Sound Transit, Metro, Community Transit in Snohomish County, Pierce Transit, Kitsap Transit and Everett Transit.

Above all, proposed transit systems would have to be justified as the best way for getting people from place to place.

Backers of light rail would have to give proof of benefits to match its sky-high cost. They'd have to show suitability to the Eastside. A Ron Sims vision speech won't cut it.

The commission could consider fast, predictable bus service as an alternative. It could ask salient, politically incorrect questions: What about diverting transit dollars to the vitally necessary upgrade of state Route 520?

The anti-912 campaign surprised even its architects by winning. The anti-tax measure made the ballot with more than 400,000 signatures. 

But the state's voters showed us a thing or two. They don't hate government, but simply expect it to work and want to hold its agencies accountable.

Basic questions need answers: 

If our rulers demand more taxes, what will be the benefit? 

How will benefits be shared? 

If highfalutin plans go haywire, how do we fire the architects?

The RTID-Sound Transit proposal is an enormous chunk of change to ask from a surly electorate. A four-county area will be asked to pay a $15 billion price tag, nearly twice the statewide package approved in 2005. 

Even when spread out to 1.2 million households, in Stanton's words, "The amount is staggering."

A poll done in early winter by Davis-Hibbitts of Portland showed the regional transit package starting out in a deep hole. 

It's gotten deeper. The Eastside is weary of Seattle's divisions, self-absorption and those who see transportation as a vehicle for social engineering.

Other population centers are moving forward: The keys appear to be one regional transit agency, one board of directors and one overall plan.

The San Diego Association of Governments persuaded voters to pass a $14 billion transportation package. 

The B.C. government plans to have TransLink extend from Pemberton, north of Whistler, all the way to Hope at the east end of the Fraser River Valley.

Our politicians and planners can dream big dreams. If bucks go everywhere, while the buck stops nowhere, voters will hand them their heads.

P-I columnist Joel Connelly can be reached at 206-448-8160 or [email protected].


----------



## Jaxom92

I'll admit that a directly elected regional body has its advantages. We can clearly see that in Portland, for those who are familiar with the history there. However, now that Sound Transit has things on track, I don't think mudding the waters with another agency trying to learn the ropes is benificial at this point. Something like consolidating the four-county bus service proivders and Sound Transit could be beneficial. They all have transit expertise and wouldn't be another level of government. For a country that is so skeptical of government, we sure like lots of them.

The case of the viaduct disagreements is another manifestation of the Seattle political nonsense that has plagued the city for decades. Outside of the city, there seems to be good cooperation between agencies. The whole vote issue was handled with heavy hands on both the city and the state's part. Gregoire's insistence on a vote before the end of April just kept anybody from exploring funding options in each plan completely. It became a mess because of the expidited time table. The viaduct is for another topic however, so back to light rail.

I don't think that 15 billion is as large a figure as this column is making it. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but think about the backlog of transportation projects that are needed in order to accommodate our increasing population not to mention our existing population. Transportation infrastructure is an expensive industry for reasons more than politics and governmental money management.

I don't think that the November election will be as big of a bomb as this fellow thinks. Yeah, Seattle and the viaduct are a nightmare, but there is greater political support within the various agencies and among the general public for the RTID and ST proposal than the viaduct.


----------



## Jaxom92

There seems to be another opinion out there that agrees with what I said above. This piece appeared in the opinion section today in the Seattle Times.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003637392_ben27.html


----------



## greg_christine

Jaxom92 said:


> There seems to be another opinion out there that agrees with what I said above. This piece appeared in the opinion section today in the Seattle Times.
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003637392_ben27.html


Is it possible that UrbanBen of this forum is Ben Schiendelman of the above Seattle Times column?


----------



## pwalker

*Not excited about train graphics*

While I am excited that this project is finally coming together, I'm not excited about the graphics on the trains. (Not the most important factor, and probably downright trivial, but marketing counts!) I'd like to see some bold colors such as used on the Metro busses. Just an opinion...


----------



## Jaxom92

Well, the graphics could be worse, so I'm not complaining. I actually like the wave design. Then again, I like blue so...

I was thinking the same thing, greg_christine, but didn't voice my suspicions. Soon as I ran across the author I almost spit out my pasta. Could it be? I've never felt... knowledgeable enough to write a column for a paper, especially one as widely read as the Seattle Times. Following Sound Transit is currently just a "hobby" for me, though I do eventually want to get into transportation planning.

So, UrbanBen... are you one and the same as Ben Schiendelman?


----------



## kub86

pwalker said:


> While I am excited that this project is finally coming together, I'm not excited about the graphics on the trains. (Not the most important factor, and probably downright trivial, but marketing counts!) I'd like to see some bold colors such as used on the Metro busses. Just an opinion...


Haha, someone finally agrees with me. That wave design is so tacky. Reminds me of the cheesy branding that all the other transportation companies created in the '90s around America have...so nouveau suburban looking. Why couldn't ST just have a simple, yet bold, two toned blue/white color scheme? Why the wave?! :rant:


----------



## Jaxom92

^^ Ride the wave, man, ride the wave! :nuts:


----------



## greg_christine

Jaxom92 said:


> There seems to be another opinion out there that agrees with what I said above. This piece appeared in the opinion section today in the Seattle Times.
> 
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003637392_ben27.html


The views expressed in Mr. Schiendelman's guest column in the Seattle Times have been echoed by Sound Transit's leadership in an article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/309260_rtid28.html


----------



## getontrac

^Well, if we're talking about the initial segment (?)--the one I'm most familiar with--you've got 12 stops on 13.9 miles, I think. This averages to 1.26 miles between stops. Given the size and relatively high density of Seattle, I don't think there should be any fewer stops overall. The calculations of speed I've done were about 26 mph, which is close to as fast as an LRT system can be given a 1.26 mile station density and comparable to HRT systems with higher station densities. If MLK were fully-grade seperated, the system might average about 30 mph, thumbnail guess.

So, since Seattle decided to go with LRT (which I've pretty much concluded deserves a :bash: ), you've got a pretty fast system. I think Seattle with its traffic doesn't need to worry too much on the auto/transit speed contest. I think you'll get TOO many riders--more than the system can handle, but that's the other issue....

Nate


----------



## pwalker

Thanks for the explanation.

Do you know how the distance between stops and average speeds compare with Portland?


----------



## getontrac

I haven't checked Portland lately (I'm sure I had an idea once). But I'm positive Portland's system averages less than 20 mph, maybe as low as 15 mph.

Nate

EDIT: On the APTA website, I looked at the trackage (this may be outdated a bit), it should be about 46.5 alignment miles. It has (had) 62 stations, hence an average station distance of 0.76 miles.


----------



## Jaxom92

Portland's average speed is probably that slow since it operates on the surface streets in downtown, which may eventually prove to be a big problem. Not in the near future however.

As for the information being accurate about the millage and the stations for Portland, this is directly from the TriMet (Portland's ST equivalent) website:



TriMet said:


> The three MAX lines (Blue, Red and Yellow) run on 44 miles of track and serve 64 stations.


In 2009 when the green line is created and new downtown alignment stations as well as I-205 stations come online, they'll be more.


----------



## getontrac

I think after their next segment, Portland should seriously consider tunneling downtown. It would drastically simplify their operations as well increase speed, capacity, and reliability. I believe they are limited to 2-car trains because of block length?

The cost would be worth it. The system simply turns into a streetcar downtown with the trains slowing down quite a bit to keep a schedule and prevent bunching.

Portland is outgrowing itself. If America had more confidence in transit, they would have built it right in the first place. Light Rail may still be the ultimate best mode of choice for the City, but the surface-circle-merger they've got ought to really be considered "beneath" them. 

Nate


----------



## guinessbeer55

Does anyone have any of their own pictures/videos of the trains testing??


----------



## Jaxom92

Aye, getontrac, the length limit is two cars because of the small block length, which incidentally makes down town a very pedestrian friendly city thus it has its own advantages.

The advantage of tunneling under downtown does allow for faster travel times, but building a larger consist will be harder to implement due to two things. First, the new cars they just bought for this 2009 project aren't designed for more than a two car consist. Second, all the stations outside of the potential new tunnel will require enlarging to accommodate a larger consist.



guinessbeer55 said:


> Does anyone have any of their own pictures/videos of the trains testing??


Unfortunately not, at least for me.


----------



## Jaxom92

Picture of Beacon Hill Station Shaft:


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ WOW! Not bad!


----------



## guinessbeer55

check out this video... I dont know if any of you have seen it, its the new add for the november package...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=96MRxM8lgJs


----------



## Backstrom

guinessbeer55 said:


> check out this video... I dont know if any of you have seen it, its the new add for the november package...
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=96MRxM8lgJs


Wow, that's sleek.

That's a great ad.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Great video. Funny thing when they shows traffic part, I felt sick and want to avoid it so bad! LOL! :lol:


----------



## Backstrom

What's the deal with the Convention Place Station? Is it gone for good when the tunnel reopens?


----------



## aznichiro115

Backstrom said:


> What's the deal with the Convention Place Station? Is it gone for good when the tunnel reopens?


it might serve as a bus terminus, like it is now


----------



## Jaxom92

The pine street stub tunnel where the light rail trains turn around (and in the future continue to the UW) is just south east of the convention place station. I think the convention station will continue to be a bus stop and terminus as it is now.

Here's a little news item on the ST2 draft package: http://www.soundtransit.org/x2293.xml


----------



## kub86

^ But it won't be a lightrail stop right?


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle PI: UW light rail station an island unto itself*

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/311471_uwstation13.html

Friday, April 13, 2007 · Last updated 7:22 a.m. PT

UW light rail station an island unto itself
No quick connection for Metro users; no room for park and ride
By DEBERA CARLTON HARRELL
P-I REPORTER

None of the Evergreen Point Bridge replacement proposals has a single site where bus commuters could connect smoothly to light rail at the future University of Washington station. And if you're in a car, forget it -- there likely won't be a park and ride or transfer point.

That issue is a sticking point as Sound Transit's plans for light rail forge ahead and the Seattle City Council plans to vote Monday on a replacement resolution, which lists "connectivity" with the UW station as a priority.

"There will probably not be a direct connection," confirmed John Milton, state Route 520 project manager for the Washington State Department of Transportation. 

Still, state transportation officials are working with Sound Transit to ensure proximity between the light rail station and HOV travelers coming off and on Route 520. 

Ron Endlich, deputy director for Sound Transit's University Link light rail project, said that although there is collaboration, the light rail line is further along and the site for a light rail station is "pretty much set." It will be beneath a current UW Medical Center parking garage, southwest of Husky Stadium, roughly below where Montlake Boulevard and Pacific Street meet. 

It's is a long-range hope that the 520 bridge someday will accommodate light rail.

But the already-squeezed and congested university is worried about efforts to create a transit hub on campus -- and has made those concerns known to transportation officials and the Governor's Office, UW spokesman Norm Arkans said.

"You can't look at the University of Washington as an intermodal exchange or station area. It doesn't work," Arkans said. "You can't have people driving here to get on a (light rail) train, because there's no park and ride -- and there's zero chance of putting one here. There's no space."

Nor is there adequate space for buses to load and unload passengers making light rail connections, Arkans said. "There's no room for that." 

Because some replacement proposals would decrease Husky Stadium parking, current space could shrink further, university officials say. 

Milton confirmed that the state would have to replace parking displaced by the Route 520 project, but state lawmakers also said Thursday that they still are working on the language of measures that aim to solve the transit hub and other 520-related issues.

The Pacific Street Interchange proposal calls for a new Union Bay bridge with ramps (general purpose, HOV and bike path) dropping down through what is now the Husky Stadium south parking lot and into a new, lidded Pacific Street-Montlake Boulevard intersection. Buses would progress under the lid to a point east of Husky Stadium.

Although the exact 520 transit stop isn't cited, it is likely that those who want to transfer from 520 to light rail would walk about 1,500 feet to reach the UW link station.

Digging a tunnel in the area, a feature of proposals such as a translake "tube tunnel" and the Union Bay Alternative (formerly called the Arboretum Bypass plan), presents significant transit-link engineering challenges, Milton said.

Still, City Councilman Richard Conlin said the council expects to vote on the resolution, which includes calls for the Route 520 project to:

Ensure that bus service connects to the planned light rail station at Husky Stadium and that a bus station is nearby. 

That the Route 520 project be "coordinated" with the UW station and "be consistent with the Sound Transit long-range plan." 

That the state Department of Transportation, Sound Transit and Metro work to "optimize the development" of the station "for ease, speed and convenience of bus-to-rail transfers for transit users."

The university understands the need for a new bridge and is trying to work with state and local officials, Arkans said.

"We just want the impacts on the university acknowledged and mitigated, so our programs don't suffer because of the need to solve a transportation problem," he said.

Some question whether such a link is really needed. 

"Why would you drive to the UW, get off here and then take light rail to downtown or south to the airport? It would be an extra stop. If you're already in a car, you could just drive there," Arkans said. 

P-I reporter Debera Carlton Harrell can be reached at 206-448-8326 or [email protected].


----------



## Jaxom92

kub86 said:


> ^ But it won't be a lightrail stop right?


Nope. The next one would be Capitol Hill, once that part opens.

I don't think that the bus transfers is as big a deal as that article is making it. For one thing, the UW is such a huge destination that in terms of ridership, it doesn't matter. Second, there's going to be a station at Brooklyn, which is near a whole ton of bus routes. Granted, that part of the line is a ways down the road, but something tells me even if the buses can't stop right near the station, a couple block walk isn't too far. Metro will surely revise their routing to take light rail into account.

And the issue of room is a big one. There's not much space down there for anything. I was surprised by the choice ST made for the alignment considering the cramped quarters I've seen there.


----------



## Backstrom

guinessbeer55 said:


> Does anyone have any of their own pictures/videos of the trains testing??


I don't know if you've seen this yet, but this gentleman was kind enough to post his videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64wRy1ZaTZM&mode=related&search=

By the way, according to Sound Transit's website, the Convention Place tunnel is being demolished with the construction of the Pine Street stub, so how exactly will it remain a bus terminus?


----------



## Jaxom92

Backstrom said:


> By the way, according to Sound Transit's website, the Convention Place tunnel is being demolished with the construction of the Pine Street stub, so how exactly will it remain a bus terminus?


I didn't know that. Indeed, it couldn't... wait, I think I remember a discussion about what to do with the property. Vaguely. Maybe. I don't remember at all. But I seem to have been mistaken in any case.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I just looked at that video of light rail testing... WOW! Not bad!  Its seen like very slow moving trains... I understand that is just testing... I'm sure it will go little faster when it opens to the public.


----------



## Backstrom

Jaxom92 said:


> I didn't know that. Indeed, it couldn't... wait, I think I remember a discussion about what to do with the property. Vaguely. Maybe. I don't remember at all. But I seem to have been mistaken in any case.


How strange. I just don't entirely understand... because in the old tunnel, the bus routes would lead the buses out of the tunnel through the Convention Place terminus. However... what will be the case with the new tunnel and the Pine street stub?

I've sent a short query to Sound Transit about it. Hopefully, they can address this issue. Or maybe I'm just making too big a deal out of it.

^^
Not to worry, the trains will be able to achieve a more efficient speed once the tracks are completely inspected and ready to go. But in downtown, due to the close proximity of the stations and just the small width of the tunnels, I'd logically expect a "safer" speed.


----------



## Jaxom92

There was some confusion a while back about the total money for the November transportation initiative as well as the division between roads and transit. I've finally found some definitive numbers from an article in the Seattle Times (which you can find here and is about Mercer Island's reaction to the east link part).

"Phase 2 comes with a $9.8 billion price tag, which will be included in a $16.5 billion Regional Transportation Investment District highway package slated for the ballot in November..."

So, rather than the 11 billion figure which I thought it was, it's only 9.8 for the transit portion, but 16.5 billion for the whole thing. That's a lot of money, but we get a lot out of it. 42 new miles of light rail! (Not to mention some desperately needed highway projects.)


----------



## kub86

Ok, why didn't ST just add an extra billion to the price tag so we can get the bellevue tunnel AND redmond extension? I hate how they're making us choose between the two because of bad budgeting. It's gonna divide everybody in some long and bitter drawn out decision process that's gonna screw one city or the other. Seriously, just add the billion. I don't think people will notice...


----------



## Jaxom92

^^ You have an excellent point. When we're talking about 16 billion dollars, another billion isn't much more. The proposed tax increase is .5 of 1 percent on the sales tax.

And not only can we get to Redmond properly, but we can get all the way to the Tacoma Dome instead of relying on a maybe surplus. And we could extend the Tacoma Link system down 6th too.

Oh, but there's the sub-area equity monkey wrench... Darn, guess we'll just have to go farther north now too.


----------



## Jaxom92

I got a couple things. First is just a news release from Sound Transit. Basically it's just affirmation on the legislator's part for tying transit and roads together.

The second item is a little more contentious. It's an article that appeared in the Seattle Times this morning. Front page and center, so it's going to gather some interest. You can click here to go to the article.

The reason the money has been spread out over various projects across the region is to gather enough voter support to pass the measure. John Ladenburg (ST chair and Pierce County executive) says this very well near the end of the article. He also brings up the great point that after first wanting RTID and to combine roads and transit, now these same law makers are "second-guessing" the process.

I'm sick of all this political griping that takes place in the region. It's why we are behind of Portland and Vancouver B.C. in this arena. Let's do something for a change. Continued dissenting rhetoric will only stagnant us further and undermine our regional mobility and accessibility. It will only cost more the longer we put it off. And it's this kind of feet-dragging we're seeing in this article from these lawmakers. On one hand, they don't want to fund a whole project at once such as the Viaduct or 520 because it's too expensive and will cause too much environmental disruption. On the other hand, they don't want to partially fund a project either because then, what's the point?

You can't have both worlds and this leads to the stagnation. Stand up, get the ball rolling and shut up. Let's get moving again shall we?


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I agree. I don't really think that we really need to wide any highway in The Puget Sound region... If we do... It will continue encouraging more and more traffics for future growth. I think we should just focus on Sound Transit 2 & 3 (if possible), replace Alaskan Viaduct and Evengreen bridge. These are high priority projects to do than widing any highways. I don't want Puget Sound to be another ugly Los Angeles with mega freeways with more than 8 lanes. We should encourage more and more public transit systems to get built. I think it is great investment for Puget Sound.


----------



## Jaxom92

A great investment indeed, but the citizens of the region need to be behind it too. Sound Transit says they are, based on the reaction from numerous public outreach sessions. I hope so, and hope that this naysaying is just antsy politicians.

But, again, if the people that will be using the transit investments don't use them, it'll fail and we'll be back to the freeways again. While it's somewhat perverse to say that it's "good" that gas prices are rising, it is if you're looking for motivation to use transit more than your personal automobile. I don't like the idea of paying 3 plus dollars per gallon to fill up my car any more than the next guy, but part of me knows that if gas prices do continue to rise, or stagnate at a high price, they'll be some motivation to invest in and use transit services.

We as a region (and as a country) have a long way to go before we have as excellent transit networks as in Europe, but I think in the long run, we'll have to get there. Oil is a finite resource, so in some respects, even this depressing idea has a silver lining. At that point, the cost of transit won't look so "bad."


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Good points. I predict more and more Americans will be forced to give up on driving if gas costs skyrocketing unless if they are willing to buy electric or different type of fuel system vehicles... They might end up having to use public transit whether they likes it or not. 

Be glad, more and more US cities are starting to building new public transit system lately... I know it is not that great as Portland or New York City yet but they're getting there... I expect Seattle to do the same thing as well.


----------



## Jaxom92

Paving is continuing along MLK Way:










The light rail alignment is visible along the center. I don't know specifically where this is at along the route, but I imagine it's just after Mt. Baker station.


----------



## getontrac

^Yikes!

The weakest link.

We'll see how that goes. Sure looks narrow.

(Does anyone know the auto traffic load on MLK in vehicles/hour past a point or total vehicle-miles traveled per route mile, by chance?)

Nate


----------



## Jaxom92

It's one of the major north-south surface street corridors in the city, so probably fairly high. I did a cursory inspection of the transportation documents in Seattle's comprehensive plan and didn't see traffic volume figures. LOS numbers though, but I didn't note them.

Incidentally, MLK way has the highest pedestrian-vehicle accident rate in the city. The hope is that the Light rail alignment will reduce that number with all the safety improvements. I believe they're will be a positive buffer between the tracks and the lanes of traffic, like a low fence or something, and Z-shaped crossings to maximize train awareness.

I think part of the narrowness you're seeing is the incompleteness as well as the perspective of the photo.


----------



## guinessbeer55

so I was heading out of town today, going to seatac airport and drove by the line... It was amazing!!!!!!!! it looks so cool, the tukwila station is almost done and uhhhh I just cant wait to ride on these trains!!!!


----------



## Jaxom92

I'm right there with you guinessbeer55. I plan to have a video recording device of some kind that's of relatively good quality in order to record my first trip along the entire length of the line. I'll probably upload it to youtube as well. And if there's any sort of grand opening ceremony open to the public, I'm there.


----------



## pwalker

There sure is a lot happening with "transportation" in Seattle. In the next 2-3 years we will see light rail and the opening of Sea-Tac's third runway. Plus, the on-going Viaduct and 520 issues...never boring!


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ And streetcars! :cheers:


----------



## Jaxom92

pwalker said:


> There sure is a lot happening with "transportation" in Seattle. In the next 2-3 years we will see light rail and the opening of Sea-Tac's third runway. Plus, the on-going Viaduct and 520 issues...never boring!


2007 is also going to be the busiest summer road construction season. Good thing I don't drive so much in the summer.


----------



## getontrac

It should be boring--it's usually more economical than cut-and-cover these days. 

Yeah, I know, over-used joke...

Nate


----------



## pwalker

OK, that took me a few seconds...haha:nuts:


----------



## Jaxom92

Okay, so the ST board just "completed it's list of projects" for ST2, the upcoming November vote. There's a news release you can view here.

What I'm most excited about is the implications within the language of this news item. First, "[The] Sound Transit 2 package will build 50 new miles of light rail..." This particular figure of 50 miles is four miles more than the previously touted new miles. So, the question becomes, where are those extra miles going?

The clue lies just a few paragraphs down: "To the south the system would extend through Des Moines, Federal Way and Fife to the Tacoma Dome, connecting with the existing Tacoma Link light rail system."

Now this has me immensely excited because I've always thought it was absolutely foolish not to build the last two miles (as measured on Google Earth) from the Port of Tacoma Rd and the Tacoma Link terminus. It seems now that this section is no longer "priority funding" and will be built.

So, we are left with an extra two miles somewhere... unless the millage is measured twice due to double tracking... which doesn't precisely make sense, but I don't know ST's conventions on this matter. However, there's no indication in the release of where the other two miles are going, so it's highly probable it's added onto the East Link or North Link section.

Anyhow, the official approval of this package will happen on May 24th, and at that time I imagine they'll be some detailed documents on the specifics. For now, this is what we got.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I know that. We can do very simple for less. For example, some train stations across the nation I went to usually have ugly tiles on the wall. Beautiful wooden wall or stainless steel wall costs much cheaper than tiles. We can do something very simple that makes it look very expensive but it is not really expensive as anyone would think.

I'm certainly sure that station I showed isn't that expensive as it looks!


----------



## sequoias

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ I know that. We can do very simple for less. For example, some train stations across the nation I went to usually have ugly tiles on the wall. Beautiful wooden wall or stainless steel wall costs much cheaper than tiles. We can do something very simple that makes it look very expensive but it is not really expensive as anyone would think.
> 
> I'm certainly sure that station I showed isn't that expensive as it looks!


I got it. I didn't think of that, lol. I'm sure there's some materials that can be cheaper than the ulgy looking materials. Sometimes you gotta be creative, that's all.


----------



## Jaxom92

I think a lot of the ugly choices are made due to ease of maintenance.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Very true. Sighs.


----------



## LosAngelesMetroBoy

hey, at least you dont have "art" of people looking like they are jumping to their deaths with serial numbers on their shirts like the LA Red Line civic center station. Its disturbing.


----------



## Jaxom92

^^ Good grief that would be!

So here's the latest pic related to the light rail construction. Sort of periphery activity, but nonetheless related. The intersection of Ninth and Pine, which is right over where the pine street stub tunnel is being built. They're almost done with that:










Sound Transit also put up some more animations depicting light rail on the east side. So they're kinda crappy. Especially the Bellevue ones, but it's something. I guess.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Interesting videos... I like elevated one better... More style than tunnel one. I don't really like the idea to build a floating light rail bridge at all. I'm no fan of floating bridges in the general. I like to see light rail suspension bridge to get built across Lake Washington. I doubt it will get built because of engeering and financial issues.


----------



## JasonB52

I think putting the light rail on the floating bridge will work out perfectly! I've always loved the floating bridges because of the fantastic views out onto the lake. It is my understanding that the light rail line will run on what are currently express lanes, so we don't have to worry about building a new bridge.


----------



## Jaxom92

Aye, having the majority of the infrastructure there already is a huge boon to getting the line built faster and cheaper. There is always the danger an earthquake or storm could damage the bridge irrevocably. Floating bridges are more prone to such disasters.

A suspension bridge doesn't seem feasible in my mind because of the huge investment in land on either side of the bridge for the anchoring and the run up to the bridge. This would displace too many people wherever the bridge is built. I'm not an engineer, so I can't say for sure if the engineering of a suspension bridge across the lake is possible, but I'd say not for the above reason as well as being incredibly difficult to build across the lake. If anybody knows or is an engineer out there, I'd love to hear the specifics of this issue.

A tunnel would be more feasible, I think, but barely. I think the lake is fairly deep. So, the easiest, cheapest way is to use the existing floating bridge.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

That is too bad we are living in one of most complicated geography (even its one of most beautiful area in the world!) and brings more engeering challenges for us.


----------



## JasonB52

I took a few minutes to take some pictures of the Tukwila Station and The Airport link today. Here are some highlights:









Tukwila Station as seen from the International Blvd. to the Northwest









Tukwila Station from International Blvd. overpass of 518 to the Southwest









A closeup of some of the work going on on the North face of the station. Also notice the elevated trackway heading down the hill toward I-5









Looking in through a newly installed glass wall









Columns are now in place for the airport link. Tukwila Station is just out of the frame to the right.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I can't see the pictures.


----------



## JasonB52

Try it again, I think I've got them fixed now...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

WOW! Much better! I love the design of that station! Very impressive!


----------



## JasonB52

I really like the design as well. What you don't see in the picture is the huge lot it is on, which will allow for lots of parking.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I'm not big fan of parking lots but this time it should encourage people to park and ride light rail instead driving on I-5 and being stuck in the traffics. BART in Bay Area has similar situation with parking lots in the suburbs to encourage people to ride it to downtown San Fransisco.


----------



## JasonB52

In the case of the Tukwila station, parking is going to really help this station be successful. I'll bet most of the riders that will use this station are going to come from the South on 99 or from the West on 518. The station is situated perfectly to allow them to drop their cars here before heading into downtown.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Exactly! I like to see streetcar or better bus route to add near that station and can go to Southcenter Mall or shopping area near that mall to increase the popularity of this station and give people more reasons to use this system just to get around.


----------



## Jaxom92

I'm certain the bus routes will be reworked to take the light rail into account. It'd be foolish not to.

Excellent pictures JasonB52! If I cared to drive up towards the construction areas, I'd take some too. It's nice to see some pics from folks in the area.


----------



## Jaxom92

The boring machine broke through the east portal today. We're half way done with the tunneling now (not counting station finishing and machine moving). Here's the news release.


----------



## BoulderGrad

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Heh. That doesn't sounds good to me. hno: It needs to become into profit so they can continue expand its system without having to ask everyone in The Puget Sound for more and more taxes or we will be in serious debt for over 50 years from now.


But if they charge too much for it (i.e. Vegas monorail) then no one will ride it, thus making it impossible to justify system expansions. It's a very delicate balancing act.


----------



## greg_christine

SteveM said:


> A couple of things to keep in mind about this:
> 
> - Seattle intends to run a metro-style light rail: frequent (every 3 minutes at peak), long trains, fully separated right-of-way (except a small part of the initial line), etc. I don't know a ton about Charlotte and Pheonix, but my understanding is that they're running at the surface, in the streets.
> 
> - North Carolina and Arizona have significantly weaker labor laws than Washington. Labor is not an insignificant cost on a project this size.
> 
> Seattle's streetcar is costing on the order of $40 million per mile. This is still more than comparable systems in places with cheaper labor, but it might make a closer comparison to Charlotte/Phoenix's light rail systems (i.e. with shorter trains running at longer headways and at grade).


The light rail line in Charlotte is almost entirely grade-separated. It is being built along an abandoned rail corridor. This is the way many cost-effective light rail lines were built in the early days of the light rail revival. The cost of the line is relatively low and it should be reasonably fast and safe.

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid+Transit+Planning/South+Corridor/Home.htm

The light rail line in Phoenix is being built primarily in the medians of city streets. This is the way many recent light rail lines have been built now that few abandoned rail corridors through the centers of large cities remain to be exploited. The cost of the line is relatively low but there are consequences for speed and safety.

http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/

I am very much in favor of grade separation; however, grade separation does not make for cost-effective light rail in places like Seattle where there are no conveniently located abandoned rail corridors. Seattle is basically paying for a heavy rail metro but getting light rail.

The South Lake Union and future First Hill Streetcars are not comparable to the light rail lines under construction in Phoenix and Charlotte. Neither the Phoenix line nor the Charlotte line will share traffic lanes with motor vehicles. Both will be designed for multi-car trains composed of 90-foot light rail vehicles rather than 60-foot streetcars operated as single units.


----------



## Jaxom92

greg_christine said:


> I am very much in favor of grade separation; however, grade separation does not make for cost-effective light rail in places like Seattle where there are no conveniently located abandoned rail corridors. Seattle is basically paying for a heavy rail metro but getting light rail.


Do you see this as a problem considering the headways they want to run on the busiest section (Northgate to Downtown)? If light rail can achieve a level of service comparable to heavy rail, are we suffering too ill effects because of the cost?


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

BoulderGrad said:


> But if they charge too much for it (i.e. Vegas monorail) then no one will ride it, thus making it impossible to justify system expansions. It's a very delicate balancing act.


I agree. People would use light rail system more if they costs way lower than gas prices for sure.


----------



## SteveM

greg_christine said:


> The South Lake Union and future First Hill Streetcars are not comparable to the light rail lines under construction in Phoenix and Charlotte. Neither the Phoenix line nor the Charlotte line will share traffic lanes with motor vehicles. Both will be designed for multi-car trains composed of 90-foot light rail vehicles rather than 60-foot streetcars operated as single units.


I don't disagree that the service isn't comparable (especially not with Charlotte's line, if it's mostly grade separated), but I claim the construction costs per mile of, say, Phoenix's in-street light rail ought to be comparable to Seattl's in-street streetcar. In both cases, the cost is building stops, reinforcing the streets for heavier cars, adding track, etc. In neither case is anyone building expensive tunnels, elevated trackway, etc.

By the way, I don't understand your disappointment that Seattle is "only getting light rail". In what way is Seattle's planned light rail inferior to a third-rail metro?


----------



## sequoias

I know it's not related to the light rail.

Sound Transit just updated their quarterly ridership data and they also said they added 7th car to the commuter rail between Seattle and Tacoma to keep up with the demand. The ridership data they provided showed pretty big growth in ridership. The Sounder commuter rail ridership (quarterly) totals for 2006 and 2007: 382,123 471,692 23% They're predicting 10.1 million riders for the whole sound transit agency for 2007. 3.1 million riders in 1st quarter 2007, also. The average weekday boardings for the ST agency is 43,900 for 1st quarter 2007.


I wonder what's the maximum number of cars that will fit the current platforms they have at those stations?


----------



## greg_christine

SteveM said:


> ... I don't understand your disappointment that Seattle is "only getting light rail". In what way is Seattle's planned light rail inferior to a third-rail metro?


My disappointment stems from knowing what is being built in other cities. The most obvious compromise in the design of Seattle Central Link is the Rainier Valley segment with its at-grade street crossings and restricted speed. You can look north to Vancouver to see what else is missing. The Mark II vehicles in Vancouver have a walk-through design with no drivers cabs. The floor inside the vehicle is entirely flat and passengers can walk from one end of the train to the other and even look out the windows at the ends: 










It won't be possible to move from car to car on the Seattle trains. The Seattle light rail vehicles will have an awkward stepped-floor arrangement with cabs across the ends similar to the San Jose light rail vehicle shown in the following photo:










The trains in Vancouver are fully automated and unmanned, which brings several advantages:

- Train speeds across the network can be adjusted simultaneously in a coordinated manner to help maintain schedules.
- Headways between trains of 90 seconds are used in service and headways as tight as 75 seconds are claimed to be achievable.
- High service frequency can be maintained during off-peak hours with no cost penalty due to the need to staff trains.
- Problems due to operator errors are greatly reduced.

I have seen plans for Central Link to ultimately have three-minute headways through the downtown tunnel and I have seen claims that two-minute headways should be possible. The two-minute headways will be difficult to achieve given that it will take the operator about a minute and a half just to walk from the cab at one end of a 4-car train to the cab at the other end. Please note that the difference between two-minute headways and 90-second headways is the difference between needing 4-car trains versus 3-car trains. No other city in the United States has light rail trains longer than three cars.

I believe what happened in Seattle is that the political leadership accepted as gospel the propaganda that light rail would be less costly. Even after the cost numbers came in for the initial segment, they believed light rail would be less costly in the suburbs where they expected the line to be predominantly at-grade. Instead, the design evolved in the opposite direction. Planners realized that a high degree of grade-separation is necessary in order to provide a high enough travel speed to be competitive with private automobiles. Unlike many other cities, there are no conveniently located abandoned rail corridors that could be exploited. As a result, the cost of the system is similar to a heavy rail metro.


----------



## kub86

^ I agree too. I think a majority of seattleites didn't know what was going on in the rest of the world engineering-wise. We just sort of hopped on the light rail bandwagon like the rest of the nation for its supposed cheaper cost to build. 

To me, what's disappointing, is that we kept making our light rail more and more metro-like...which inflated our costs to the point where we probably should've just built a full-blown subway instead of the hybrid thing we'll have now. So we don't have a light rail, or a metro, but like someone mentioned, more like a "light metro"....which is fine and better than what's being built in other cities, but since every subway fanatic knows that fast automatic lines are the cream of the crop of transportation...you sort of get disappointed when you find out your city is paying cream of the crop prices for something inferior. I feel like it was a missed opportunity.

As for the train cars...yeah, I'm not the biggest fan. Like greg_christine already said, there's no walk-through design and there's weird steps....and of course there's that horrid wave on the outside. But don't get me wrong, Central link is a positive, important step forward for our city.


----------



## pflo777

I dont get why the US does have so big problems in implementing modern public transport, like every stupid european or asian city is able to do.....

Why is it so damn expansive?
One mile of light rail in Germany (which is known for its high prices in all fields of technology) costs about 15mio$ /mile.

How do you get those horrible 25-60 mio$ per Mile ???
Is your light rail made out of pure Gold?

For 60 mio$ per mile, you get twice the shanghai maglev (30mio$ per mile), which is known to be the most expansive public transport on earth (and therefore used only on its 20 miles long demonstration line....

That discussion is pretty similar to the one, when germans discuss about skyscrapers, especially supertalls: All city representatives aruge, that skyscrapers are a waste of money, and that they cost more money in the end than they bring back.
Thats why you see no skyscrapers in Germany and no light rail in the USA.....


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Because Americans are still addicted to automobiles. Look at east coast cities, they have public transits that built over hundred years ago just before automobiles arrives on the streets. In my opinion, automobile screwed up ours American Society big time. 

We used to have trolleys here in Seattle before they got replaced by trolley buses and automobiles.


----------



## BoulderGrad

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ Because Americans are still addicted to automobiles. Look at east coast cities, they have public transits that built over hundred years ago just before automobiles arrives on the streets. In my opinion, automobile screwed up ours American Society big time.
> 
> We used to have trolleys here in Seattle before they got replaced by trolley buses and automobiles.


Just wanted to correct you that most east coast cities do not have very old metro systems. I think Boston and New York are the only ones with systems still in use that are over 80 years old, and maybe bits of Philly's system (correct me if I'm wrong on that). But cities like Washington D.C. and Atlanta have relatively new systems. DC's system was actually a compromise between building a number of expressways through downtown. They instead decided to build the beltway around the city (worlds largest parking lot), and then build rail lines radially out from downtown. The system first opened in 1976, and is still growing in size and ridership. 


I also totally agree with greg and Kub. It's nice that we'll have a rail transit system again, but why didn't we make it as modern as we could? Maybe they'll figure out something further down the line.


----------



## mr.x

Right now in Vancouver, we're building a 19-km automated rapid transit rail line, called the "Canada Line", from Downtown Vancouver to the airport and Central Richmond. 16 stations in 2009 and 4 future ones in the future, as well as twenty 2-car trains with each car 20 metres long. A 2-car train can carry 334 passengers. The system will have a capacity of 15,000 pphpd.

About 9 kms of it (Vancouver) is a subway while the remaining 9 kms (Richmond and airport) is mainly elevated.

The thing is about 2/3rds of the stations will have 40 metre platforms, expandable in the future to 50 metre platforms, while the other third of stations will have 50 metre platforms when the line is complete in 2009 in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics. When all platforms are expanded in the future to 50 metres, a 10-metre car would be added in the middle of the 2-car trains. 

This is very low capacity for a metro area of 2.2 million, and is expecting 3 million by 2020. Not only that but the urban centres of Downtown Vancouver and Central Richmond are growing rapidly, employment and residential, and the airport is expected to employ 15,000 more people over the next 15 years as well as more passengers from 16 million to 25 million annually.

And yet, such a small capacity system will cost CAN$2 billion. Note though that $1.3 billion is public money, while the remaining $700 million is funded by the private sector, and they'll also operate the line for the next 35 years to profit from building and operating the line.

The Canada Line uses a different technology from our existing SkyTrain network. The C-Line uses standard third rail, used in many cities around the world, while SkyTrain uses Bombardier's linear propulsion technology. Not only that but the C-Line trains, the same model used in Hong Kong's MTR, are about a metre wider than SkyTrain cars.

I think we're going to regret building a line with such short platforms and I'm happy to see that at least Seattle has some sort of long-term thinking, building platforms 3x the Canada Line's length.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Also, quit knocking the wave design. I actually kinda like it. At least its better than the Air Stream Trailer trains in NY:









Or the 70's throw back designs on the Denver light rail trains:









Blech...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

BoulderGrad said:


> Just wanted to correct you that most east coast cities do not have very old metro systems. I think Boston and New York are the only ones with systems still in use that are over 80 years old, and maybe bits of Philly's system (correct me if I'm wrong on that). But cities like Washington D.C. and Atlanta have relatively new systems. DC's system was actually a compromise between building a number of expressways through downtown. They instead decided to build the beltway around the city (worlds largest parking lot), and then build rail lines radially out from downtown. The system first opened in 1976, and is still growing in size and ridership.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...


----------



## thestip

greg_christine said:


> No other city in the United States has light rail trains longer than three cars.


Minor correction, here in Buffalo, we run four-car trains for special events downtown. During rush hour we only run three-car trains, we could run four, but due to system length, ridership does not warrant it.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> I am very much in favor of grade separation; however, grade separation does not make for cost-effective light rail in places like Seattle where there are no conveniently located abandoned rail corridors. Seattle is basically paying for a heavy rail metro but getting light rail.


We're getting right of way, and we can make it heavy rail in another sixty or seventy years if we need to.

Remember, we can't expand I-5 in Seattle - WSDOT recently suggested it would cost $25 billion (2005 dollars, as I recall) to add one lane each way from one end of city limits to the other (consider beacon hill, capitol hill, convention center, ship canal bridge). That's in comparison to under $10 billion in capital expenditures (2006) for 50 miles of something between light and heavy rail.

When you call something cost effective, you're comparing to need (which is extremely great - we have the worst traffic in the country by some estimates) and you're comparing to the cost of building the equivalent capacity in another system. LRT will comfortably carry 8000-9000 pphpd (people per hour per direction) - that's a new eight lane highway in the same corridor (2200pph per lane, in 2000 vehicles phpl, max). How much would it cost to build a highway equivalent in the same corridor, with the same direct access to each urban center served? 100 billion capital? How much would it cost to build feeders, expand thoroughfares, and provide parking? What would the economic impact be of all the real estate lost (even if the main corridor were underground, like North Link)?

When you make an apples to apples comparison, the Sound Transit 2 project is basically the only way the region can afford to expand north-south transportation capacity at *all*.


----------



## aznichiro115

greg_christine said:


> My disappointment stems from knowing what is being built in other cities. The most obvious compromise in the design of Seattle Central Link is the Rainier Valley segment with its at-grade street crossings and restricted speed. You can look north to Vancouver to see what else is missing. The Mark II vehicles in Vancouver have a walk-through design with no drivers cabs. The floor inside the vehicle is entirely flat and passengers can walk from one end of the train to the other and even look out the windows at the ends:
> 
> 
> The two-minute headways will be difficult to achieve given that it will take the operator about a minute and a half just to walk from the cab at one end of a 4-car train to the cab at the other end.



a entirely flat floor would require high floor cars, which would not be able to run side by side with buses. 

the walking problem is easily solved. have a operator board at Westlake as it is going to the terminus at the end of the car(towards Sea-Tac) so as it switches tracks it can start right away without the operator walking, this is done in hong kong by KCR at East Tsim Sha Tsui, note, KCR trains are 12 cars long.


----------



## sequoias

Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
No other city in the United States has light rail trains longer than three cars

Sacramento do. I saw a video of the light rail with 4 cars on the street near downtown Sacramento.


----------



## greg_christine

thestip said:


> Minor correction, here in Buffalo, we run four-car trains for special events downtown. During rush hour we only run three-car trains, we could run four, but due to system length, ridership does not warrant it.


Yes, you are correct. My statement that only Sound Transit will run light rail trains longer than three cars was incorrect.

Please note that the light rail vehicles in Buffalo are not articulated. Each vehicle rides on two bogies and has a length of 64 feet. The Sound Transit light rail vehicles are articulated. Each vehicle rides on three bogies and has a length of 95 feet. A four-car train in Buffalo is about the same length as a three-car train in Seattle.


----------



## tmaxxfreak11

greg_christine said:


> My disappointment stems from knowing what is being built in other cities. The most obvious compromise in the design of Seattle Central Link is the Rainier Valley segment with its at-grade street crossings and restricted speed.


The section in Rainier Valley runs in between MLK. It does not run on MLK but in between the lanes that go each direction. I never remembering hearing this would have speed restrictions nor do I understand why it should.










(Photo taken from flickr)


----------



## BoulderGrad

Thank you Greg, great sum up of the two systems, but I was more referring to what distinguishes the DC metro as being a Heavy Rail metro system, and Seattle's new system as being light rail? Whenever I've heard "heavy rail", I've always assumed it to be something like the Sounder in Seattle or MARC and VRE trains in DC: A commuter train with an independently powered locomotive that runs on the same track system as freight trains. But I've also seen heavy rail refer to DC's metro and Chicago's EL on these forums. 

Is the DC metro considered part of that same group, or is it a 3rd kind of animal all together? DC metro seems to have many things in common with the new Seattle line; Grade separated for the most part, runs along its own unique rail system, powered from an external electric source (overhead in Seattle, third rail in DC), etc.

I see a number of the differences; Seattle's crosses streets at parts, DC uses smaller cars but more of them and they run faster, DC's is automated to a point, etc.

What distinguishes Seattle's as Light Rail, and DC's as heavy rail?


----------



## greg_christine

BoulderGrad said:


> Thank you Greg, great sum up of the two systems, but I was more referring to what distinguishes the DC metro as being a Heavy Rail metro system, and Seattle's new system as being light rail? Whenever I've heard "heavy rail", I've always assumed it to be something like the Sounder in Seattle or MARC and VRE trains in DC: A commuter train with an independently powered locomotive that runs on the same track system as freight trains. But I've also seen heavy rail refer to DC's metro and Chicago's EL on these forums.
> 
> Is the DC metro considered part of that same group, or is it a 3rd kind of animal all together? DC metro seems to have many things in common with the new Seattle line; Grade separated for the most part, runs along its own unique rail system, powered from an external electric source (overhead in Seattle, third rail in DC), etc.
> 
> I see a number of the differences; Seattle's crosses streets at parts, DC uses smaller cars but more of them and they run faster, DC's is automated to a point, etc.
> 
> What distinguishes Seattle's as Light Rail, and DC's as heavy rail?


I would call Sounder, MARC, and VRE "Commuter Rail".

The word "light" in the term "light rail" refers to the level of engineering of the line. Simply put, light rail is generally built cheap. Heavy rail metros are generally designed for capacities in excess of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction whereas light rail is usually designed for no more than 10,000 passengers per hour per direction, but system capacity alone does not define whether a system is light rail or a heavy rail metro.

Compared to heavy rail metros, light rail generally features only limited use of bridges and tunnels to achieve grade separation and light rail vehicles are designed for tighter radius curves than heavy rail metro cars. Recently constructed metro lines generally feature some degree of automation whereas there are only limited examples of automation on light rail lines such as the downtown tunnel segments of the systems in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Heavy rail metros that serve suburban areas with widely spaced stations are generally designed for higher speeds than light rail. 

Seattle Central Link presents an awkward situation in which the system capacity and the engineering of much of the track system are consistent with a heavy rail metro but the trains and the low platform stations are strictly light rail. This is the reason for the high cost.


----------



## tmaxxfreak11

greg_christine said:


> I would call Sounder, MARC, and VRE "Commuter Rail".
> 
> The word "light" in the term "light rail" refers to the level of engineering of the line. Simply put, light rail is generally built cheap. Heavy rail metros are generally designed for capacities in excess of 20,000 passengers per hour per direction whereas light rail is usually designed for no more than 10,000 passengers per hour per direction, but system capacity alone does not define whether a system is light rail or a heavy rail metro.
> 
> Compared to heavy rail metros, light rail generally features only limited use of bridges and tunnels to achieve grade separation and light rail vehicles are designed for tighter radius curves than heavy rail metro cars. Recently constructed metro lines generally feature some degree of automation whereas there are only limited examples of automation on light rail lines such as the downtown tunnel segments of the systems in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Heavy rail metros that serve suburban areas with widely spaced stations are generally designed for higher speeds than light rail.
> 
> Seattle Central Link presents an awkward situation in which the system capacity and the engineering of much of the track system are consistent with a heavy rail metro but the trains and the low platform stations are strictly light rail. This is the reason for the high cost.


I still don't see why we didn't build the subway we could have in the 70s. :bash: 
Anyway, i think that the light rail cars are a little more pleasing to the eye anyway, plus you don't have the danger of the third rail.


----------



## Jaxom92

One thing to note there is a "smart card" planned for use on the light rail (and all other public transit in the region). There will still be traditional proof of payment system was well.

In other news, not directly related to Seattle's light rail: Dump the Pump Day


----------



## officedweller

Greg, 
what are the concrete curbs between the tracks for, as shown in this Seattle pic? Vancouver's Canada Line has the same feature on its elevated segments. Thanks!

BTW - the Canada Line will be automated and will not be rubber tired or linear induction - so we'll see what happens in the snow!



>


----------



## greg_christine

^^

1. I see the concrete "curbs" often used on concrete rail beds and on segmented concrete viaducts. I have not been involved in the design of these systems, so anything I state is purely conjecture. Having the secondary concrete structure supporting the rail would bring the advantage of providing a means of adjusting the height of the rails to provide proper alignment between segments of the concrete rail bed. The raised lip on the inboard side of the rail would be useful in capturing the wheels on one side of the bogie in case of derailment.

2. There are several transit lines that ride on steel wheels, are powered by conventional rotary electric motors, and are advertised as "driverless". To the best of my knowledge, they all have staff onboard the trains riding in the passenger compartment. Examples include the Docklands Light Railway in London, the Copenhagen Metro, and the Singapore North East Line. On the Docklands Light Railway, the onboard staff are called "Passenger Service Agents". On the Copenhagen Metro, they are called "Stewards". The latter name conjures the image of a person who pushes a small cart and dispenses complimentary packets of peanuts and soft drinks. The reality is that these onboard staff are trained to intercede should problems occur with the automated control of the trains. The ice on the tracks scenario that resulted in the 1996 accident in Washington, DC is an obvious scenario in which onboard staff might be needed.

Rubber-tired VAL metros exist in Lille, Paris (Orlyval), Toulouse, Rennes, Taipei (Muzha Line), and Turin. Smaller scale VAL installations exist in several airports. Every one of them operates without onboard staff. Bombardier's LIM powered system is used on transit lines in Vancouver, Detroit, Kuala Lumpur (Putra), Toronto (Scarborough RT), and New York (JFK Airtrain). All operate without onboard staff except for Toronto's Scarborough RT. (I have seen several explanations for the use of staff onboard the Scarborough RT including concerns regarding public safety and pressure from the trade unions.) Rubber-tired and LIM powered systems bring the advantage that train control is not dependent on the adhesion between a steel wheel and a steel rail.

The RAV/Canada Line being built in Vancouver will be driverless and will feature steel-wheeled trains with conventional rotary electric motors. I have not seen any statement that it will have onboard staff, so it might become the first such line to operate without onboard staff. The trains for the RAV/Canada Line are being produced by Rotem of South Korea. In South Korea, a fully automated metro line is under construction that will use LIM powered trains produced by Bombardier of Canada. (Can the designers of both systems be right?) The ships carrying the trains might presently be passing each other in the middle of the Pacific.

VAL Metro in Taipei









Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit Train at JFK Airport in New York


----------



## mr.x

^ great post. finally we have those curbs explained to us, thx....lol, so true about the ships carrying different trains passing each other over the Pacific.


And here's the LIM line you were talking about, in Yongin South Korea, using only 1-car MK II trains, at least for now.


----------



## Jaxom92

Bringing the discussion back to Seattle light rail, there is a monthly picture gallery taken by a local photographer. 10 of his pictures are put up per month on the Sound Transit website. You can view this gallery here. It is in black and white, but it still shows the construction well. If you click on the first 2005 month, it will cycle through all the months up to the latest set.


----------



## UrbanBen

tmaxxfreak11 said:


> The expected ridership with just the initial segment and the UW extension would be over 150,000. That would rank it 2nd or 3rd among US light rail systems. With the ST2 extensions ridership is expected to shoot well past 300,000. This would leave any other US light rail system in the dust by well over 100,000 riders. This passengers/mile is similiar to that of the Washington DC subway. Could Seattle support heavy rail? Probably.


Ridership doesn't equate to tax dollars for construction. The problem is not in how many people will use it, but rather in how many are available to help pay for it. Washington State does not have an income tax, fuel excise taxes are required to be spent only on state highways, and motor vehicle excise taxes are prohibited as a funding source.

The reasons for this being light and not heavy rail are partly political. The Seattle monorail project failed spectacularly, and the average Seattle voter doesn't know the difference between that agency and Sound Transit (the agency building light rail). The state government also only provided for a certain number and amount (percentage) of funding sources available as financial tools for a local agency.

There is, quite simply, *no way* Sound Transit could have passed a heavy rail ballot measure. They did pass a light rail ballot measure, and our light rail system (if ST2 passes) will have higher capacity than any other system serving a comparable urban area in the US. That's what we've got, and the vote for ST2 is going to be extremely close, even just with light rail.


----------



## officedweller

greg_christine said:


> The raised lip on the inboard side of the rail would be useful in capturing the wheels on one side of the bogie in case of derailment.


That's what I though. Thanks for the info (btw, for the Canada Line, it appears that the rail is affixed directly to the guideway floor and the inboard curb is added after the rail footings are in place). http://www.canadaline.ca/gallery.asp?galleryGroup=13&CurrPage=1#larger


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Ridership doesn't equate to tax dollars for construction. The problem is not in how many people will use it, but rather in how many are available to help pay for it. Washington State does not have an income tax, fuel excise taxes are required to be spent only on state highways, and motor vehicle excise taxes are prohibited as a funding source.
> 
> The reasons for this being light and not heavy rail are partly political. The Seattle monorail project failed spectacularly, and the average Seattle voter doesn't know the difference between that agency and Sound Transit (the agency building light rail). The state government also only provided for a certain number and amount (percentage) of funding sources available as financial tools for a local agency.
> 
> There is, quite simply, *no way* Sound Transit could have passed a heavy rail ballot measure. They did pass a light rail ballot measure, and our light rail system (if ST2 passes) will have higher capacity than any other system serving a comparable urban area in the US. That's what we've got, and the vote for ST2 is going to be extremely close, even just with light rail.


Regarding the now defunct Seattle Monorail Project, the following was the cost for the construction portion of the proposed contract with Cascadia Monorail:

Seattle Monorail Project
Design/Build portion of Cascadia Contract:
$1.6 billion / 14 miles = $114 million/mile










The monorail was controversial; however, there is no denying that it was relatively inexpensive for a fully grade separated system. For comparison, the following are the costs for the construction of the various portions of the Central Link light rail system:

Cost of Earlier Segments of Central Link
Central Link Initial Segment - Low Version:
$2.1 billion / 14 miles = $150 million/mile
Central Link Initial Segment - High Version:
$2.44 billion / 13.9 miles = $176 million/mile
Central Link SeaTac Airport Extension:
($225 million light rail construction + $75 million road
realignment) / 1.7 miles = $176 million/mile
Central Link University of Washington Extension:
$1.7 billion / 3.15 miles = $540 million/mile

Cost of Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions
ST2 Central Link Extensions - High Estimate:
$10.26 billion / 49.4 miles = $208 million/mile
ST2 Central Link Extensions - Low Estimate:
$8.97 billion / 49.4 miles = $182 million/mile
ST2 Central Link Extensions - Mid-Range Estimate:
$9.62 billion / 49.4 miles = $195 million/mile


----------



## greg_christine

officedweller said:


> That's what I though. Thanks for the info (btw, for the Canada Line, it appears that the rail is affixed directly to the guideway floor and the inboard curb is added after the rail footings are in place). http://www.canadaline.ca/gallery.asp?galleryGroup=13&CurrPage=1#larger


I don't claim to be an expert on this; however, it appears to me that the inboard curbs and the rail footings are both built after the concrete rail bed is already in place. The following image from the construction of the RAV/Canada Line appears to show the rails being leveled before the rail footings and curbs are added. This makes a lot of sense as it provides an opportunity to adjust the height and alignment of the rail footings after the rail bed is constructed:


----------



## sequoias

New photo of the week by Sound Transit 

This what the Westlake station looks like, it looks pretty much the same as it was before. There's new lighting, rebuilt the curb to match the link light rail low floor trains, new rails, etc. I don't know if I have seen that artwork on the wall, though.


----------



## en

It seems Seattle is bascially paying for heavy rail infrastructure (except for a small section) and sticking light rail cars on it...

I remember when they announced long time ago that they were going to share the use of the transit tunnel with buses and the light rail cars I thought to myselft "another half-assed short term decision"...


----------



## aznichiro115

en said:


> It seems Seattle is bascially paying for heavy rail infrastructure (except for a small section) and sticking light rail cars on it...
> 
> I remember when they announced long time ago that they were going to share the use of the transit tunnel with buses and the light rail cars I thought to myselft "another half-assed short term decision"...


i don't think the transit tunnel can handle heavy rail, the tunnels are just too small, they were build for light rail and buses, that was the original plan when it was build in the 1990s


----------



## sequoias

aznichiro115 said:


> i don't think the transit tunnel can handle heavy rail, the tunnels are just too small, they were build for light rail and buses, that was the original plan when it was build in the 1990s


That's right. The tunnel is basically too small to handle heavy rail trains. The trains are taller than light rail trains and it will require a lot of retrofitting and a bigger tunnel for that. I think light rail is good enough for Seattle. Look at Dallas, Houston, Portland, etc. They have light rail and they're doing fine. 

Heavy rail is better for cities like NYC, Chicago or whatever.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Downtown tunnel disappoints me. hno: I was expecting they would modernizate this tunnel. I guess they didn't do that. It still look ugly 80's design. Sighs. hno:


----------



## sequoias

light rail testing at International district station. 

Crazyaboutcities, yeah me too. I was dissappointed that it looks pretty much the same boring 1980's, but at least it's got function for transporting passengers in and out of downtown without the surface traffic like in Portland.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Looking good! Can't wait to ride it in 2009! :banana:


----------



## tmaxxfreak11

sequoias said:


> Crazyaboutcities, yeah me too. I was dissappointed that it looks pretty much the same boring 1980's, but at least it's got function for transporting passengers in and out of downtown without the surface traffic like in Portland.


I am so glad they did not run it on the surface streets. Also, if the East Link is approved then it will either be run in a tunnel or elevated through downtown belleuve, not on the surface there either. :banana:


----------



## greg_christine

sequoias said:


> That's right. The tunnel is basically too small to handle heavy rail trains. The trains are taller than light rail trains and it will require a lot of retrofitting and a bigger tunnel for that. ...


Actually, light rail vehicles are taller than heavy rail subway cars. The height from rail to roof is about the same for both but light rail vehicles must have extra space above the roof for the pantographs:

Bombardier Flexity Swift - London-Croydon









Bombardier - Toronto Subway









The typical light rail vehicle has a minium pantograph operating height of about 13 feet (4 meters) from the top of the rails to the overhead wire. This is about 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) beyond the roof of the vehicle. (The precise dimensions vary depending on the particular model.) Additional clearance must be provided between the overhead wire and the roof of the tunnel.


----------



## sequoias

^^Hmmm, interesting information.


----------



## pwalker

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Downtown tunnel disappoints me. hno: I was expecting they would modernizate this tunnel. I guess they didn't do that. It still look ugly 80's design. Sighs. hno:


I agree, some of the Seattle undergrounds need to be modernized, (perhaps adding some retail would be good!)...but have you been in some of New York's old subway stations? Now, THAT is old school! But still entirely functional.


----------



## greg_christine

The following is the information that I have regarding the Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles that are being used for Central Link:










Based on comparisons with other light rail vehicles, I am fairly certain that the 12.1 foot height is the rail-to-roof height and does not include the height of the pantograph.

Several of my recent posts have concerned comparisons with the Washington Metro. The following is the information that I have for those trains:










Finally, just in case any member of this forum is interested, the following is the information that I have regarding the dual power buses that were previously used in the downtown transit tunnel:










The new single-wire 1500 VDC electric power supply in the tunnel is not compatible with the two-wire 700 VDC system needed by electric trolley buses, so the tunnel will now be shared with hybrid buses.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

pwalker said:


> I agree, some of the Seattle undergrounds need to be modernized, (perhaps adding some retail would be good!)...but have you been in some of New York's old subway stations? Now, THAT is old school! But still entirely functional.


Add retails? Not bad idea... It could help tunnels more attractive and busier than ever by adding shoppers plus commuters. That reminds me of underground shopping mall at World Trade Center before 9/11 attacks. I shopped there before, its was really neat! I have been to some New York's old subway stations, they're okay and dirty. I like Grand Central Station better!


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Add retails? Not bad idea... It could help tunnels more attractive and busier than ever by adding shoppers plus commuters. That reminds me of underground shopping mall at World Trade Center before 9/11 attacks. I shopped there before, its was really neat! I have been to some New York's old subway stations, they're okay and dirty. I like Grand Central Station better!


One thing that I find neglected is Taiwan's impressive subway system built not too long ago. Quite modern, complete with an underground shopping mall with not too bad looking trains, six cars per set, depending on the line, there are above ground grade separations. It would probably fit well in Bellevue. Check these out.

Plain, but sleek trains.









Photo of normal usage. That is NOT peak-time ridership.









The ending section of an underground shopping mall, complete with 7-11s about every city block or so, bakeries, toy stores, art-show displays, restaurants, heck I remember seeing Starbucks in there or maybe it was Tully's but it's quite nice. I'd estimate the width of the main passage to be about 30 feet or so with some sections in excess of 50 feet. The length, considering it took me about 20 minutes to walk straight through, I would place a bet that it's at least a quarter-mile long.










Platform and some visible rail










Underground station










Aboveground station










Taiwan's recent increase in rail-road development is quite impressive, and it recently commissioned a high-speed Shinkansen bullet-train bought from Japan that runs the length of the island. Just some inspiration for Satellites.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Wow! Not bad! The design is okay but the concept of having shopping mall that involved subway station is great! You're right it would be great fit for downtown Bellevue for sure. It should do same thing for downtown Seattle as well.


----------



## HAWC1506

I'm not sure a decent subway system would be possible for Seattle anytime soon. Their ST2 project doesn't seem to allow cross-city transport very well. The design is limited to a couple city blocks and to only part of the city and not the "one-station-per-five-blocks-whichever-way-you-go" system in densely populated cities like Taipei or Tokyo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's probably impossible to convert the bus tunnels to accommodate longer trains than the proposed Light Rail because the turn radius in the tunnels itself are so small and the tunnels are so narrow that it would be impossible for longer train cars to make it through. And if ST is still proposing to convert the I-90 express lanes for light rail, I heard that they will have to modify the two tunnels between Lake Washington in terms of height, which could be a costly process. However, I am happy with what is going on right now. Hopefully this project will lead to even more projects and improvements in the future. About the mall, we'll just have to wait until private companies make proposals. An extension of Lincoln/Bellevue Square in a Bellevue underground Light Rail System will be awesome. Same goes with Seattle bus tunnels.

But guys you have to admit, Seattle is being bombarded with transportation projects it's quite overwhelming. I'm not the one paying taxes because I'm not old enough to get my drivers license yet but I can feel all the chaos going on here, we have:

-SR520 bridge replacement
-Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement
-Light Rail to Sea-Tac
-Proposed Light Rail to Bellevue and Redmond
-Road widening projects on I-90 to add a carpool lane
-Tacoma Narrows bridge tolls

Right now, I think taxpayers have enough to deal with. It's probably inevitable that they're going to set up tolls on the 520 bridge as well. I think the Bellevue/Redmond extension of Light Rail is probably as far as light-rail supporters would want to go in terms of cost, but a problem is, what's going to happen to the Issaquah Highlands when they finish the 3200 proposed homes? So far I've only seen TWO park and rides up there.


----------



## HAWC1506

*A little reading for your entertainment*

To me:

Your inquiry was forwarded to me by city of Bellevue staff, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I’d be happy to talk with you over the phone if you have additional questions. Thank you for taking an interest in regional transportation!

Sound Transit is currently in the planning stages for Sound Transit 2 (ST2), the next set of regional transit investments. The plan will build upon the investments that voters approved in the 1996 Sound Move plan, which included regional bus service, park & ride lots, transit centers, sounder commuter rail and the initial segmant of Link light rail which when completed in 2009 will run from SeaTac Airport to downtown Seattle (you’ve probably seen this construction if you’ve been out to the airport lately!).

The ST2 package, along with a significant roads package that will address major highway needs will go before voters next November. The ST2 plan in its current draft form calls for the following throughout the 3-county region:

§ 42-45 miles of new link light rail

§ 20-22 new light rail stations

§ 12,000 new park & ride stalls

§ 9 additional cities connected by light rail

§ 7 new or improved Sounder stations

§ 2 new I-405 BRT enhancements

§ 1 mile of new or improved Sounder tracks

§ 1 new streetcar line

§ The projected system-wide (light rail, buses & sounder) ridership by 2030 is 351,000 weekday riders and 106 million annual riders.

There are significant projects in the ST2 plan for the Eastside:

§ The East Link project would extend light rail transit via I-90 to downtown Bellevue, through the Bel-Red corridor and into Redmond.

§ Make enhancements to the I405 bus rapid transit system by providing park and ride facilities in Bothell & Renton

§ Provides funding for planning studies for extensions of future high capacity transit on SR520 and out to Issaquah

I’ve attached the ST2 draft plan. Again, please let me know if I can answer additional questions, and thank you for your inquiry!

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/FLY_ST2%20Draft%20Package.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The East Link project would utilize the center lanes of I90 which now serve as one-way HOV lanes (west bound in the morning and east bound in the evening). However, before light rail is implemented on the bridge, there is a plan in place (called R8A) which calls for one new HOV lane to be added in each direction on the outer bridge decks. Both WSDOT and Sound Transit are partners in the R8A project.

So, today you have 8-lanes, and after light rail is implemented, you will still have 8-lanes.

Capacity…

One light rail vehicle at maximum capacity can carry 200 people in one car. The train can be extended to 4 cars (although currently our planning calls for 2 car trains).

At maximum capacity, light rail can carry 8,000 to 9,000 people per hour in each direction at full build out with 4 car trains running every 4 minutes across Lake Washington.
----------------------------------
Enjoy!


----------



## mhays

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Downtown tunnel disappoints me. hno: I was expecting they would modernizate this tunnel. I guess they didn't do that. It still look ugly 80's design. Sighs. hno:


If they had, they'd have gotten huge complaints, and justifiably so. People expect them to spend money on systems, not redecorating a tunnel from less than 20 years ago. This sort of thing is crucial to passing the November vote.


----------



## HAWC1506

mhays said:


> If they had, they'd have gotten huge complaints, and justifiably so. People expect them to spend money on systems, not redecorating a tunnel from less than 20 years ago. This sort of thing is crucial to passing the November vote.


I guess it's one of the few options, if not the only one, they have to connect Light Rail to Bellevue without spending more on right of way and a new tunnel. I would prefer that they didn't convert the tunnels. The rails that would be implemented on the I-90 floating bridge will be built to withstand movement of the bridge so my guess is that it will be very flexible but I would be a little tentative to ride on bending rails...


----------



## Jaxom92

HAWC1506 said:


> I guess it's one of the few options, if not the only one, they have to connect Light Rail to Bellevue without spending more on right of way and a new tunnel. I would prefer that they didn't convert the tunnels. The rails that would be implemented on the I-90 floating bridge will be built to withstand movement of the bridge so my guess is that it will be very flexible but I would be a little tentative to ride on bending rails...


The rails don't bend so much as slide across each other. Where movement must be accommodated, there are basically two sets of rails that slide back and forth along the length. The train wheels treat them as one rail, due to the specifics of the design. It's been done successfully in many other countries, nearest, Canada.


----------



## kub86

HAWC1506 said:


> Capacity…
> 
> One light rail vehicle at maximum capacity can carry 200 people in one car. The train can be extended to 4 cars (although currently our planning calls for 2 car trains).
> 
> At maximum capacity, light rail can carry 8,000 to 9,000 people per hour in each direction at full build out with 4 car trains running every 4 minutes across Lake Washington.
> ----------------------------------
> Enjoy!


Wouldn't it be more like 10-12k? I think you used 5-minute intervals in your equation.

But more about capacity: So I read in ST's communities workshop pdf that Eastlink is expected to carry about 45,000 riders a day. That's about double what an HOV conference predicted in 2005 (about transit demand across I-90 bridge). But either way, I thought 45k was a bit low for a high capacity line, so I did some calculating to see how full the trains would be.

About 11% of all transit trips occur during the busiest peak hour (for Moscow's metro at least; from russian wikipedia), and an old 1990 article about I-90 shows that about 60% of peak hour traffic is seattle-bound. So it's not all the most accurate info, but it gives a general picture.

45,000 riders x 11% x 60% = 2,970 pphpd. That's the busiest East Link will ever get during its peak Seattle-bound commute. Divide that number by 10 trains (initial 6-minute frequencies), and it's about 300 pax/train. For 2-car trains, that's a bit above comfort level...which is expected for peak hours I guess.

Nonpeak usage is basically half that; about 1500 pphpd. At 10-minute frequencies, that's 250 pax per train, which is about 60% of the crush load. 

For East Link to fully utilise its buildout capacity of 10,000pphpd, it'd need a daily ridership of almost 200,000! That's double what I-90 handles each day, so I doubt we'll be reaching that number any time soon.

I'm a bit weary of STs estimates though. Current transit demand across I-90 is about 10,000 a day (according to that HOV report), and less than 25,000 by 2025. Those might've been predictions for a bus-only option, but I'm not sure. I just hope ST is right with its own ridership estimates of at least 45k a day!


----------



## mhays

On the positive side, this region is doing a great job of concentrating its office growth in our downtowns rather than spread around freeway corridors. Downtown Bellevue in particular is growing its workforce faster than predicted, and also suddenly turning into a high-density housing node. If Downtown Bellevue's growth continues at even 1/4 of the current pace between now and 2016, it'll be crying out for the rail line before it opens. 

If you factor this along with the planned growth at Overlake and continued growth at Mercer Island (getting to be high-density residential node), the Eastside line should be well-used.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Regarding the now defunct Seattle Monorail Project, the following was the cost for the construction portion of the proposed contract with Cascadia Monorail:
> 
> Seattle Monorail Project
> Design/Build portion of Cascadia Contract:
> $1.6 billion / 14 miles = $114 million/mile


The monorail didn't build double track along its length - you're also comparing 2002 dollars (monorail) to 2006 and in some cases YOE dollars for light rail. You're also comparing projected to actual - projected monorail likely wouldn't have been actual monorail, just as projected ST initial segment wasn't actual ST initial segment. The difference with ST2 is that they're projecting for construction cost inflation at a much higher percentage than ST or Monorail did initially.


----------



## HAWC1506

kub86 said:


> Wouldn't it be more like 10-12k? I think you used 5-minute intervals in your equation....
> 
> ...I'm a bit weary of STs estimates though. Current transit demand across I-90 is about 10,000 a day (according to that HOV report), and less than 25,000 by 2025. Those might've been predictions for a bus-only option, but I'm not sure. I just hope ST is right with its own ridership estimates of at least 45k a day!


Well, I got that information from an employee at Sound Transit and I just forwarded the reply I got directly to this forum. However, that information was sent around December of 2006, so I am not sure what sort of changes have taken place recently and if they reestimated the ridership. I agree with mhays, Bellevue's going to need the rail. The current densely-populated area in Bellevue and the area of Downtown Bellevue is not too large and a rail system would probably be unnecessary AT THIS POINT, but in a couple years, as it expands even more, we can't all rely on cars anymore. But think on the bright side, more rail, less cars, and most likely they will offer frequent-rider passes.

I don't know why Seattle isn't developing a circulatory system within cities though. That to me would probably benefit us even more. So let's say instead of having an unnecessarily long rail line that runs from Seattle all the way to Bellevue, wouldn't a circulatory system in Seattle and a separate circulatory system in Bellevue with a direct Seattle-Bellevue line that connects the two be more economical? 

Current plans call for a train every 4 minutes, and if they want to do that, they have to keep the trains running at 4-minute intervals at every single stop. But let's say in Bellevue, there is less ridership than in Seattle. Then the 4-minute intervals that serves Seattle will become a waste at Bellevue because Bellevue probably only needs a train every 5 or 6 minutes. It will offer more flexibility as well. So at peak times, depending on ridership estimates, a circulatory system could run in Seattle with train intervals of 3 minutes, while a separate circulatory system in Bellevue probably at 5 minutes, and a line that runs between the two circulatory systems via I-90 express lanes (or other route) can run every 4 minutes. That also allows ST to vary the number of train cars per train and would probably give more flexibility for fares as well. Then at noon, because most people leave their offices for lunch but will not travel long distances to other cities, maybe you can have a circulatory system in Seattle run at 3 minute intervals, one in Bellevue that runs at 4, but an inter-city line that runs every 15 minutes between Seattle and Bellevue.

For the passengers, a circulatory system within cities will allow the train to cover more distance, so instead of let's say, a single line that runs the Seattle bus tunnels, we have a circular train route that runs not only the bus tunnels, but to the Space Needle, down through places like the waterfront, and up to the International District, and then back to the bus tunnels on the opposite end. Same goes for Bellevue. So if you work near the Space Needle, you can ride the Light Rail to the International District for some Chinese food during lunch and then return to your office within the hour. The increased convenience would probably boost ridership as well as the distance covered would probably allow the train to not only serve commuters, but even tourists and visitors as well.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> I don't know why Seattle isn't developing a circulatory system within cities though. That to me would probably benefit us even more. So let's say instead of having an unnecessarily long rail line that runs from Seattle all the way to Bellevue, wouldn't a circulatory system in Seattle and a separate circulatory system in Bellevue with a direct Seattle-Bellevue line that connects the two be more economical?


Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.

By the way... trains running every 4 minutes in Seattle does *not* equate to trains running every 4 minutes in Bellevue. Southbound from, say, Northgate, trains would run every 4-ish minutes. Some of those trains would continue to Sea-Tac, while some would continue to Bellevue. As I understand it, peak service to Bellevue/Redmond would be every 10 minutes at start - so more than half of those trains (every 6 minutes) would split in the international district to continue south. Since ridership will have been built considerably on the initial line, that makes sense.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.
> 
> By the way... trains running every 4 minutes in Seattle does *not* equate to trains running every 4 minutes in Bellevue. Southbound from, say, Northgate, trains would run every 4-ish minutes. Some of those trains would continue to Sea-Tac, while some would continue to Bellevue. As I understand it, peak service to Bellevue/Redmond would be every 10 minutes at start - so more than half of those trains (every 6 minutes) would split in the international district to continue south. Since ridership will have been built considerably on the initial line, that makes sense.


Ahhhhh your way makes sense. I didn't think of that one. But what about longterm?


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> The monorail didn't build double track along its length - you're also comparing 2002 dollars (monorail) to 2006 and in some cases YOE dollars for light rail. You're also comparing projected to actual - projected monorail likely wouldn't have been actual monorail, just as projected ST initial segment wasn't actual ST initial segment. The difference with ST2 is that they're projecting for construction cost inflation at a much higher percentage than ST or Monorail did initially.


The Seattle Monorail Project had a fixed priced contract with Cascadia Monorail to design and build the 14-mile Green Line for $1.615 billion. The total project cost was $2.016 billion; however, this included costs not directly associated with the construction of the line such as operating subsidies from the opening of the line in 2009 until 2020.

The point is well taken that the cost numbers tend to creep upward as the design of a transit line matures. The Green Line was advertised to the voters in 2002 as having a construction cost of $1.3 billion and a total project cost of $1.75 billion. The fixed-price contract negotiated with Cascadia Monorail in 2005 featured a design and construction cost of $1.615 billion. The total cost for the project was $2.016 billion. The cost overrun came on top of a 20% revenue shortfall on the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was to fund the project. Joel Horn, the Executive Director of the Seattle Monorail Project proposed paying for the project with a finance plan that involved a total debt service of $11.4 billion over 48 years. The board rejected the finance plan and forced the resignation of the Executive Director. A subsequent finance plan that reduced the total debt service to $7 billion over 40 years was developed by Kevin Phelps, who had previously been involved in the development of finance plans for Sound Transit. The plan was predicated on the MVET rising at the historic average of 6.1%. Many thought that a more conservative MVET growth rate should be used to take into account the possibility of an economic downturn. Mayor Greg Nickels and the city council rejected the finance plan and terminated the right of way agreement with the city. The Seattle Monorail Project board developed a new plan that truncated the line to 10.6 miles and reduced the design and construction cost to $1.334 billion with a total project cost of $1.687 billion. The total debt service would have been $3.9 billion over 31 years based on the MVET growing at 6.1% per year. The terms of the 2002 ballot measure that funded the monorail required that any change in the route be approved by the voters. This in conjunction with the termination of the right of way agreement with the city led to the fall 2005 vote that terminated the project.

The history of the cost numbers for the Green Line monorail can be summarized as follows:

Green Line Monorail - Original Promise to the Voters in 2002
Design-Build Cost
$1.3 billion / 14 miles = $93 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.75 billion / 14 miles = $125 million/mile

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$2.016 billion / 14 miles = $144 million/mile

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Truncated Project Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.334 billion / 10.6 miles = $126 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.687 billion / 10.6 miles = $159 million/mile

The requirement that the monorail plan be revoted if there were any change to the route was a response to what had happened following the 1996 vote that funded the Central Link light rail line. Campaign literature for Central Link described it as a 25-mile line that would run from the University of Washington through the downtown business district to the airport. The campaign literature actually showed a mix of images that included Vancouver Skytrain and the Portland light rail system, so it wasn’t even clear to the voters that the line would be light rail. The cost of the line was to be $1.7 billion and it was to be completed by 2006. As the engineering of the line commenced, it became clear that that the cost would be much higher than the original estimate. A revised plan was developed for a truncated and delayed initial segment. The wording of the 1996 ballot measure allowed the changes to be made without requiring a revote. The initial 13.9-mile segment is now expected to open in 2009 at a cost of $2.1 billion or $2.44 billion depending which numbers are used. A 1.7-mile extension to the airport is expected to open shortly thereafter at a cost of $225 million or $300 million if the cost of necessary changes to adjacent roads is included. A 3.15-mile extension to the University of Washington is being planned. The University of Washington extension is expected to be completed in 2016 at an estimated cost is $1.7 billion.

The history of the cost numbers for University-to-Airport segment of the Central Link light rail line can be summarized as follows:

Central Link - Original Promise to the Voters in 1996
$1.7 billion / 25 miles = $68 million/mile

Central Link - Present Cost - Low Version
$4.025 billion / 19 miles = $212 million/mile

Central Link - Present Cost - High Version
$4.44 billion / 19 miles = $234 million/mile

The electorate is now facing a vote on Sound Transit 2. Sound Transit is now much better at estimating costs than they were in 1996 but there still are questions regarding the accuracy of the cost estimates:

Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - Low Estimate
$8.97 billion / 49.4 miles = $182 million/mile

Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - High Estimate
$10.26 billion / 49.4 miles = $208 million/mile

The credibility of the Sound Transit 2 plan hasn’t been helped by the newspaper headlines screaming that the debt service will extend for 50 years.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.
> ...


I have lived in three different cities where I have been a regular user of rail transit and I have rarely had a single seat ride. Transfers are a reality of life when riding transit. Transferring between lines is not a big deal as long as the platforms are in close proximity to one another and the services operate at a high frequency so that waiting times are minimal. 

There will be at last three streetcars that operate as circulators for the Central Link light rail system: Tacoma Link, South Lake Union Streetcar, and First Hill Streetcar. There may be a fourth streetcar if the Waterfront Trolley is not configured as an extension of the First Hill Streetcar. Central Link will also carry passengers who transfer from Sounder, the Seattle Center Monorail, and numerous bus lines. It seems to me that a lot of passengers will have two or more transfers.

The convenience of the transfers does concern me. The transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar seems particularly bad. From the Central Link station in the transit tunnel at Westlake, it will be necessary to climb the stairs to street level and then walk down the block and around the corner to find the platform for the South Lake Union Streetcar.


----------



## HAWC1506

Why can't we just stick with one underground system instead of having one up there, one down there, one somewhere in the streets, another one down the road, another up on a bridge...


----------



## HAWC1506

greg_christine said:


> The convenience of the transfers does concern me. The transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar seems particularly bad. From the Central Link station in the transit tunnel at Westlake, it will be necessary to climb the stairs to street level and then walk down the block and around the corner to find the platform for the South Lake Union Streetcar.


Well looks like the extra walking just takes the convenience away from the transfers doesn't it? Hahaha Seattle needs help...


----------



## Jaxom92

There was some debate about the validity of Sound Transit's ridership numbers. Here's something that should be taken into account. "Boardings" are measured twice per trip - each time someone walks through the door of the vehicle (bus, train, streetcar). I do not know for sure if Sound Transit equates "boardings" with daily "ridership." If they do, cut that figure in half to see actually numbers of people. If they don't, it does seem high.

However, the math that was done by kub86 has inherent flaws due to using a seemingly random city (Moscow) as a standard and a 1990 figure, which is 17 years old, in the equation.

In reference to circulars, I agree that the bus lines and the streetcars act as excellent and less costly (buses at least) ways of accomplishing your idea, Hawc. The true reason for the single line is money and politics. That is to say, this route is mainly due to the political process more than a technical one. Furthermore, use of the single, existing bus tunnel drastically reduces costs because you don't have to build a new one.

I also agree transfers won't be a big deal as long as they are convenient. If the information about what line, number, and where to go is there and easily read and followed, it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## pwalker

mhays said:


> On the positive side, this region is doing a great job of concentrating its office growth in our downtowns rather than spread around freeway corridors. Downtown Bellevue in particular is growing its workforce faster than predicted, and also suddenly turning into a high-density housing node. If Downtown Bellevue's growth continues at even 1/4 of the current pace between now and 2016, it'll be crying out for the rail line before it opens.
> 
> If you factor this along with the planned growth at Overlake and continued growth at Mercer Island (getting to be high-density residential node), the Eastside line should be well-used.


I understand Overlake, but Mercer Island? I always thought city leaders there would do anything possible to control any major growth. Have things changed?


----------



## mhays

Mercer Island's downtown is turning into a sizeable lowrise urban village. In the past it was probably 60-80 acres of suburban crap retail and a few office buildings surrounded by drive-to apartments on the hillsides. In the past year or two they've completed three sizeable apartment complexes with retail at ground level, and others are planned. The area's destiny is a lot more six-story apartments. It's already a pleasant little downtown in certain spots. 

Bus transit is pretty good since every I-90 route stops there, though I think passengers for both directions need to cross the freeway. The surface park-n-ride is being replaced with a (two-level?) garage. They also have the I-90 bike trail into Seattle and Bellevue. And the freeway is covered by parks in a couple places. 

Hope this link works. The photo shows the park-n-ride garage in the lower left, and some of the new density. You can also see the direct-access lanes to the freeway HOV lanes buses use. Lots more work to do, and residential development appears to have stalled. The picture is from 2006, which is also the last time I toured the place. 

http://www.aerolistphoto.com/large/WA/Mercer_Island/All/2006/001/2


----------



## kub86

Mercer Island was a bit concerned about losing I-90s center HOV lanes (SOVs from Mercer Island could use center HOVs if I understood correctly) to a rail line that is essentialy bus route 550. But I think they are behind ST on this one. http://www.mi-reporter.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/news3.txt

For circulating routes, Bellevue is thinking of implementing a free downtown circulator shuttle. I'm also happy that East Link will have at least 2 downtown Bellevue stops for cross-downtown trips. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003708762_circulator16e.html?syndication=rss

and yah jaxom, my numbers were of course flawed. I couldn't find any other reliable info, although if I added up the numbers on the I-90 study, about 7% of all traffic occured during 1 peak hour (i was 3% off); or 22% during the 3-hour morning peak period. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...9900131&query=more+lanes+and+lots+more+volume


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> I have lived in three different cities where I have been a regular user of rail transit and I have rarely had a single seat ride. Transfers are a reality of life when riding transit. Transferring between lines is not a big deal as long as the platforms are in close proximity to one another and the services operate at a high frequency so that waiting times are minimal.
> 
> There will be at last three streetcars that operate as circulators for the Central Link light rail system: Tacoma Link, South Lake Union Streetcar, and First Hill Streetcar. There may be a fourth streetcar if the Waterfront Trolley is not configured as an extension of the First Hill Streetcar. Central Link will also carry passengers who transfer from Sounder, the Seattle Center Monorail, and numerous bus lines. It seems to me that a lot of passengers will have two or more transfers.
> 
> The convenience of the transfers does concern me. The transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar seems particularly bad. From the Central Link station in the transit tunnel at Westlake, it will be necessary to climb the stairs to street level and then walk down the block and around the corner to find the platform for the South Lake Union Streetcar.


One transfer and two transfers show dramatically different potential ridership.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> There was some debate about the validity of Sound Transit's ridership numbers. Here's something that should be taken into account. "Boardings" are measured twice per trip - each time someone walks through the door of the vehicle (bus, train, streetcar). I do not know for sure if Sound Transit equates "boardings" with daily "ridership." If they do, cut that figure in half to see actually numbers of people. If they don't, it does seem high.
> 
> However, the math that was done by kub86 has inherent flaws due to using a seemingly random city (Moscow) as a standard and a 1990 figure, which is 17 years old, in the equation.
> 
> In reference to circulars, I agree that the bus lines and the streetcars act as excellent and less costly (buses at least) ways of accomplishing your idea, Hawc. The true reason for the single line is money and politics. That is to say, this route is mainly due to the political process more than a technical one. Furthermore, use of the single, existing bus tunnel drastically reduces costs because you don't have to build a new one.
> 
> I also agree transfers won't be a big deal as long as they are convenient. If the information about what line, number, and where to go is there and easily read and followed, it shouldn't be a problem.


All of Sound Transit's numbers are absolutely standard compared to any other US transit system - they're using FTA modeling for ridership, not something they came up with themselves. They had to in order to qualify for New Starts grants.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> The Seattle Monorail Project had a fixed priced contract with Cascadia Monorail to design and build the 14-mile Green Line for $1.615 billion. The total project cost was $2.016 billion; however, this included costs not directly associated with the construction of the line such as operating subsidies from the opening of the line in 2009 until 2020.
> 
> The point is well taken that the cost numbers tend to creep upward as the design of a transit line matures. The Green Line was advertised to the voters in 2002 as having a construction cost of $1.3 billion and a total project cost of $1.75 billion. The fixed-price contract negotiated with Cascadia Monorail in 2005 featured a design and construction cost of $1.615 billion. The total cost for the project was $2.016 billion. The cost overrun came on top of a 20% revenue shortfall on the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was to fund the project. Joel Horn, the Executive Director of the Seattle Monorail Project proposed paying for the project with a finance plan that involved a total debt service of $11.4 billion over 48 years. The board rejected the finance plan and forced the resignation of the Executive Director. A subsequent finance plan that reduced the total debt service to $7 billion over 40 years was developed by Kevin Phelps, who had previously been involved in the development of finance plans for Sound Transit. The plan was predicated on the MVET rising at the historic average of 6.1%. Many thought that a more conservative MVET growth rate should be used to take into account the possibility of an economic downturn. Mayor Greg Nickels and the city council rejected the finance plan and terminated the right of way agreement with the city. The Seattle Monorail Project board developed a new plan that truncated the line to 10.6 miles and reduced the design and construction cost to $1.334 billion with a total project cost of $1.687 billion. The total debt service would have been $3.9 billion over 31 years based on the MVET growing at 6.1% per year. The terms of the 2002 ballot measure that funded the monorail required that any change in the route be approved by the voters. This in conjunction with the termination of the right of way agreement with the city led to the fall 2005 vote that terminated the project.
> 
> The history of the cost numbers for the Green Line monorail can be summarized as follows:
> 
> Green Line Monorail - Original Promise to the Voters in 2002
> Design-Build Cost
> $1.3 billion / 14 miles = $93 million/mile
> Total Project Cost
> $1.75 billion / 14 miles = $125 million/mile
> 
> Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price
> Design-Build Cost
> $1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile
> Total Project Cost
> $2.016 billion / 14 miles = $144 million/mile
> 
> Green Line Monorail - 2005 Truncated Project Price
> Design-Build Cost
> $1.334 billion / 10.6 miles = $126 million/mile
> Total Project Cost
> $1.687 billion / 10.6 miles = $159 million/mile
> 
> The requirement that the monorail plan be revoted if there were any change to the route was a response to what had happened following the 1996 vote that funded the Central Link light rail line. Campaign literature for Central Link described it as a 25-mile line that would run from the University of Washington through the downtown business district to the airport. The campaign literature actually showed a mix of images that included Vancouver Skytrain and the Portland light rail system, so it wasn’t even clear to the voters that the line would be light rail. The cost of the line was to be $1.7 billion and it was to be completed by 2006. As the engineering of the line commenced, it became clear that that the cost would be much higher than the original estimate. A revised plan was developed for a truncated and delayed initial segment. The wording of the 1996 ballot measure allowed the changes to be made without requiring a revote. The initial 13.9-mile segment is now expected to open in 2009 at a cost of $2.1 billion or $2.44 billion depending which numbers are used. A 1.7-mile extension to the airport is expected to open shortly thereafter at a cost of $225 million or $300 million if the cost of necessary changes to adjacent roads is included. A 3.15-mile extension to the University of Washington is being planned. The University of Washington extension is expected to be completed in 2016 at an estimated cost is $1.7 billion.
> 
> The history of the cost numbers for University-to-Airport segment of the Central Link light rail line can be summarized as follows:
> 
> Central Link - Original Promise to the Voters in 1996
> $1.7 billion / 25 miles = $68 million/mile
> 
> Central Link - Present Cost - Low Version
> $4.025 billion / 19 miles = $212 million/mile
> 
> Central Link - Present Cost - High Version
> $4.44 billion / 19 miles = $234 million/mile
> 
> The electorate is now facing a vote on Sound Transit 2. Sound Transit is now much better at estimating costs than they were in 1996 but there still are questions regarding the accuracy of the cost estimates:
> 
> Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - Low Estimate
> $8.97 billion / 49.4 miles = $182 million/mile
> 
> Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - High Estimate
> $10.26 billion / 49.4 miles = $208 million/mile
> 
> The credibility of the Sound Transit 2 plan hasn’t been helped by the newspaper headlines screaming that the debt service will extend for 50 years.


1) You're still comparing 2002 numbers to 2006+ numbers. Construction cost inflation has been 10-14% annually during that period - mostly due to increases in the price of concrete and steel, but also due to higher labor costs driven by healthcare. The consumer price index isn't valid for inflation calculations here, but WSDOT does track construction cost inflation.
2) I believe the Sound Transit 2 cost estimates also include operating costs through at least 2027. Given that .4B of 2B for monorail was operating costs, if they're similar you'd have to lower your ST estimates by 20% for a valid comparison.
3) You're also still comparing some single track for monorail using the West Seattle Bridge to full double track (and some triple for sidings) for light rail, and longer station platforms for light rail - higher capacity overall. You're also comparing elevated to tunnel in some segments.

The cost comparisons you're making are *not* valid until those three issues are addressed.

I also want to point out that the SMP really started with the ETC - and their 1997 promise was 40 miles at no cost to voters other than agency startup. They went to voters twice with initiatives 41 and 53 before the SMP was even formed. See my short history of the project (with citations) here:
http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-beginning.html
http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-planning.html


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> All of Sound Transit's numbers are absolutely standard compared to any other US transit system - they're using FTA modeling for ridership, not something they came up with themselves. They had to in order to qualify for New Starts grants.


You didn't really address my question. Sure, they use the standards. That makes perfect sense, but what is standard? I know the term boardings refers to how may people pass through the doors of the vehicle, and thus is a number counted twice. Is ridership the same thing? Or do they count that differently? What is the method used to gather the data?


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> One transfer and two transfers show dramatically different potential ridership.


If there is such a great advantage in eliminating transfers, by far the best solution would be a PRT system in which the passenger programs his own destination. Even a matrix of BRT lines would be better than a network of light rail and streetcar lines as a passenger boarding in Bellevue could be given a choice between buses headed directly toward the University of Washington, downtown Seattle, or the airport. (Please note that I do not necessarily advocate either of these solutions. I am just carrying the argument to its extreme conclusion.)

I’ll return to what I’ve already stated based on my own previous experience. Transfers are not a big problem provided that 1) the service frequency is high so that the wait time is short and 2) the platforms are in close proximity so that the transfer can be accomplished by going up an escalator or walking to the opposite side of a platform. I fear that the transfers in Seattle will not be so convenient.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> 1) You're still comparing 2002 numbers to 2006+ numbers. Construction cost inflation has been 10-14% annually during that period - mostly due to increases in the price of concrete and steel, but also due to higher labor costs driven by healthcare. The consumer price index isn't valid for inflation calculations here, but WSDOT does track construction cost inflation.
> 2) I believe the Sound Transit 2 cost estimates also include operating costs through at least 2027. Given that .4B of 2B for monorail was operating costs, if they're similar you'd have to lower your ST estimates by 20% for a valid comparison.
> 3) You're also still comparing some single track for monorail using the West Seattle Bridge to full double track (and some triple for sidings) for light rail, and longer station platforms for light rail - higher capacity overall. You're also comparing elevated to tunnel in some segments.
> 
> The cost comparisons you're making are *not* valid until those three issues are addressed.
> 
> I also want to point out that the SMP really started with the ETC - and their 1997 promise was 40 miles at no cost to voters other than agency startup. They went to voters twice with initiatives 41 and 53 before the SMP was even formed. See my short history of the project (with citations) here:
> http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-beginning.html
> http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-planning.html


Mr. Schiendelman,

1. If it is true that construction inflation is running at 10% - 14%, there are major problems ahead for Sound Transit 2. According to a question and answer piece that ran in the Seattle Times, Sound Transit has been making cost projections based on an assumed inflation rate of 3.6% for construction and 4.6% for real estate < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/03/2003733314.pdf >. 

2. Responses to the RFQ for the Green Line monorail were due in late 2004 and the contract with Cascadia Monorail/Hitachi was negotiated during the first half of 2005. This was approximately concurrent with the bidding for the major construction projects for the downtown to airport segments of the Central Link light rail line. Both systems were to be completed in 2009. The actual contract cost numbers for the two lines should be comparable without making adjustments for inflation. The numbers that I’ve stated for Sound Transit 2 are in 2006 dollars. A series of PDFs with the source data can be found on the Sound Transit website < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml >. If Sound Transit is assuming a construction inflation rate of 3.6% and the actual inflation rate is 10% - 14%, then construction cost estimates in 2006 dollars generated based on 2005 construction contracts could already too low by up to 10%.

3. Regarding the funding of the operation of the lines built under Sound Transit 2, read the question and answer piece as if you were a lawyer < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/03/2003733314.pdf >. The answer regarding the estimated costs states, “These projects are estimated at $10.8 billion in 2006 dollars. The plan would also provide funds to operate the expanded system indefinitely. For the first 20 years, operations and maintenance costs would total $1.5 billion in 2006 dollars.” There is no definitive statement that the $1.5 billion in operation and maintenance costs is included in the $10.8 billion for the construction of the projects. If you read the PDFs, you will find that they do not include line items for operations and maintenance. The “Link LRT: Maintenance Bases, Vehicles and Operations for ST2 Expansion“ PDF provides an annual operations and maintenance cost but does not include this as part of the capital cost < http://www.soundtransit.org/Documen...ink_Maintenance_Bases_Vehicles_Operations.pdf >.

4. I completely agree regarding the plan for a single-track monorail guideway along the West Seattle Bridge. This was a false economy that would have hamstrung the operation of the line forever. It would have been the weak link in the system similar to the at-grade segment of the Central Link light rail line through the Rainier Valley. The Seattle Times stated that the cost in the Cascadia Monorail/Hitachi contract for the segment of single-track on the West Seattle Bridge was $32 million and that the cost of a double-track line would have been about twice that amount < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002567560_monorail18m.html >. In my opinion, this would have been well worth the cost. The aborted bid from Team Monorail/Bombardier did feature a double-track guideway across the West Seattle Bridge.

5. The Seattle Monorail Project was funded in 2002 by a ballot referendum that defined the route and the cost and required a revote if there was any change. The Central Link light rail line was funded by a 1996 ballot measure that provided no such safeguards. The route of Central Link was subsequently truncated and the costs went through the roof. There was never a vote by the electorate to validate the change in the route and cost of Central Link.

Thank you for patiently tolerating my views,
Greg V.


----------



## mhays

Construction cost escalation has been in double-digits for a few years, but costs could be flat or even fall in other years. Sound Transit's assumption isn't unrealistic over a longer period.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Mr. Schiendelman,
> 
> 1. If it is true that construction inflation is running at 10% - 14%, there are major problems ahead for Sound Transit 2. According to a question and answer piece that ran in the Seattle Times, Sound Transit has been making cost projections based on an assumed inflation rate of 3.6% for construction and 4.6% for real estate < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/03/2003733314.pdf >.
> 
> 2. Responses to the RFQ for the Green Line monorail were due in late 2004 and the contract with Cascadia Monorail/Hitachi was negotiated during the first half of 2005. This was approximately concurrent with the bidding for the major construction projects for the downtown to airport segments of the Central Link light rail line. Both systems were to be completed in 2009. The actual contract cost numbers for the two lines should be comparable without making adjustments for inflation. The numbers that I’ve stated for Sound Transit 2 are in 2006 dollars. A series of PDFs with the source data can be found on the Sound Transit website < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml >. If Sound Transit is assuming a construction inflation rate of 3.6% and the actual inflation rate is 10% - 14%, then construction cost estimates in 2006 dollars generated based on 2005 construction contracts could already too low by up to 10%.
> 
> 3. Regarding the funding of the operation of the lines built under Sound Transit 2, read the question and answer piece as if you were a lawyer < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/03/2003733314.pdf >. The answer regarding the estimated costs states, “These projects are estimated at $10.8 billion in 2006 dollars. The plan would also provide funds to operate the expanded system indefinitely. For the first 20 years, operations and maintenance costs would total $1.5 billion in 2006 dollars.” There is no definitive statement that the $1.5 billion in operation and maintenance costs is included in the $10.8 billion for the construction of the projects. If you read the PDFs, you will find that they do not include line items for operations and maintenance. The “Link LRT: Maintenance Bases, Vehicles and Operations for ST2 Expansion“ PDF provides an annual operations and maintenance cost but does not include this as part of the capital cost < http://www.soundtransit.org/Documen...ink_Maintenance_Bases_Vehicles_Operations.pdf >.
> 
> 4. I completely agree regarding the plan for a single-track monorail guideway along the West Seattle Bridge. This was a false economy that would have hamstrung the operation of the line forever. It would have been the weak link in the system similar to the at-grade segment of the Central Link light rail line through the Rainier Valley. The Seattle Times stated that the cost in the Cascadia Monorail/Hitachi contract for the segment of single-track on the West Seattle Bridge was $32 million and that the cost of a double-track line would have been about twice that amount < http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002567560_monorail18m.html >. In my opinion, this would have been well worth the cost. The aborted bid from Team Monorail/Bombardier did feature a double-track guideway across the West Seattle Bridge.
> 
> 5. The Seattle Monorail Project was funded in 2002 by a ballot referendum that defined the route and the cost and required a revote if there was any change. The Central Link light rail line was funded by a 1996 ballot measure that provided no such safeguards. The route of Central Link was subsequently truncated and the costs went through the roof. There was never a vote by the electorate to validate the change in the route and cost of Central Link.
> 
> Thank you for patiently tolerating my views,
> Greg V.


As I understand it, the Cascadia contract was still in 2002 dollars. I've seen nothing specifying differently. Regardless... it wasn't built, for whatever reasons.

Central Link has not been truncated. The original 1996 voters' pamphlet statement has the north end at the "University District". Sure, it's taken longer, but that's because of the double digit inflation.

Such inflation *was* 10-14% for specific reasons (hurricanes, more than anything). It is not right now, and is unlikely to be moving forward.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> You didn't really address my question. Sure, they use the standards. That makes perfect sense, but what is standard? I know the term boardings refers to how may people pass through the doors of the vehicle, and thus is a number counted twice. Is ridership the same thing? Or do they count that differently? What is the method used to gather the data?


The term boardings refers to how many people get on the vehicle. People are not counted twice - only when they get on.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> If there is such a great advantage in eliminating transfers, by far the best solution would be a PRT system in which the passenger programs his own destination. Even a matrix of BRT lines would be better than a network of light rail and streetcar lines as a passenger boarding in Bellevue could be given a choice between buses headed directly toward the University of Washington, downtown Seattle, or the airport. (Please note that I do not necessarily advocate either of these solutions. I am just carrying the argument to its extreme conclusion.)
> 
> I’ll return to what I’ve already stated based on my own previous experience. Transfers are not a big problem provided that 1) the service frequency is high so that the wait time is short and 2) the platforms are in close proximity so that the transfer can be accomplished by going up an escalator or walking to the opposite side of a platform. I fear that the transfers in Seattle will not be so convenient.


In eliminating transfers, there's a curve. No transfers is best, one transfer sucks but doesn't kill ridership, two transfers almost completely kills ridership, and three is laughable. With Link, from Bellevue, you'll have no transfers to downtown Seattle, Northgate or the University, your by far largest possible destinations of the three you mention. One transfer on rails to Sea-Tac or Tacoma. We will still have direct buses from Bellevue to Sea-Tac (the 560) and from Bellevue to the U-district (the 271), but buses can't handle the number of people who will be making this trip in 2030.


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> The term boardings refers to how many people get on the vehicle. People are not counted twice - only when they get on.


The Seattle Times must have gotten their facts screwed up. I wish I remembered the exact article I saw that bit of information in to point to it.


----------



## sequoias

I went thru Rainier Valley today, it looks near completion. There's a bunch of support posts for overhead power lines for the trains in south part of the line with tracks and all that. The streets are all done, just need more track laying with cement infills. They also have landscaping in the process with new trees and stuff like that.


----------



## kub86

Jaxom92 said:


> The Seattle Times must have gotten their facts screwed up. I wish I remembered the exact article I saw that bit of information in to point to it.


Maybe you're confusing it with the Seattle Times article about the low ridership of the Sounder North Line? They mentioned that x number of people boarded Sounder north, but since they were all roundtrips, you'd half that number to see the real number of people using it.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> As I understand it, the Cascadia contract was still in 2002 dollars. I've seen nothing specifying differently. Regardless... it wasn't built, for whatever reasons.
> 
> Central Link has not been truncated. The original 1996 voters' pamphlet statement has the north end at the "University District". Sure, it's taken longer, but that's because of the double digit inflation.
> 
> Such inflation *was* 10-14% for specific reasons (hurricanes, more than anything). It is not right now, and is unlikely to be moving forward.


1. Like any construction contract, the Cascadia Monorail contract was in actual dollars rather than theoretical dollars from some other year. Cascadia Monorail was not a party to the financing of the project. If Cascadia Monorail had been involved in the development of the finance plan, they might have saved the Seattle Monorail Project the humiliation of Joel Horn’s infamous $11 billion finance plan. The Cascadia Monorail contract had a grace period of just a few months for the Seattle Monorail Project to sign the contract and obtain financing. The grace period had already lapsed by the time of the fall 2005 election that terminated the project; however, the contract had already been mooted by the revised plan to build a truncated line.

2. The plan for Central Link that was presented to the voters in 1996 called for the line from the University to the Airport to be completed by 2006. The present plan is for the initial segment of the line to open in 2009. Most of the initial segment didn’t even go to bid until 2004 and 2005. In the most optimistic scenario, the extension to the University won’t open until 2016. Inflation was much less of a factor in the delay than the original cost estimate being much too optimistic. If the Seattle Monorail Project had the luxury of collecting taxes for almost 10 years prior to beginning construction, there would have been no finance problem.

3. The discussion concerning inflation raises a serious concern regarding the cost estimates for Sound Transit 2. All of the cost estimates given on the Sound Transit website < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml > are in 2006 dollars despite the fact that the election will be in late 2007. If the 2006 construction inflation rate was 14%, the cost of the projects should be reported as $12.3 billion (2007 dollars) rather than $10.8 billion (2006 dollars).


----------



## JasonB52

Looking pretty good isn't it?


----------



## tmaxxfreak11

thanks crazyaboutcities!


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

No problem!


----------



## citruspastels

awesome pics, thanks for doing that! im convinced now more than ever to vote for more! i think most people will be suprised at how well the areas around these stops do when people find out just how convenient and great grade separated transit is!


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ No problem!  I agree with you! I already support ST2 even before I seen these construction process. I'm amazed how much it impacted Rainier Valley neighborhood. It will do good on any neighborhoods that will get light rail for sure. :cheers:


----------



## BoulderGrad

So I saw a few posts back that the green power cable stands actually won some kind of art award? Are they going to make them system-wide now? I think that would be a cool way to mark where the train runs. You know youre never far from light rail as long as you can see the green.


----------



## kub86

awesome!! The shot with the 2-car train is fantastic! I'm starting to like our trains more and more... And I had no idea that there was so much construction already around some stations along MLK! Streetlife looked a bit dead, but that'll change once the neighborhood matures.

I like those green poles. I hope to see smaller miniature versions around the station entrances (or along some bits of track) as a common theme. It automatically reminded me of Venetian gondola posts, but on a more exaggerated scale.


----------



## guinessbeer55

sequoias said:


> 2 car train begins testing under its own electrical power.


That is so cool!!!! I cant wait to ride on one!!


----------



## citruspastels

kub86 said:


> awesome!! The shot with the 2-car train is fantastic! I'm starting to like our trains more and more... And I had no idea that there was so much construction already around some stations along MLK! Streetlife looked a bit dead, but that'll change once the neighborhood matures.
> 
> I like those green poles. I hope to see smaller miniature versions around the station entrances (or along some bits of track) as a common theme. It automatically reminded me of Venetian gondola posts, but on a more exaggerated scale.


i knew that design looked familiar! good call.


----------



## Falubaz

the green-black poles look really very good. someone has had a very good idea to do them so. they give a kind of fresh look to the lrt.


----------



## spongeg

those poles remind me of a pet shop boys thing


----------



## Jaxom92

I think they're rather ugly, but that's just me.


----------



## Vancouverite

LINK is looking great. I'm amazed how similar the elevated guideways are between the LINK LRT and Vancouver's Canada Line. They could be twins, save for the power poles. The at-grade sections look sharp as well. Good work Seattle. I can't wait to see it through to completion.


----------



## JasonB52

An interesting thing I heard about the green poles when I watched a re-run of the maintainance facility opening is that they were modeled after Horsetail, which is quite common around here (And is actually widely considered an undesireable weed)


----------



## zaphod

why cant they just look like poles?


----------



## sequoias

Yep, they're like giant horsetails, haha. Those are one of the oldest plants on Earth which is over 200 million years old, I think. I see tons of them on the forest floor where its cool and moist area or near creeks.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

zaphod said:


> why cant they just look like poles?


Not big fan of art?


----------



## sequoias

I wish they put drought tolerant plants (doesn't need much water) at the middle of the light rail's median along the Rainier Valley line. It would make it look 1000 times better than the cement all over the place except for a few areas.


----------



## BoulderGrad

sequoias said:


> I wish they put drought tolerant plants (doesn't need much water) at the middle of the light rail's median along the Rainier Valley line. It would make it look 1000 times better than the cement all over the place except for a few areas.


You mean like this?:


----------



## sequoias

Almost, but I mean bushes and plants of some kind in the middle of the light rail median where power pole line up.  Grass isn't drought tolerant, lol.


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I'm little concerned about the result of election for ST2 because today I read some opinion articles from local residents and some conversation I heard in my school. Some of them lost their supports in ST2 and wants to pay more taxes to repair/replace bridges and highways since the incident in Minneapolis. I have a feeling that issue is starting to kill ST2 ballot and the ballot for street/highway improvement gained its popularity dramatically. Also at school, I overheard some conversation from some students in my two classes that they plan to vote against ST2 and vote for highways bill since they feels that issues are more important to focus on than construct light rail. That is pretty sad to hear that. I understand that people are seriously concerned about public safety but we do need better public transit system too.


I believe most of the aging highway infrastructure can be federally funded because they're all on Interstates with the exception of the viaduct and evergreen point. I believe plans have been drawn out for the two replacements, but for something like the Minneapolis bridge, those can be placed into federal budgets. ST2 can only be funded by the state.


----------



## Jaxom92

The Puget Sound Regional Council, RTID, and Sound Transit are committed to pairing mass transit and highways together, so despite a renewed focus on highways, if the November ballot measure is turned down because of a non-interest in light rail, the highway measures won't pass either.


----------



## HAWC1506

Jaxom92 said:


> The Puget Sound Regional Council, RTID, and Sound Transit are committed to pairing mass transit and highways together, so despite a renewed focus on highways, if the November ballot measure is turned down because of a non-interest in light rail, the highway measures won't pass either.


That's even better...but do I really have to wait until I'm 40 to get the light rail....


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

That is relief to hear that. It is little trick for many people who are against light rail or highways/streets improvements. Both parties will win or lose at same time.


----------



## Jaxom92

For a while it would have been two separate questions on the ballot, one for the light rail portion, one for the roads portion. Presumably it would have stated somewhere that in order for either to pass, both would have to pass. The state legislature fixed that little mess by combining the two questions into one overarching question: roads and rail or nothing.

But yeah, unfortunately I will be 42 by the time we have light rail to Redmond, Lynnwood, and Tacoma via Seattle. Nonetheless, I personally believe it's important, and there may be issues between that time that could expedite the process. Who knows... it's twenty years. A lot can happen in 20 years.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Oh my god... I will be 42 too when they complete their projects.


----------



## HAWC1506

Haha I will be...let's see........35....better study hard or else I'll end up _living_ in one of those ST stations.


----------



## citruspastels

from sound transit blog-

"Sound Transit released some stats on 2nd Quarter performance and their hard work is starting to pay off! Total ridership on Sounder, Link light rail, and Express buses went up 11% compared to last year. The Sounder alone went up 20% while Express buses went up 10% and Link light rail 2%. This is awesome, especially since Central Link isn't even completed yet. In fact they had 3.5 Million people use Sound Transit in the 2nd Quarter. "

Glad to see regional mass transit working so well!

Now let's nudge that ST2 timetable from 20 down to 5 years shall we?.....


----------



## citruspastels

Actually, what would you all think about getting serious about demanding a shorter timetable from Sound Transit and starting a petition?

Comon, who's with me? Who can actually stand the thought of 20 years passing in our beloved city before being able to ride a rail from Seattle to Bellevue? 

:speech:


----------



## BoulderGrad

citruspastels said:


> Actually, what would you all think about getting serious about demanding a shorter timetable from Sound Transit and starting a petition?
> 
> Comon, who's with me? Who can actually stand the thought of 20 years passing in our beloved city before being able to ride a rail from Seattle to Bellevue?
> 
> :speech:


How bout some planning on when the stages are going to be built? You can already use the sounder to get from Everett to Tacoma. Why not prioritize the east side expansion over the north-south expansion? Connect Northgate, Bellevue, Renton, Downtown, and the Airport before you go about connecting tacoma and everett. Start construction on that in 2010, and be done by 2018.


----------



## kub86

Yeah 20 years is too long. Petition!

And what's the link for the ST blog? I want to read it!


----------



## citruspastels

BoulderGrad said:


> How bout some planning on when the stages are going to be built? You can already use the sounder to get from Everett to Tacoma. Why not prioritize the east side expansion over the north-south expansion? Connect Northgate, Bellevue, Renton, Downtown, and the Airport before you go about connecting tacoma and everett. Start construction on that in 2010, and be done by 2018.


Yeah, but what about Shoreline to Downtown?

Or from U-District to Tacoma?

The Sounder is great but it just doesn't have that wide of a range. Build it all I say, it's all necessary. 

Looks like sound transit updated their website with an interactive map-
http://st2.soundtransit.org/st2map/ 

The blog I quoted earlier is http://seatrans.blogspot.com/


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I want to sign the petition! 

I think the link from downtown Seattle to Microsoft campus, Tacoma and Evereet should get built at same time. All three links are very important part of Seattle metro area for people to get around the city. 

I have a question. I looked at their website about streetcar for International District to First Hill/Capital Hill but they doesn't say when it will get built. Anyone knows when it will be complete?


----------



## greg_christine

citruspastels said:


> ...
> The Sounder is great but it just doesn't have that wide of a range. Build it all I say, it's all necessary.
> ...


Speaking of Sounder, the following photo recently appeared on another transit forum:










The photo was taken in Burbank, California on June 29, 2007. Despite the recent increase in service, Sound Transit is not yet able to deploy all the trains that were purchased for Sounder. The train in the above photo remains on lease to Metrolink in southern California. Other Sounder trains have been leased to commuter railways as distant as the Virginia Railway Express, which serves the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.


----------



## HAWC1506

I don't know the construction completion or start time, BUT I DO KNOW AND I HAVE PICTURES, that the train-cars that they will be using for Seattle Streetcars are identical if not similar to the ones used in Hiroshima, Japan. I was there three weeks ago and I was pretty surprised when I saw that thing zooming around. I'll tell ya though, it's short, but it's pretty tall. I'll post pictures when I get back to the states.


----------



## jam5

Jaxom92 said:


> For a while it would have been two separate questions on the ballot, one for the light rail portion, one for the roads portion. Presumably it would have stated somewhere that in order for either to pass, both would have to pass. The state legislature fixed that little mess by combining the two questions into one overarching question: roads and rail or nothing.
> 
> But yeah, unfortunately I will be 42 by the time we have light rail to Redmond, Lynnwood, and Tacoma via Seattle. Nonetheless, I personally believe it's important, and there may be issues between that time that could expedite the process. Who knows... it's twenty years. A lot can happen in 20 years.


Construction of the current Seattle light-rail system began in 2003, correct? And you are building in effect a heavy-rail line for light-rail cars, right? Then it would be roughly a generation before that ST2 map is completed. Not bad, actually. It took about thirty-five years (beginning in 1969) before the Metrorail system here in the Washington, D.C. region completed its current alignment in 2004.


----------



## BoulderGrad

jam5 said:


> Construction of the current Seattle light-rail system began in 2003, correct? And you are building in effect a heavy-rail line for light-rail cars, right? Then it would be roughly a generation before that ST2 map is completed. Not bad, actually. It took about thirty-five years (beginning in 1969) before the Metrorail system here in the Washington, D.C. region completed its current alignment in 2004.


We're doing our expansion in one big lump, D.C.'s system grew quite gradually. plus DC's has more track length (106 miles vs 70 or so), is mostly underground within the city limits, and has many branches and lines. 

P.S. Hales Brew House in Fremont is really good, its difficult to type coherently


----------



## HAWC1506

BoulderGrad said:


> We're doing our expansion in one big lump, D.C.'s system grew quite gradually. plus DC's has more track length (106 miles vs 70 or so), is mostly underground within the city limits, and has many branches and lines.
> 
> P.S. Hales Brew House in Fremont is really good, its difficult to type coherently


We are getting multiple lines too aren't we? Sea-Tac Airport line, Eastside line (maybe) and so forth.


----------



## BoulderGrad

HAWC1506 said:


> We are getting multiple lines too aren't we? Sea-Tac Airport line, Eastside line (maybe) and so forth.


Compare the branchiness:

D.C.









Seattle:









Seattle has its one branch over to the East side, while DC tends to radiate outward like a plant. Yes, the Seattle system will have multiple lines, but not nearly as many as what D.C. has. Seattle's metro area is very stretched out north-south, so it really only has to have the one main line north south, while DC has to get to locales in all directions.


----------



## HAWC1506

*Oh that's nothing*

OH YEAH??? BEAT THIS MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Above Ground










That's not even half of it. There's a whole separate system below ground as well.










There's our inspiration from Tokyo.


----------



## Bond James Bond

BoulderGrad said:


> Claim #1:
> The light rail project is 10 years behind schedule, and 3x over budget (was supposed to cost $2.3 Billion, but has run to $6.7 billion)
> 
> Now I know the behind schedule thing is a load of crap because they simply started late after all the re-votes. As far as I know, we're right on schedule since construction actually started.
> 
> Now the budget and cost overruns I don't really know too much about. Anyone care to comment on the finances of the project? I know people like Greg_Christine have mentioned that we are paying prices normally associated with Heavy rail, but getting a light rail system. Also, I understand there has been a steep spike in construction costs recently, which is pushing prices of Everything up. Otherwise, I haven't heard much commentary on the project's spending.


Several years ago I heard a lecture from a civil engineer about the Sound Transit tunnel under Capitol Hill. There was A LOT more water there than they originally thought, and there were several other issues which dramatically increased the cost of the tunnel part. You have to remember that, when someone makes an estimate for a project's cost, it is just a guesstimate, and they don't really know how much it will cost until they start actually digging and building.

In addition, there has been a worldwide spike in the cost of steel, concrete and some other building materials over the past few years. You have all those skyscrapers in China, Dubai, Chicago and elsewhere in large part to blame for that. Sound Transit can't do a thing about that.



> Claim #2:
> Light Rail will only handle 214,000 trips by 2030, while the number of passenger trips in the greater puget sound area will increase to 16.4 million. Light rail will carry less than 1% of passengers.
> 
> Okay... 214,000 sounds reasonable, but 16.4 Million trips???? so every man, woman, and child in the greater puget sound region will make a trip 4 TIMES every day....? Someone please explain to me where they're getting that number from.


That's not hard to believe at all.

Trip #1 - go to work in the morning
Trip #2 - go to lunch (if you happen to drive to lunch)
Trip #3 - go back to work from lunch
Trip #4 - go home in the afternoon
Trip #5 - go to the supermarket to pick up a suddenly-needed bottle of ketchup and some toilet paper

And so on.

And that list goes to show how stupid their complaining about the "only 1% of the trips" is. First of all, there are a gazillion nooks and crannies of the metro area which Sound Transit Link will never serve, and realistically can *never* serve. I mean, you can't get a light rail line out to all the nooks and crannies of the Kent Plateau, Frederickson in Pierce County, Snohomish, Carnation, downtown Edmonds, and so on, and so forth. You would need a hundred different light rail lines to serve all those areas, which obviously isn't going to happen. The light rail line is only supposed to serve the high-volume corridors - and that's the only places it *can* realistically serve. But outside of those corridors there are a zillion different places with people making a zillion different trips.



> Claim #3:
> Instead of the $10.8 Billion in capital costs, the cost of ST2 will run up to $37.9 Billion when you include opperating costs and bonded debt obligations
> 
> Again, not too familiar with the financials of the project. Please feel free to comment on that estimate.


Dunno about this one.



> Claim #4:
> Will actually cost the average household $353/year instead of the "lowball" sound transit figure of $125 per year
> 
> Just thinking on how much it costs to fill up my civic once a week (about $1800 a year), even with their estimate, that seems a pretty good incentive to drop the car and take the train. Any news on how much a commuter card would cost?


Dunno about this one either.



> Claim #5:
> More than 2/3 of light rail riders will simply be former bus riders.
> 
> Website didn't even have info on these numbers, so no idea where they got them from. Even still, 30% increase in transit use is nothing to sneeze at.


That could be true, but at this point it's still speculative. But even getting a few buses off the streets and highways would be a small reduction.



> Claim #6:
> Taxes for operating costs of the light rail system will remain in perpetuity
> 
> And taxes for roads dont...? Oh, thats right we don't pay a cent for WSDOT to maintain I-5 or 99, and they're both in such great shape right now.


Good point.


----------



## HAWC1506

Awfully quiet in this forum nowadays isn't it?


----------



## Jaxom92

Not much going on now. Things will heat up in a couple months when the November ballot initiative comes closer.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

The downtown tunnel will reopen on September 24! YAY! :banana: Can't wait to check it out!


----------



## HAWC1506

Wait the tunnel's reopening? For what? Are buses going back in again? I thought they were converting that for light rail.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> Wait the tunnel's reopening? For what? Are buses going back in again? I thought they were converting that for light rail.


Tunnel is for both buses and light rail. This time will be for buses only until July 2009 when light rail opens.


----------



## HAWC1506

Busses and light rail? Wow I wonder how they're going to do that...


----------



## sequoias

There will be less buses in the tunnel once light rail comes in 2009, basically it will be in a timing basis to sync with King County Metro and Link light rail to work together in a tunnel. I believe they will discontinue 194 express bus route with the light rail since it goes to the airport, but will keep the 174 route that goes on a different route to the airport.


----------



## HAWC1506

Thanks Sequoias. I remember the bus tunnel routes were free of charge within the tunnels. I hope I'm not mistaken, but are they going to continue with the free service?


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> Thanks Sequoias. I remember the bus tunnel routes were free of charge within the tunnels. I hope I'm not mistaken, but are they going to continue with the free service?


I believe that is part of downtown Seattle free zone. Once you get out of free zone, you will have to pay the fare.


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I believe that is part of downtown Seattle free zone. Once you get out of free zone, you will have to pay the fare.


Yeah that's what it was. Light Rail will not affect any of the free zones will it?


----------



## sequoias

Good question, I wonder if light rail will be charged for free zone in downtown area. For example, you hop on the train in international district station and get off at westlake station and not get charged for light rail ride.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> Yeah that's what it was. Light Rail will not affect any of the free zones will it?


That's good question. I doubt that light rail will be free in free zone too. Sound Transit has different system than Metro servies.


----------



## BoulderGrad

What is the fare system going to be anyways? Ticket stands? Turnstyles? what?


----------



## kub86

CrazyAboutCities said:


> That's good question. I doubt that light rail will be free in free zone too. Sound Transit has different system than Metro servies.


Well the ST buses also honor the free zone. I think I caught a ST bus on 3rd for free. I'd be surprised if the light rail *wasn't* free in downtown.


----------



## sequoias

CrazyAboutCities said:


> That's good question. I doubt that light rail will be free in free zone too. Sound Transit has different system than Metro servies.


Well, all of the buses from Community Transit, Sound Transit and Metro Transit that enter downtown Seattle free zone are all free until you ride the bus out of the free zone. The only thing I wonder is the light rail's fare system. I don't know if they installed some fare enforcement system at the tunnel stations, we will find out on Sept 24.  

One more thing to add, the old waterfront streetcar isn't a free ride and you gotta pay for the ride and it's in downtown free zone.


----------



## Tcmetro

HAWC1506 said:


> Busses and light rail? Wow I wonder how they're going to do that...


It's been done in Pittsburgh. I've seen a picture of it, but I can't find it.


----------



## Mongo8780

Tcmetro said:


> It's been done in Pittsburgh. I've seen a picture of it, but I can't find it.


IIRC, they share the tunnel in Pittsburgh but they don't make any stops inside it.


----------



## Mongo8780

sequoias said:


> Well, all of the buses from Community Transit, Sound Transit and Metro Transit that enter downtown Seattle free zone are all free until you ride the bus out of the free zone. The only thing I wonder is the light rail's fare system. I don't know if they installed some fare enforcement system at the tunnel stations, we will find out on Sept 24.
> 
> One more thing to add, the old waterfront streetcar isn't a free ride and you gotta pay for the ride and it's in downtown free zone.


Portland does the same thing. You can ride MAX for free from the downtown core out to Lloyd Center and vice versa. After that, random fare inspections take place to make sure everyone on board has a valid ticket. I could see Seattle doing the same thing. People will try to get free rides but the fines of people caught doing so will make up for the fare jumpers.


----------



## Seattlist

Hey all, First time I have posted here, but I have been reading these forums for a while, Anyway, I e-mailed Sound Transit about the fare structure for the light rail. The fare will be the same as metro buses ($1.25, $1.50 peak time) and they will use an honor system similar to the SkyTrain in Vancouver BC. If you walk past some of the tunnel stations during the day you can see that they are leaving big holes in the walls for ticketing kiosks.


----------



## Backstrom

northsider1983 said:


> Probably, I bet there will be a charge everywhere including downtown. I am not sure, but most rail services charge to get back the farebox recovery.


I don't think so. Since the fare system is most likely based on honesty, I don't see the need for proof-of-payment downtown. Like Portland, the whole reason why they make Downtown ride-free is to reduce congestion and promote transit. I see no reason to make an exception for LR.


----------



## HAWC1506

I like the Portland idea. But Seattle's going to be in debt until 2050, so I don't know if we'll be able to pull off the free ride thing.


----------



## Northsider

Backstrom said:


> I don't think so. Since the fare system is most likely based on honesty, I don't see the need for proof-of-payment downtown. Like Portland, the whole reason why they make Downtown ride-free is to reduce congestion and promote transit. I see no reason to make an exception for LR.


I read through the SIP, and the Tacoma Link there will be *no* fares collected..interesting. It seems that the ride-free only applies to buses. The light rail, as with the commuter rail will follow the zone fare system. No rail service has a long-term "ride-free" system...it's just not financially plausible. A ride-free route usually does not attract _new_ riders, but rather current riders make more trips. Rails are much more expensive to run and maintain than a bus system, the lost farebox recovery would really hurt the agency with no dramatic increase in ridership.


----------



## HAWC1506

Uh oh, Bouldergrad posted this on another thread: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-tr...tot-topstories

Quote from within the article:

"The region's (Los Angeles) transit system is limited, experts say, because it was built on two assumptions that have since proved untrue: that most traffic was generated by commuting trips and that most people worked downtown.

Nowadays, people nationwide are driving so much to take their children to school, run errands and engage in other activities that these trips far outstrip commuting, according to federal transportation statistics."

What do you guys think? Good news for Seattle? Bad news for Seattle?


----------



## greg_christine

^^ He is right. The role of rail transit is to aid mobility within heavily traveled corridors. A competing vision is networks of Bus Rapid Transit lines, which would provide more complete coverage of a metro area but might not be as successful as trains in attracting passengers. Neither rail transit nor buses are likely to displace the automobile.

My personal view is that salvation for the environment will come in the form of alternative energy sources and not from transit. I hope that one day there will be a solar array on the roof of my house, a battery bank in my garage, and a car in my driveway that is powered by either batteries or bio-fuel.


----------



## Northsider

Thats quite a wish greg! 

The traditional approach to transit assumed that people not only worked downtown (or in some other central location), but also made only 2 trips, one to and one from work. People no longer work downtown, and suburban employment centers have replaced the traditional CBD. How do you structure transit knowing this? That is still one of the questions that is yet to be answered. I'm no expert on the Seattle area commuting behavior and employment centers...but the light rail link seems like it not only connects jobs with downtown but also surrounding suburban areas.


----------



## Jaxom92

What's nice about our region is it's much more linear than Los Angeles, so a rail system is more viable for more trips. It will also take less effort in the long run to connect suburban centers together.


----------



## Northsider

^^ That's very true, in a sense, Seattle is one long corrdor in which transit could be made very useful. The success of San Diego's light rail project I think is partly because of the similar layout as Seattle: long, linear, and mountains block development to the east...so a N-S light rail is very beneficial for the region.


----------



## Seattlist

The Proposed system goes to the top employment centers in the Seattle Metro area: Downtown Seattle, Industrial District south of Downtown, University District (UW is the city's largest employer), Sea-Tac airport and surrounding commercial area, Tacoma (specifically the Port of Tacoma, which even rivals Seattle's Port), Downtown Bellevue (which has many office buildings) and all points in between. If enough money is still available LRT will make it all the way to Redmond and the Microsoft campus.

Not to mention the City of Seattle already has the beginnings of a Streetcar Network, that so far will link Downtown to South Lake Union (a center of the burgeoning bio-tech sector) and First Hill (which is a huge employment sector for the health-care industry) to Capitol hill and the International District. There are future plans to expand on this system as well. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetcarnetwork.htm

What will also make transit effective in Seattle is that most of the neighborhoods the Link will go through have or will have (after light rail of course) a fairly high residential density. If people can walk to night clubs, grocery stores or other non commute trips, this will further marginalize auto use in these neighborhoods (although I don't claim that it will entirely stop people from using their cars).

If the entire LRT system is built out, there is talk of extending it to Everett, which if this happens the Everett city government has in the past said that their preferred route would take light rail past Boeing's main plant and Paine Field Airport.


----------



## greg_christine

According to the 2000 U.S. census, the following are the cities with a population over 100,000 with the highest percentage of commuters who use public transit:

1. New York, New York 54.35%
2. Jersey City, New Jersey 40.26%
3. Washington, D.C. 34.47%
4. Boston, Massachusetts 33.07%
5. San Francisco, California 32.64%
6. Newark, New Jersey 26.81%
7. Chicago, Illinois 26.71%
8. Cambridge, Massachusetts 26.46%
9. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 25.93%
10. Arlington, Virginia 24.12%
11. Yonkers, New York 23.61%
12. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 20.99%
13. Baltimore, Maryland 19.94%
14. Berkeley, California 19.93%
15. Hartford, Connecticut 18.87%
16. Seattle, Washington 18.44%
17. Oakland, California 18.18%
18. Daly City, California 18.12%
19. Alexandria, Virginia 16.69%
20. Atlanta, Georgia 15.61%
21. Minneapolis, Minnesota 15.07%
22. Elizabeth, New Jersey 14.91%
23. East Los Angeles, California 14.4%
24. New Orleans, Louisiana 14.05%
25. Portland, Oregon 12.89%
26. Buffalo, New York 12.52%
27. Paterson, New Jersey 12.36%
28. Cleveland, Ohio 12.2%
29. Honolulu, Hawaii 12.02%
30. Miami, Florida 11.6%
31. New Haven, Connecticut 11.36%
32. Stamford, Connecticut 11.14%
33. St. Louis, Missouri 10.9%
34. Los Angeles, California 10.64%
35. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 10.44%
36. Cincinnati, Ohio 10.35%
37. Concord, California 9.97%
38. Naperville, Illinois 9.52%
39. St. Paul, Minnesota 9.01%
40. Detroit, Michigan 8.81%
41. Denver, Colorado 8.75%
42. Santa Ana, California 8.62%
43. Bridgeport, Connecticut 8.49%
44. Richmond, Virginia 8.46%
45. Rochester, New York 8.33%
46. Inglewood, California 7.62%
47. Providence, Rhode Island 7.48%
48. Madison, Wisconsin 7.39%
49. El Monte, California 7.38%
50. Syracuse, New York 7.17%

Regardless of how successful Central Link is, there are still going to be a lot of cars on the road in the Puget Sound region. Transit alone will not solve the environmental problems resulting from cars.

I remain optimistic that technologies presently under development will provide solutions. Several companies including some large multi-national corporations are developing a new generation of thin-film solar panels that promise to be much cheaper than traditional solar panels. The following are some of the companies involved:

Nanosolar: http://www.nanosolar.com/
First Solar: http://www.firstsolar.com/index.php
Miasole: http://www.miasole.com/
BP: http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260
Shell: http://www.shell.com/home/content/shellsolar
Sharp: http://solar.sharpusa.com/solar/home/0,2462,,00.html
Honda: http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html

The next generation of hybrid automobiles will be "plug-in hybrids" that are designed to be recharged overnight and then travel the first 40 miles or so on battery power. General Motors, Toyota, and Ford have each announced plans to market such a vehicle within the next few years. The following is the website for the General Motors version:

Chevy Volt: http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

The following is the home page for the battery supplier for the Chevy Volt:

A123 Systems: http://www.a123systems.com/

As I stated in an earlier post, I hope to one day have a house with solar panels on the roof, a battery bank in the garage, and a car powered by batteries or bio-fuel in the driveway. There have been expectations since the first fuel crisis in the early 1970s that these technologies would be developed. The technologies have been improving and the costs have been coming down. We now seem to be a lot closer to the point where these technologies will be a practical reality.


----------



## Northsider

^^ I'm glad you posted that. People don't realize that best case scenario will give you about 50-60% transit mode share for commuters (like NYC) in the US. The rest of the people have to drive.


----------



## HAWC1506

Okay this just came into my box from Sound Transit:

"We are currently in the process of analyzing potential Link fares. We’re looking at both distance-based fares and a flat fare, and we will evaluate options regarding the ride free area in downtown Seattle. The ST Board is likely to make a decision about this in first or second quarter 2008."

Looks like we'll have to wait another half year for the answer.

Now, for the "convenience" of mass transit, I think personally, in Seattle, more mixed use complexes like those going up in Bellevue would probably also help Sound Transit even more than placing a large number of stops. It's not only the convenience of light rail, it's also the convenience of the location of the light rail stops. If you can walk out of your office building, buy groceries, and get office supplies, and maybe get that jacket you've always wanted all within walking distance of a light rail station, that will beat the car. The problem I find with Seattle is that we are too spread out and too "organized." Retail all in one place, commercial zone all in one place, residential zone all in one place, industrial zone all in one place. So instead of having to drive to all those different zones to do each task, you can do them all once and walk to a light rail station. I noticed that when I was playing Sim City 4. Make mixed use of city blocks, not just office complexes. I'm not saying that you have to place a nuclear power plant next to a school like I did, but you get the idea.


----------



## greg_christine

The lure of car culture was recently driven home to me when one of my coworkers told me about an apartment building that his brother-in-law had built near then new airport in Bangkok, Thailand. The building is designed to appeal to lower paid service workers at the new airport. The apartments are efficiencies that lack kitchens. My coworker's brother-in-law was having trouble renting the apartments until he leased a lot across the street to serve as a parking lot. To a low paid Thai airport worker, car ownership is more important than having a kitchen!

Rail transit must be justified based on the improvement to mobility in the corridor that it serves. The key to solving the environmental problems created by cars will be to develop cars that pollute less.


----------



## HAWC1506

greg_christine said:


> The key to solving the environmental problems created by cars will be to develop cars that pollute less.


Yes. And if you could do more things in a short distance so that your plug-in car won't run out of range, that's even better.

I am waiting for the arrival of the European Ford Mondeo. For those of you who don't know what it is, if you've seen Casino Royale, that's the saloon that James Bond was driving. For those of you who haven't seen the movie, then check it out. Efficient efficient car and I think it would make a perfect commuter 

What I think is going on is that hybrids from the Japanese are only good for local driving, not for highway driving. It's virtually useless in highway driving. Here in Seattle, I believe most driving is done on the highway. So there's no point in buying a hybrid really unless you're the lucky few who have everything you need within a few city blocks. Diesel engines get better economy on highways because diesel fuel packs more energy per gram than conventional fuel, but puts out less carbon dioxide. European cars get around 40 to 50 miles a gallon on diesel fuel, but they also don't have to drive as much because they have good public transportation. In Japan hybrids are better because their freeways mostly have a limit of 80 kilometers, around 53 miles an hour (as opposed to 70 here, and 90 in Europe).The top operating speed for most hybrids before they switch to full gas is around 55 miles an hour.

For Seattle, our travel distances are toooooo loonnnnngggggg, but for energy saving in cars, I'd say a diesel-hybrid


----------



## kub86

Ok ok ok...I got sucked into car culture recently (after YEARS of strict public transit adherence in Seattle and in France). I bought my first car last week...and it already got me broke with payments, insurance, gas, and repairs already. I didn't even register or pay taxes on it yet.

For me, it's a tossup of living at home for free in suburbia while paying for a car to work in Bellevue, or paying rent in Bellevue and riding a bike.

Anyway, my mom used to be a car-addict (well my whole family in general; we have 5 cars for 4 people), but after working 6 months in downtown Seattle, she's been loving transit and wants more. She seems stoked for the light rail since she has meetings in U district sometimes. She doesn't understand why it ends at the airport though. She says Sounder needs to go to Olympia too since her 590s expresses seem to be full of them.

edit: Greg_christine: Don't forget Tesla Motors!! 100% plug-in electric; equivalent of 135mpg; 200 mile range per charge. They're starting with expensive electric sports cars (0 to 60 in 4 seconds), but they're coming out with sedans and cheaper versions in the future. Slick! http://www.teslamotors.com/


----------



## HAWC1506

Got back from school, first thing I saw in the mail. From Sound Transit:

"I am responding to your question about light rail on the Eastside.

The Sound Transit 2 plan that will be put to a public vote in November 207 as part of the Roads and Transit Plan includes light rail across I-90 from Seattle to Bellevue, then east to Overlake. An extension to downtown Redmond will be implemented if funds are secured.

Light rail to the Issaquah area is not part of the Sound Transit 2 plan. However, the plan includes a study to evaluate an extension of light rail from the south Bellevue area to the Issaquah area. The study will evaluate ridership, station locations and terminals and develop information to update the Long-Range Plan. Based on the information developed, an extension to the Issaquah area could be considered in a future phase of high capacity transit investments in the region."


----------



## Bond James Bond

OK, I live in Issaquah and don't have a car, but despite that I can tell you that a LINK line to Issaquah is NOT needed. The Sound Transit bus I take to downtown Seattle gets me there in about 20 minutes, and spends 90% of its time in the HOV lanes which are almost never crowded. You would gain little or nothing from a rail line.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> OK, I live in Issaquah and don't have a car, but despite that I can tell you that a LINK line to Issaquah is NOT needed. The Sound Transit bus I take to downtown Seattle gets me there in about 20 minutes, and spends 90% of its time in the HOV lanes which are almost never crowded. You would gain little or nothing from a rail line.


Oh yes and I believe she was talking about the highlands, urban village. Sure thing about the low traffic CURRENTLY, but she was talking about the future, in 30 years. Populations going to grow. There's almost no room to expand I-90. And the 3200 new homes aren't even done constructing yet. I am not a resident up there, but I can tell you when I pass by in the mornings, the GP lanes on the ramp to I-90 are crowded. All the way up the hill.


----------



## HAWC1506

I've never really ridden a sound transit bus though. Is it just a regular city bus?


----------



## Peepers

northsider1983 said:


> ^^ I'm glad you posted that. People don't realize that best case scenario will give you about 50-60% transit mode share for commuters (like NYC) in the US. The rest of the people have to drive.


No they don't. Have you never been to New York City? The remaining 44 percent of non-transit trips made in NYC aren't by cars. In fact, the Census shows 21 percent of travel is by walking and cycling, with the rest split among taxis, for-hire vans, carpools, and driving alone.


----------



## Northsider

Peepers said:


> No they don't. Have you never been to New York City? The remaining 44 percent of non-transit trips made in NYC aren't by cars. In fact, the Census shows 21 percent of travel is by walking and cycling, with the rest split among taxis, for-hire vans, carpools, and driving alone.


<sigh> Why is it when someone generalizes or gives an erroneous fact there is always someone to say "Have you ever even been to X-city?" _YES_ I have been to NYC. I was generalizing about *OTHER* cities. A transit oriented city such as NYC gets at most 50-60% mode split for transit. Let's assume by some miracle some other city, Dallas let's say (since I was critiquing it in another thread), gets 50% transit mode share. Are the rest going to walk? Take a cab? Ride a bike? (BEFORE YOU FREAKING ASK, yes I _have_ been to Dallas!!!) I'll tell you right now, Dallas is not NYC and its land use will not allow the number of bikers and walkers that NYC has.

EDIT: By the way, NYC (Manhattan):
52% Transit
32% Car
1.6% Taxi
.4% Bike
10.5% Walked
The rest: other/worked from home/motorcycle

US CENSUS 2000


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> I've never really ridden a sound transit bus though. Is it just a regular city bus?


hmm, define regular city bus? All I can say most sound transit express buses have nice colors in the interior of the bus with cushion seats. they also have row of seats like those ong distance coaches on many of their sound transit bus fleet. The same above goes for community transit, too.


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> Oh yes and I believe she was talking about the highlands, urban village. Sure thing about the low traffic CURRENTLY, but she was talking about the future, in 30 years. Populations going to grow. There's almost no room to expand I-90. And the 3200 new homes aren't even done constructing yet. I am not a resident up there, but I can tell you when I pass by in the mornings, the GP lanes on the ramp to I-90 are crowded. All the way up the hill.


Issaquah Highlands is already at least 1/2 built out. The additional housing still to be built there will make only a small bit of difference.

Yes, the ramps getting onto I-90 in the morning are very crowded, but the bus uses the express lanes so it doesn't have to deal with all that.

Especially since they finished the new bus/HOV ramps onto the Eastgate P&R last fall, the bus trip is a breeze. The HOV lanes would have to get, like, 4 times more crowded in the morning to really slow the buses down, and that's not going to happen for another 50 years, if at all. That being the case, there is absolutely no need to extend the Link out to Issaquah, the buses are more than adequate.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> Issaquah Highlands is already at least 1/2 built out. The additional housing still to be built there will make only a small bit of difference.
> 
> Yes, the ramps getting onto I-90 in the morning are very crowded, but the bus uses the express lanes so it doesn't have to deal with all that.
> 
> Especially since they finished the new bus/HOV ramps onto the Eastgate P&R last fall, the bus trip is a breeze. The HOV lanes would have to get, like, 4 times more crowded in the morning to really slow the buses down, and that's not going to happen for another 50 years, if at all. That being the case, there is absolutely no need to extend the Link out to Issaquah, the buses are more than adequate.


You're the commuter  WSDOT is adding an additional carpool lane on the Mercer Island section of I-90 on the GP lanes down the bridge, (I'm not sure if it's going to extend onto the bridge or not) but would there be the need for that if it's already a breeze? I still don't get why they are doing that before the November vote though...


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> hmm, define regular city bus? All I can say most sound transit express buses have nice colors in the interior of the bus with cushion seats. they also have row of seats like those ong distance coaches on many of their sound transit bus fleet. The same above goes for community transit, too.


So it's not like a Metro bus?


----------



## kub86

^^ I like riding ST buses. They're cleaner, comfier with cushioned seats, no smelly or scary people, and the air conditioning works. You should try it out!

And I think supporters of lightrail to Issaquah would argue that a rail line would attract *more* transit riders than conventional buses. I just don't know if the future projected ridership numbers would be enough to justify building the line.


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> You're the commuter  WSDOT is adding an additional carpool lane on the Mercer Island section of I-90 on the GP lanes down the bridge, (I'm not sure if it's going to extend onto the bridge or not) but would there be the need for that if it's already a breeze? I still don't get why they are doing that before the November vote though...


Actually, I *have* been wondering why Sound Transit is bothering to build one of those at Mercer Island. The existing configuration is already very easy and quick for the buses to navigate.

Whatever. *shrugs*


----------



## Bond James Bond

kub86 said:


> And I think supporters of lightrail to Issaquah would argue that a rail line would attract *more* transit riders than conventional buses.


I doubt it would. As I've said, the buses going to downtown Seattle from Issaquah are already so quick and easy there's little disincentive for people to take them. Shaving a few minutes off the trip isn't going to make much difference.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> I doubt it would. As I've said, the buses going to downtown Seattle from Issaquah are already so quick and easy there's little disincentive for people to take them. Shaving a few minutes off the trip isn't going to make much difference.


How frequent do the buses run? I guess trains have a much easier time keeping up with schedule though. And also one driver per train can carry many more people per run. But now that I think about it, not all Issaquah Highlanders need to travel to Downtown. If it's safe to assume Issaquah with 10,000 commuters, and a LR that carries 800 people in a 4 or even 3 car config, I don't think ridership will be that high...

And for the express lanes at Mercer Island, I guess WSDOT is assuming that the chance of the November vote passing is pretty great...because light rail is going to be extended via express lanes. We have 8 lanes on all directions+HOV now, if LR comes, we'll still have 8 lanes.


----------



## sequoias

I don't know how fequent the bus comes between Seattle-Issaquah but I know that Seattle-Lynnwood Community transit buses comes every 5 to 7 minutes during peak hours.


----------



## HAWC1506

Also a little eye candy for your enjoyment  

Shinkansen in Japan (The one on the right is a double decker.)




























Inside










Streetcar in Hiroshima (Note the Seattle Street car similarities)










Streetcar in Hiroshima again










Train Station Sign










Central Line in Tokyo: Notice Ridership (sorry for blurriness, I was in a hurry)










Central Line again










Now note this, displays in the train:














































Central Line Sign (note number of heads on the bottom of the picture.)










Train Station Sign (note the number of platforms. The number is as high as 23 once you walk down the corridor)










Train Station










Platform (Not rush hour)










Enjoy. I will post more on the Bellevue threads that is relevant there.


----------



## HAWC1506

OH yes can't forget my little friend on the 9 hour Shinkansen trip spanning the length of Japan.


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^nice straight


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> How frequent do the buses run?


The 554 (the express bus to downtown Seattle) runs every 1/2 hour, from early in the morning to late at night.

If they extended a light rail link to Issaquah, you can be sure it would be no more or less frequent.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> The 554 (the express bus to downtown Seattle) runs every 1/2 hour, from early in the morning to late at night.
> 
> If they extended a light rail link to Issaquah, you can be sure it would be no more or less frequent.


Is ridership in Issaquah high for the buses?


----------



## Ginkgo

*Community Transit double-decker bus*

*Has anyone else seen this great-looking bus on the streets of Seattle (or on home roads in Snohomish County)? I'd love to take a ride on it, if only I had a reason to go north and stay as Community Transit serves Seattle only at rush hour and only one way. In any event, here's a link. http://www.commtrans.org/?mc=Newsandevents&Subcat=10*


----------



## HAWC1506

Ginkgo said:


> *Has anyone else seen this great-looking bus on the streets of Seattle (or on home roads in Snohomish County)? I'd love to take a ride on it, if only I had a reason to go north and stay as Community Transit serves Seattle only at rush hour and only one way. In any event, here's a link. http://www.commtrans.org/?mc=Newsandevents&Subcat=10*


Never heard of it. Is it a new company?


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> Is ridership in Issaquah high for the buses?


Pretty much so. Especially during rush hours, of course.


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> Never heard of it. Is it a new company?


Community Transit has been around for decades.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> Community Transit has been around for decades.


Really? Are they like Sound Transit?


----------



## tritown

^^ 
Community Transit is Snohomish County's bus system. It's more like King County Metro than Sound Transit, it just serves Snohomish County instead of King County.

Sound Transit is different in that it is an amalgamation of the three transit agencies of the central Puget Sound area (Community Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit)


----------



## tritown

^^ 
So, in reality, I suppose that the light rail could actually be a King County Metro operation since it is only in King County to start out with, and will only be in King County for a long time, not counting the Tacoma light rail, which could also just be a Pierce Transit Operation. This is all just too confusing for me.


----------



## Jaxom92

We got the three (four really, counting Kitsap) county transit agencies that have been around for a while now (don't know the exactly length of time). When Sound Transit was voted into existence, it added another larger scale (regional) transit agency, but did not replace the already existing ones. It seems a little redundant if you ask me, and perhaps one day things will be consolidated, but for the near term, this is what we got.


----------



## HAWC1506

Jaxom92 said:


> We got the three (four really, counting Kitsap) county transit agencies that have been around for a while now (don't know the exactly length of time). When Sound Transit was voted into existence, it added another larger scale (regional) transit agency, but did not replace the already existing ones. It seems a little redundant if you ask me, and perhaps one day things will be consolidated, but for the near term, this is what we got.


Are there differences in fares between ST and Metro?

By the way this popped up: http://www.komotv.com/news/9668407.html


----------



## SteveM

northsider1983 said:


> EDIT: By the way, NYC (Manhattan):
> 52% Transit
> 32% Car
> 1.6% Taxi
> .4% Bike
> 10.5% Walked
> The rest: other/worked from home/motorcycle
> 
> US CENSUS 2000


To be clear, this is for New York City as a whole. So people who work in, say, suburban Staten Island are counted here too. I bet the Transit/Walk share in Manhattan proper is much higher.

That said, I agree that the car is here to stay. And so it follows that making cars more efficient is probably more important from a global warming perspective than building more trains is.

On the other hand, the key issue with transportation efficiency is number and length of trips, not mode. In other words, amenities that make compact neighborhoods more desirable (including but not limited to subways, light rail and streetcars) can help people choose lifestyles that require fewer trips and so cut down on the *need* for transportation. And that's good in any number of ways (local economies, carbon emissions, personal economies, etc.)


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> Are there differences in fares between ST and Metro?
> 
> By the way this popped up: http://www.komotv.com/news/9668407.html


Yes, Sound Transit fares are a bit more expensive (but only, like, 25 cents per trip). However, I've always been able to get a transfer from a Metro bus and get on a ST bus and they never ask me to pay the additional 25 cents.

BTW I can't believe you don't know about Community Transit. I guess you haven't lived here long???


----------



## Bond James Bond

tritown said:


> ^^
> Community Transit is Snohomish County's bus system. It's more like King County Metro than Sound Transit, it just serves Snohomish County instead of King County.


Actually, CT only serves SW Snohomish County and a few other areas. Everett Transit concentrates on areas around Everett.

And yes, there's always been a lot of talk about them merging, but they don't ever seem to get around to doing it.



> Sound Transit is different in that it is an amalgamation of the three transit agencies of the central Puget Sound area (Community Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit)


Sound Transit isn't really an amalgamation of those agencies, it's actually its own agency that just happens to have a regional focus.


----------



## Northsider

> On the other hand, the key issue with transportation efficiency is number and length of trips, not mode.


I don't know about that. There are plenty of suburbanites moving farther and farther and farther to the periphery, lengthening their trip. They don't care how far they have to drive, as long as they get a ginormous house on cheap land in the exurbs. I don't know if that applies to Seattle, but many many other US cities are faced with this out-of-control sprawl.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> Yes, Sound Transit fares are a bit more expensive (but only, like, 25 cents per trip). However, I've always been able to get a transfer from a Metro bus and get on a ST bus and they never ask me to pay the additional 25 cents.
> 
> BTW I can't believe you don't know about Community Transit. I guess you haven't lived here long???


Haha I've lived here for 10 years. I'm not a commuter though. I get to ride my crammed, bumpy, big smelly yellow twinkie! :banana:


----------



## Mongo8780

Bond James Bond said:


> Actually, CT only serves SW Snohomish County and a few other areas. Everett Transit concentrates on areas around Everett.


Except for Stanwood, Marysville, Gold Bar, Index, Arlington, Sultan, Monroe, Snohomish, Smokey Point, Darrington, Granite Falls, Lake Stevens....


----------



## SteveM

northsider1983 said:


> I don't know about that. There are plenty of suburbanites moving farther and farther and farther to the periphery, lengthening their trip. They don't care how far they have to drive, as long as they get a ginormous house on cheap land in the exurbs. I don't know if that applies to Seattle, but many many other US cities are faced with this out-of-control sprawl.


Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.


----------



## Northsider

SteveM said:


> Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.


Ohh I agree too.


----------



## HAWC1506

SteveM said:


> Actually, I think we agree: I'm also arguing that controlling sprawl more important than, say, building new train systems. I'm just saying that such systems (especially if not coupled with highway expansion) can provide an attractive alternative to ginormous houses on cheap land.



Would that draw commercial businesses there too though? If you're expanding out, then it doesn't really make sense for businesses to stay where they are right now and not expand with them does it?


----------



## Northsider

HAWC1506 said:


> Would that draw commercial businesses there too though? If you're expanding out, then it doesn't really make sense for businesses to stay where they are right now and not expand with them does it?


That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.


----------



## greg_christine

northsider1983 said:


> That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.


During the "White Flight" of the 1960s, real estate in the cities became much cheaper than real estate in the suburbs. There were many issues involved. One of the most important was security. In many cases, the parks, plazas, and other common spaces in downtown areas had become campgrounds for vagrants and open air drug markets. One of the advantages of the suburbs comes from "Defensible Space". Most of the land is privately owned and directly under the control individuals who will not hesitate to call the police to chase away trouble makers.

The principal of defensible space goes beyond dealing with people engaged in illegal activities. In an apartment or condominium complex in which the lobby and stairs are shared, rowdy teenagers can seriously impact the quality of life for the other residents. Rowdy teenagers are much less of a problem in a suburban neighborhood where each house has its own private yard.

These issues cause me concern with the "New Urbanism" development that is underway in Seattle. One demographic group in which the city is already well below the national average is families with children. Also, I still hear a lot about the population of homeless people who hang out in the downtown area.


----------



## jchernin

^ so we shouldn't build dense because of rowdy teenagers?!?

wow

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:


----------



## sequoias

Ginkgo said:


> *Has anyone else seen this great-looking bus on the streets of Seattle (or on home roads in Snohomish County)? I'd love to take a ride on it, if only I had a reason to go north and stay as Community Transit serves Seattle only at rush hour and only one way. In any event, here's a link. http://www.commtrans.org/?mc=Newsandevents&Subcat=10*


 I rode the double decker once on way to work from my friend's place in Seattle. It was a real cool ride.


----------



## HAWC1506

jchernin said:


> ^ so we shouldn't build dense because of rowdy teenagers?!?
> 
> wow
> 
> :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:


Hey!


----------



## HAWC1506

northsider1983 said:


> That was the whole thing with the first suburban boom. As people began moving out to the cheaper suburbs, so did the business. It was cheaper for both parties. Thus, cities fell into decline. We need to cap sprawl or control it somehow (growth boundaries a la Portland?) if we even want transit to be a viable mode choice.


Okay so spreading out = cheaper, but less efficient transportation.
But that means not everyone works in DT right? So wouldn't that relieve the city a little bit?


----------



## Northsider

HAWC1506 said:


> Okay so spreading out = cheaper, but less efficient transportation.
> But that means not everyone works in DT right? So wouldn't that relieve the city a little bit?


Somewhat, except that many people who live in the city commute out to the suburbs, along with suburb-suburb commuting. So instead of suburb-CBD commuting, in which transit would be easiest to implement, we have region-wide congestion.


----------



## HAWC1506

^^ 

Hmmm one question, when businesses are expanding towards the suburbs, are they existing businesses dividing up their campus, or are they new businesses coming in? 

Also do you know if the different Microsoft campuses are residential based? So maybe you live in Issaquah or Bellevue, then you work at the Issaquah campus. Or if you live in Seattle, you get the Seattle Campus. Maybe? No?


----------



## Northsider

HAWC1506 said:


> ^^
> 
> Hmmm one question, when businesses are expanding towards the suburbs, are they existing businesses dividing up their campus, or are they new businesses coming in?
> 
> Also do you know if the different Microsoft campuses are residential based? So maybe you live in Issaquah or Bellevue, then you work at the Issaquah campus. Or if you live in Seattle, you get the Seattle Campus. Maybe? No?


I have no idea...I am not that familiar with Seattle. I can relate to Chicago, when Sears left Sears Tower way back when and moved to the suburbs they just located on some huge tract of land on the fringe. They did not divide up their campus. I am not sure if I understand your question clearly.


----------



## greg_christine

jchernin said:


> ^ so we shouldn't build dense because of rowdy teenagers?!?


A lot of the enthusiasm for denser development seems to be motivated by political idealism. Idealism can begin to wear thin when there is graffiti in the stairwell, the kid down the hall is blasting his stereo late at night, and you would like to go for a walk but decide it isn't worth the risk of getting mugged.

I am a native of Seattle but I have also lived in densely developed parts of the San Francisco bay area, Boston, and the Washington, DC metropolitan area. I now live in a single-family house in the small town in southeastern Virginia. I like it here. It's quiet and my family and I feel safe. I don't ever care to live in a high-rise again. Someday when I no longer have the energy to maintain a lawn, my wife and I might move to a townhouse. Perhaps that might meet the approval of those who advocate for denser development.


----------



## greg_christine

Can the New Urbanism coexist with Walmart?

I am asking this question here because there seem to be several New Urbanism advocates who frequent this thread. 

The county I live in, Isle of Wight, has a population of only about 30,000. The largest town, Smithfield, has a population of only about 7000. A New Urbanism development called Benn's Grant is in the planning stages. It would be built on farm land about two miles outside of town. The projected population of the new development is equal to about half the population of the existing town. It is being described as "New Urbanism", but there is a lot of skepticism that this is just a smokescreen for simply jamming more houses onto a given piece of land than would otherwise be allowed under current zoning. The fact that a Walmart would sit in the middle of it further feeds the skepticism.

A couple of articles describing the proposed development appear below.

==========================================================
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=106663&ran=188866

Isle of Wight to consider 100-room hotel 
By LINDA MCNATT, The Virginian-Pilot 
© June 27, 2006 

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY - A 100-room hotel, restaurant and conference center could soon join the residential and commercial developments on the drawing boards for the Benn s Church intersection near Smithfield.

The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing today to consider rezoning about five acres northeast of the intersection, near the existing Queen Anne's Court townhouses, not far from historic St. Luke's Church.

The land was zoned for a similar development several years ago, but when that rezoning ran out, it reverted to rural agricultural conservation status, said Amy Ring, assistant director of planning and zoning. The application calls for conditional general commercial zoning.

The hotel, which could cost nearly $12 million, would be designed to complement the 430-home subdivision, St. Luke's Village and the old church, said Justin Sizemore, attorney representing the land owners. 

"We want to bring something really nice in," Sizemore said. "We think it's a project Isle of Wight really needs in a part of the county that's going to see a lot of growth."

With the new hotel, overnight accommodations in the county would about double , he said. An economic impact study estimates that the hotel would bring about 25 new jobs to the area with a payroll of about $500,000 a year. It could also produce an annual estimated tax revenue of $350,000, Sizemore said.

The intersection of Va. 10 and U.S. 258/32 at Benn s Church has been targeted for growth. Benn's Grant, a proposed development on the other side of U.S. 258, is slated to include about 1,100 homes, a retail district, medical offices and an office park.

"It's the new urbanism," Sizemore said.

If all goes well, the hotel could start construction in about a year.

The Planning Commission meets at 6 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room at the Isle of Wight Courthouse.

Reach Linda McNatt at (757)222-5561 or [email protected]. 

=========================================================
http://www.industrywatch.com/pages/...vernment:Foreign+Relations&P=&F=&R=&VNC=hnall

Isle of Wight Doesn't Need "New Urbanism"

Virginian - Pilot, Arrival Time: 2007-08-14

By REGINA HAGGERTY 

As a military family, we have lived, over a period of 25 years, in six states and four countries. When the time came to leave the Air Force, we carefully considered where we'd want to settle and chose the Hampton Roads area. 

We had the great good fortune to come to Isle of Wight eight years ago and build our retirement home. This is the best place we've lived, ever, and we feel so incredibly lucky to have found it. We've even had several friends move here after visiting us and seeing what the town and county have to offer. 

Now, however, we feel the lifestyle we've come to love is in serious jeopardy. We and many other residents of Smithfield and Isle of Wight County don't want the massive Benn's Grant development in our midst. 

According to the developer's projections, there will be 1,080 new homes. Since the average family size is 3.14, that will mean 3,391 new residents. Our schools are already overloaded and understaffed. Our fire, police and sheriff's departments would be greatly stressed. This would mean the end of our volunteer emergency services. 

This mega-development offers little for Isle of Wight residents. Although increased medical care facilities would be a good thing and are touted as part of the plan, there has been no firm commitment . 

Other than baseball fields, which are planned for the use of Benn's Grant residents, there has been no mention of any other recreational facility, such as movie theaters or bowling alleys. 

This is too high a price to pay for convenient shopping at Wal- Mart. Most of us who have moved to this area, as well as longtime residents, cherish our rural quality of life. We have at least three Wal-Marts within a 25-minute drive. 

Wal-Mart has the reputation of taking risks in locating in low- density areas such as ours, and then abruptly leaving if the numbers aren't good within the first couple of years. 

The developers have stated that this project will bring something like 5,000 new jobs to our county. We need to know what kind of positions these will be. Most of the new jobs will not pay enough for workers to be able to live here. They will have to commute and further exacerbate the traffic problem 

The developers tout this venture as "new urbanism." The point is, we are not urban! We're rural, and most of us like it this way. I've asked countless residents how they feel about Benn's Grant, and I can find no one who wants it. This project will destroy our existing small businesses. 

There are many unanswered questions concerning environmental impact. The traffic "solutions" proposed by county consultants change weekly. 

Certainly increased development is inevitable. Just in the past couple of years, we've welcomed the new communities of Eagle Harbor, Founder's Pointe, Wellington Estates, Villas of Smithfield and now the new Church Square townhouse development. Soon to come: Mallory Pointe, Lawnes Pointe and the development approved for the old Smithfield Downs golf course. 

Yet we're being asked to accept what is, in essence, another town. Growth will continue to come to our community. Will it be responsible growth? Do we want to continue to exist as a town? Or do we want to become a city? 

Let your voice be heard if you object to this project. This is not yet a done deal. 

Regina Haggerty lives in Smithfield. 

(c) 2007 Virginian - Pilot. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.


----------



## mhays

Misc. comment: The large majority of Puget Sound area office construction is in Seattle, Bellevue, or Redmond. If you consider that the metro is elongated north and south, the office construction is mostly in a narrow band in the center. Said differently, most of it is either in Downtown Seattle or within 10-11 miles east as the crow flies. Even closer if it's in Downtown Bellevue.


----------



## kub86

I found this 1967 rapid transit map today on flicr, and it's interesting to note how close our current Light rail plans resemble the ones from the 60s. Well it's better late than never!


----------



## Northsider

^^ Interesting


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

If that rapid transit system built... We won't have traffic problem by now for sure. It goes almost everywhere that people wants to go to. I can see it goes to Microsoft's three campuses (Redmond, Bellevue, and Seattle) and it connected to almost every big name companies, shopping malls, tourist sites, and Sea-Tac International Airport. If it built, we might don't have to wide all freeways or asking us to vote to say yes on raise the taxes to build every projects that would solve traffic congestions. Who knows? 

That would be nice if time-machine is real thing, we could do some experiments to see which system would work great for Seattle and metro area by go back to the past then go see today or future.


----------



## sequoias

kub86 said:


> I found this 1967 rapid transit map today on flicr, and it's interesting to note how close our current Light rail plans resemble the ones from the 60s. Well it's better late than never!


wow, nice find! seems that monorail green line is on the similar looking route. I guess the light rail line changed from what the heavy rail line had in 1967 map. Maybe the population in the area shifted. interesting, there was the 3rd bridge north of sr 520 floating bridge, it never happened. hmmm


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I'm glad that proposed third "floating" bridges never got built.


----------



## Bond James Bond

HAWC1506 said:


> Also do you know if the different Microsoft campuses are residential based? So maybe you live in Issaquah or Bellevue, then you work at the Issaquah campus. Or if you live in Seattle, you get the Seattle Campus. Maybe? No?


People working at Microsoft live wherever they want to live. Same as everyone else.


----------



## Tcmetro

That '67 plan is nice, but King County rejected the cost, so all the Government money went to Atlanta, to build their 4-line subway system.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Had to pick family up at the airport today. Didn't get any pictures, but got to circle through the big C.F. going on down there a couple times. Any news on the airport station? Have they found a contractor, or settled on a plan yet? You could see the big area cleared for it, and they're progressing on the track leading up to it, but nothing really going on with the station.


----------



## HAWC1506

Bond James Bond said:


> People working at Microsoft live wherever they want to live. Same as everyone else.


Nono I know that :lol: I'm just wondering if they are able to choose the closest campus to work at. There that should clarify that.


----------



## sequoias

BoulderGrad said:


> Had to pick family up at the airport today. Didn't get any pictures, but got to circle through the big C.F. going on down there a couple times. Any news on the airport station? Have they found a contractor, or settled on a plan yet? You could see the big area cleared for it, and they're progressing on the track leading up to it, but nothing really going on with the station.


yes, they have a contractor already to build that extension from international blvd station. they're currently moving the loop so they make room for the station.
so far, they're doing the support posts and highway loop impovements. it should open in late 2009 (6 months after the s. 154th st. to westlake station opens in june or july 2009.)


----------



## Jaxom92

A little less than two years left... I'm getting excited already.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Okay so spreading out = cheaper, but less efficient transportation.
> But that means not everyone works in DT right? So wouldn't that relieve the city a little bit?


No, it's not cheaper - it's actually much more expensive, but the costs are shifted largely to the public.


----------



## UrbanBen

Bond James Bond said:


> The 554 (the express bus to downtown Seattle) runs every 1/2 hour, from early in the morning to late at night.
> 
> If they extended a light rail link to Issaquah, you can be sure it would be no more or less frequent.


Actually, it would be every 15 minutes. Go read the long range plan!


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> A little less than two years left... I'm getting excited already.


Seriously! I just flew a few days ago and saw columns right up to Airport station.


----------



## UrbanBen

*New site showing ST2 rail projects*

Check it out (it takes a while to load):

http://soundtransit2.com

I set up a little google maps implementation with the Sound Transit 2 lines and some of the other work that's on the ballot this year. Eventually I'll add the buses, but the rail projects are much bigger so that's what I'm doing first.

Remember to zoom in!


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Check it out (it takes a while to load):
> 
> http://soundtransit2.com
> 
> I set up a little google maps implementation with the Sound Transit 2 lines and some of the other work that's on the ballot this year. Eventually I'll add the buses, but the rail projects are much bigger so that's what I'm doing first.
> 
> Remember to zoom in!


Whoaaa nice website! Thanks for putting that up! I've never heard of sound move (light blue) though. Can someone explain that a bit? I don't remember seeing plans for rail systems down to McChord AFB. Thanks again!


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> Check it out (it takes a while to load):
> 
> http://soundtransit2.com
> 
> I set up a little google maps implementation with the Sound Transit 2 lines and some of the other work that's on the ballot this year. Eventually I'll add the buses, but the rail projects are much bigger so that's what I'm doing first.
> 
> Remember to zoom in!


I have found lot of bugs of your website. Have you tried testing it with several web browsers? In Safari, it doesn't show the lines, but the colored icons are correct with names next to it. In Firefox, it runs very slow and shows wrong icons next to the names like for example Sounder commuter rail is really the light rail line. In Opera, it doesn't show the rail lines but shows the icons on the map. You might want to test the bugs out to be sure it is working correctly in web browsers.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Whoaaa nice website! Thanks for putting that up! I've never heard of sound move (light blue) though. Can someone explain that a bit? I don't remember seeing plans for rail systems down to McChord AFB. Thanks again!


Hi! Thanks.  Sound Move is what the original Sound Transit plan is called - what we're using and building right now is all Sound Move.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> I have found lot of bugs of your website. Have you tried testing it with several web browsers? In Safari, it doesn't show the lines, but the colored icons are correct with names next to it. In Firefox, it runs very slow and shows wrong icons next to the names like for example Sounder commuter rail is really the light rail line. In Opera, it doesn't show the rail lines but shows the icons on the map. You might want to test the bugs out to be sure it is working correctly in web browsers.


Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about these issues. I'm simply implementing the Google Maps API - and the way the overlays are displayed is up to them. I've tested in IE and Firefox on Windows, but it's known to be broken on Safari on Mac, probably Firefox on Mac, and Firefox on Linux.

So complain to Google!

On it being slow - that's because there's a fair amount of data there. In my next revision I hope to enable toggling those overlays on and off, but at the moment I'm quite sick and about to get back to doing school full time and work full time at the same time again, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to change right now.


----------



## jam5

From the Sound Transit website:
------------------------------------------------

*Expert Review Panel Concludes that Sound Transit 2 Plan Meets Requirements*

September 14, 2007

The independent Expert Review Panel (ERP) appointed by the state to review Sound Transit’s work on the ST2 Plan on Sept 13 issued the below news release on the completion of its work.

**************

SEATTLE - An independent Expert Review Panel has concluded that the Sound Transit Phase 2 (ST2) Plan for regional transit is based on sound methodologies and reasonable assumptions that are consistent with industry standards, and meets the Washington state requirements for high capacity transit system planning. The ST2 plan will go to the voters in November 2007 as part of the “Roads & Transit” package with the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) ballot proposal.

The eight-member Expert Review Panel provided its conclusions in a letter to its appointing authorities— the governor, the chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees of the state legislature, and the Secretary of Transportation—along with the Chair of the Sound Transit Board and the Sound Transit CEO. The panel’s letter also noted cautions in three areas for implementing the ST2 Plan: the unprecedented level of construction activity expected in the region, the advisability of continued analysis of light rail on the I-90 bridge, and the importance of firming up formal agreements with local jurisdictions.

“Over the last 30 months, the panel has suggested a number of adjustments to Sound Transit’s planning methodologies and assumptions,” said Siim Sööt, the panel’s current chair and an expert in ridership forecasting. “The panel was pleased to see that many of these suggestions were incorporated into the final ST2 plan.”

The panel was appointed in November 2004 in accordance with state legislation (RCW 81.104.110). The panel’s role was to pose and assess critical questions, review key methodologies and assumptions in the Sound Transit 2 Plan, and ensure that the assumptions being used were appropriate and reasonable. The panel met eight times to review Sound Transit’s planning work, and hear from Sound Transit staff and consultants, and also from interested members of the public.

The panel members were selected from across the country to provide expertise spanning key technical areas. These include: project cost estimating, capital finance plan review, ridership forecasting, modal analysis, legal and political architecture of Sound Transit’s legislative charter,environmental impact statement preparation, local design and constructability, and transit operations and maintenance.

More information: ERP Website Contact: John Howell, Expert Review Panel Administrator, 206-223-7660, ext. 102


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Nono I know that :lol: I'm just wondering if they are able to choose the closest campus to work at. There that should clarify that.


No, we aren't.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about these issues. I'm simply implementing the Google Maps API - and the way the overlays are displayed is up to them. I've tested in IE and Firefox on Windows, but it's known to be broken on Safari on Mac, probably Firefox on Mac, and Firefox on Linux.
> 
> So complain to Google!
> 
> On it being slow - that's because there's a fair amount of data there. In my next revision I hope to enable toggling those overlays on and off, but at the moment I'm quite sick and about to get back to doing school full time and work full time at the same time again, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to change right now.


thank you very much for explaining to me about that. Nice job, by the way, though. I guess I should blame it on google for the web browser compability issues. :-/


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> I have found lot of bugs of your website. Have you tried testing it with several web browsers? In Safari, it doesn't show the lines, but the colored icons are correct with names next to it. In Firefox, it runs very slow and shows wrong icons next to the names like for example Sounder commuter rail is really the light rail line. In Opera, it doesn't show the rail lines but shows the icons on the map. You might want to test the bugs out to be sure it is working correctly in web browsers.


It works fine for me on Firefox. I haven't tried any other browsers but, I don't see a problem with Firefox. Different version maybe?


----------



## HAWC1506

In fact, I just tried it out with IE 7 and Firefox 2.0.0.6. For me, it's more choppy with lag on IE 7. Could be bandwidth.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> In fact, I just tried it out with IE 7 and Firefox 2.0.0.6. For me, it's more choppy with lag on IE 7. Could be bandwidth.


Firefox on Windows is fine - Firefox on other operating systems doesn't display everything. Yeah, IE7 doesn't cache past the edges of the screen or something, so it has to load new data whenever you scroll? I'm not sure what's up with that, but I just use Firefox on Windows.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Firefox on Windows is fine - Firefox on other operating systems doesn't display everything. Yeah, IE7 doesn't cache past the edges of the screen or something, so it has to load new data whenever you scroll? I'm not sure what's up with that, but I just use Firefox on Windows.


^^ Same here.


----------



## Northsider

Is the initial segment open for use? I have seen pictures of people waiting at station and riding...or were these just the test runs?


----------



## HAWC1506

northsider1983 said:


> Is the initial segment open for use? I have seen pictures of people waiting at station and riding...or were these just the test runs?


The Light Rail?


----------



## Northsider

HAWC1506 said:


> The Light Rail?


That's the title of this thread, isn't it?


----------



## kub86

northsider1983 said:


> Is the initial segment open for use? I have seen pictures of people waiting at station and riding...or were these just the test runs?


Those are probably test runs or marketing pics. It's not open to the public till mid 2009.


----------



## Seattlist

I went to the tunnel opening today, and got to walk around one of the light rail vehicles. I have tons of pics but can someone explain to me how to upload pics.


----------



## Northsider

go to http://www.imageshack.us/ and upload them.

Then for them to show you must do this:


>


^^ You must put in the IMG tags around your photo link.


----------



## Seattlist

*Sneak Peek at the Downtown Tunnel*

Here are the pics from the Downtown transit tunnel open house. Enjoy!


----------



## Northsider

There you go! Great share, thanks a lot! Has both forward facing and inward facing seating?


----------



## Seattlist

It only has inward faced seating in the middle of the LRV (where the articulation is) and right next to the doors (these fold up for wheelchair riders)


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> Yes, I already know that. The commuter rail goes up to 79 mph and the light rail goes up to 55 mph, wonder which will get there first? You decide.


Look, that's a ridiculous argument. Most of those riders aren't going from Tacoma to Seattle, they're going to and from the areas in between.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> I do not work for Sound Transit. That track is single-ended (excepting some crossovers) and about a thousand feet long, though. It couldn't be used for anything else - it doesn't even pass a station.


Ahhh, good observation.  Thanks for mentioning that.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> Look, that's a ridiculous argument. Most of those riders aren't going from Tacoma to Seattle, they're going to and from the areas in between.


Pretty much so.


----------



## UrbanBen

mhays said:


> I believe the south line is projected at much higher ridership than that.


It is. The above-quoted 70,000 a day for the "north" line is the NEW ridership added by ST2, not including the ridership that will already exist from ID station to UW station.

2030 weekday ridership is quoted as 305,000 for Link alone. Of that, about half is downtown and points north.


----------



## UrbanBen

spongeg said:


> they do it in vancouver too during rush hour - well i haven't ridden in years but they did have trains that left downtown and skipped a number of stations on the way to surrey - they operated as express runs from downtown to surrey


I've never heard of that. How, exactly, did the express trains pass the locals? SkyTrain is dual track and I don't know of any stations with third tracks.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> Ahhh, good observation.  Thanks for mentioning that.


Yeah, sorry I'm cranky today. 
I blame the Sierra Club.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> Yeah, sorry I'm cranky today.
> I blame the Sierra Club.


That's ok...you know how sierra club are sometimes. They like to quibble over little things, oh well.


----------



## UrbanBen

kub86 said:


> I agree with Sierra Club on this one. The ridership for the South Link will be pretty low to warrant any billion dollar high capacity system. The current ST express bus and Sounder service could easily be beefed up to serve the future. From ST's website, there's about 6,500 morning commuters who take Sounder and express buses to Seattle every day. 30,000 people drive northbound on I-5 during peak hours, so ST has about a 20% share already. Add more parking garages, increase express bus and Sounder service, and ST could double or triple its capacity more quickly (without waiting a couple decades) and at a fraction of the cost.


Look, I won't mince words. You're bonkers.

Sounder South serves an area east of I-5 with overall low density. Sounder can't run much more often than it already will because of the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to buy track rights from BNSF.

South Link will serve a completely different population with completely different needs. I-5 and the side of the valley basically cut Federal Way, Des Moines, etc off from Sounder service, and that area west of the freeway is higher density and provides much more of the population driving northbound into Seattle AND southbound into Tacoma.

South Link will also provide a link between Tacoma and Sea-Tac, and drive higher density development around stations in the 99 corridor. This is a Good Thing.

This whole idea of running "more express buses" instead of real rail service is completely wrong-headed. In order to get the quality of service from buses that you get from rail, in order to actually get people out of their cars, you have to provide dedicated infrastructure (which costs as much as rail). We're doing some of that already with direct access HOV ramps, but it simply doesn't build ridership and centralize development the way rail does - it doesn't have the permanence necessary. I keep hearing how buses are "flexible" - great, flexibility means it's easy to get rid of them in a poor political climate, and developers know that - that's why anti-transit lobbies support buses!

Hell, even park-and-rides are bad in the long-term. The point here is to SAVE infrastructure money by not encouraging people to live waaay outside the core. If you can drive from Woodinville to Redmond, park for free, and then take the train into Seattle, you're still driving up roadway improvement costs out at the edges. It's worth it to get the rail infrastructure built, though - this is a compromise, and a good one.

Honestly, though - do you even know what the South line ridership will be? Go actually do some research.


----------



## sequoias

Right, Urbanben....I haven't found data on south link ridership....but I'm pretty sure it's way more than what Sounder south line has today.


----------



## Tcmetro

A good way to see how some of the ridership will be, so take the ridership of the 194, the 574, and some of the other Federal Way express buses. About the bus system, do any of you know if the 194, and the 574 will be combined? Also, will the LRT replace any bus routes?


----------



## HAWC1506

Tcmetro said:


> A good way to see how some of the ridership will be, so take the ridership of the 194, the 574, and some of the other Federal Way express buses. About the bus system, do any of you know if the 194, and the 574 will be combined? Also, will the LRT replace any bus routes?


It would seem like a pretty interesting idea to replace long-distance bus routes with short distance bus routes that allow passengers to get off the train, and take a bus right from the train station to wherever they're going.


----------



## mhays

I agree, the Sounder is nice, but it can't be expanded beyond a point, and doesn't serve the west side of I-5. Light rail can go a long way toward creating concentrated growth clusters in South KC. 

That said, I'm thrilled about the 20% increase in KC bus service. Though I'd like Seattle to see a larger percentage of that than it's getting, the suburbs are getting some huge improvements in bus service including some BRT. This isn't as "permanent" or density-making as rail, but it'll certainly give transit a much higher mode share, particularly since many routes are too crowded today.


----------



## spongeg

UrbanBen said:


> I've never heard of that. How, exactly, did the express trains pass the locals? SkyTrain is dual track and I don't know of any stations with third tracks.


they would skip stations and only stop at a limited amount of stops

they would basically be held up by trains in the stations though if they encountered any

so it wasn't that much faster but was better for those wanting to go straight through


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> Right, Urbanben....I haven't found data on south link ridership....but I'm pretty sure it's way more than what Sounder south line has today.


Interestingly, I haven't found actual data on south link ridership either, but I believe it's in the realm of 75,000 per weekday.


----------



## UrbanBen

spongeg said:


> they would skip stations and only stop at a limited amount of stops
> 
> they would basically be held up by trains in the stations though if they encountered any
> 
> so it wasn't that much faster but was better for those wanting to go straight through


I think I'm not being very clear here. Okay, so let's say there's an express train for Surrey, and a local right in front of it? How exactly does it get to Surrey any faster than the local? You do realize that the local train is on the same track the whole time?


----------



## jchernin

^ theres passing tracks. like short passing lanes on highways, these tracks, plus careful scheduling allow the express trains to bypass locals.


----------



## Tcmetro

Seattle could also try the old Chicago A/B style stops.


----------



## UrbanBen

jchernin said:


> ^ theres passing tracks. like short passing lanes on highways, these tracks, plus careful scheduling allow the express trains to bypass locals.


No, there aren't. There are three short storage tracks between Main St./Science World and Surrey (with just a google maps check), and these are not used to pass.

The SkyTrain schedule makes no mention of express service, either: http://tripplanning.translink.bc.ca/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookupSearch&LineName=999&LineAbbr=999


----------



## Northsider

Tcmetro said:


> Seattle could also try the old Chicago A/B style stops.


The old "skip-stop" system...


----------



## UrbanBen

northsider1983 said:


> The old "skip-stop" system...


Again, that only works with passing tracks...


----------



## Tcmetro

No, passing tracks were never needed in Chicago. The first train would be an "A" train, and every other station is a "A" station, except major ones which are "A/B" stations. In Chicago this worked for years, until they deemed ridership was too low, and made all trains local.


----------



## HAWC1506

Tcmetro said:


> No, passing tracks were never needed in Chicago. The first train would be an "A" train, and every other station is a "A" station, except major ones which are "A/B" stations. In Chicago this worked for years, until they deemed ridership was too low, and made all trains local.


How did that work out? Wouldn't one train be faster than the other though?


----------



## jchernin

UrbanBen said:


> No, there aren't. There are three short storage tracks between Main St./Science World and Surrey (with just a google maps check), and these are not used to pass.
> 
> The SkyTrain schedule makes no mention of express service, either: http://tripplanning.translink.bc.ca/hiwire?.a=iScheduleLookupSearch&LineName=999&LineAbbr=999


whoops, ur right.

i didnt see the part that this was specific to surrey. he, i guess i smoked too much or somethin


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Back to the topic, three-track sections is a good idea, one for bypassing.


----------



## Northsider

UrbanBen said:


> Again, that only works with passing tracks...


No 3rd or 4th track needed, as mentioned.


> How did that work out? Wouldn't one train be faster than the other though?


No. First train makes 'A' stops. Next train makes 'B' stops. Major stations are AB stops. Minor stations are A or B. If you are waiting at a B stop, an A train will pass and you have to wait for a B train. They don't go faster or slower than one another, they try to efficiently cover the stations.


----------



## HAWC1506

northsider1983 said:


> No 3rd or 4th track needed, as mentioned.
> 
> No. First train makes 'A' stops. Next train makes 'B' stops. Major stations are AB stops. Minor stations are A or B. If you are waiting at a B stop, an A train will pass and you have to wait for a B train. They don't go faster or slower than one another, they try to efficiently cover the stations.


But how do you get from an A stop to a B stop?


----------



## Mongo8780

HAWC1506 said:


> But how do you get from an A stop to a B stop?


You had to transfer at an A/B stop.


----------



## UrbanBen

Mongo8780 said:


> You had to transfer at an A/B stop.


Yeah, I see how that works - I thought (given that this was a discussion of expresses) that the trains did actually pass each other. That right there, though, is probably why it died - necessitating two transfers drops ridership right through the floor for a lot of those A/B stations' users.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I was at Sea-Tac International Airport (I was on my vacation to Oregon and California for 8 days) and saw the light rail construction process. It is looking good but the station at Sea-Tac International Airport didn't get started yet. I looked around for a bit, I didn't see anything that will connect the airport and station. Can anyone please show me the floorplan of light rail station linked to the airport? Thanks!


----------



## BoulderGrad

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I was at Sea-Tac International Airport (I was on my vacation to Oregon and California for 8 days) and saw the light rail construction process. It is looking good but the station at Sea-Tac International Airport didn't get started yet. I looked around for a bit, I didn't see anything that will connect the airport and station. Can anyone please show me the floorplan of light rail station linked to the airport? Thanks!


Don't know off had where to find renderings (scour the ST website), but I know the station will be behind the parking garage, and riders will take a sky bridge from the station, through the parking garage to the terminal.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Back to the topic, three-track sections is a good idea, one for bypassing.


Well, define "good idea". It would cost a lot and lose a lot of public support. In a lot of the places where light rail's being/been built, getting enough space for double track was hard enough - you'd have to destroy buildings in the Rainier Valley, add another $500m tunnel to Beacon Hill, move or eliminate the E-3 busway, possibly do major work to the bus tunnel downtown, totally redesign the elevated guideway...

It likely just plain wouldn't be cost-effective. This is light rail, not a heavy metro.


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I was at Sea-Tac International Airport (I was on my vacation to Oregon and California for 8 days) and saw the light rail construction process. It is looking good but the station at Sea-Tac International Airport didn't get started yet. I looked around for a bit, I didn't see anything that will connect the airport and station. Can anyone please show me the floorplan of light rail station linked to the airport? Thanks!


Actually, the airport station's foundation is complete, final approach columns are complete, and some of the structural supports are re-barred (what do you call that, anyway?) and ready for framing.

Here's a really cruddy, low-res site plan (north is to the right):
http://soundtransit.org/x1788.xml


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

UrbanBen said:


> Actually, the airport station's foundation is complete, final approach columns are complete, and some of the structural supports are re-barred (what do you call that, anyway?) and ready for framing.
> 
> Here's a really cruddy, low-res site plan (north is to the right):
> http://soundtransit.org/x1788.xml


Thanks! I am little surprised because that airport station is little way off of the airport area. Good thing they will connected by skybridge.


----------



## Jaxom92

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Thanks! I am little surprised because that airport station is little way off of the airport area. Good thing they will connected by skybridge.


It's all about the available space with this one. How the terminal roads and freeway is laid out. They're rebuilding the freeway access at the same time to accommodate the light rail as well as increase the capacity of the terminal loop road.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Jaxom92 said:


> It's all about the available space with this one. How the terminal roads and freeway is laid out. *They're rebuilding the freeway access at the same time to accommodate the light rail as well as increase the capacity of the terminal loop road.*


Yeah I saw that. The construction there was crazy.


----------



## sequoias

I wonder if they will equip it with a special moving floor that speeds up people who can't walk fast or far to the terminal from the light rail station. That type of stuff is common in some airports around the US. I forget what it is called.


----------



## BoulderGrad

sequoias said:


> I wonder if they will equip it with a special moving floor that speeds up people who can't walk fast or far to the terminal from the light rail station. That type of stuff is common in some airports around the US. I forget what it is called.


Moving walkway


----------



## Jaxom92

BoulderGrad said:


> Moving walkway


It's a highly technical term that eludes the layman. :lol:


----------



## Jaxom92

I don't know if anybody has linked to this document yet. It's a 28 page, full color outline of the ST2 plan.

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/ST2Plan_08_07.pdf

There's a few more publications on this page as well:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x5313.xml


----------



## sequoias

BoulderGrad said:


> Moving walkway


Ahhh...thanks! I never thought of that.


----------



## citruspastels

^^ i think that's how it generally works at most airports. don't think i've seen one with 4.


----------



## Northsider

citruspastels said:


> ^^ i think that's how it generally works at most airports. don't think i've seen one with 4.


I've never seen 4, always two...but some are wider than others.


----------



## Tcmetro

-Akira- said:


> I've never seen 4, always two...but some are wider than others.


They got one at O'hare with 4. It goes between Concorses B and C.


----------



## Northsider

Tcmetro said:


> They got one at O'hare with 4. It goes between Concorses B and C.


lol, I hate O'hare, I always try to get Midway when I travel. :-] I have never noticed them.


----------



## mhays

The width is probably regulated. Can't have people out of reach of a handrail.


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Yes Sea-Tac airport does have some at their new Concourse A. I was there last Monday evening and used it.
> 
> I agree that Sea-Tac Airport light rail station should add moving walkways direct to the airport. Make it four (two for each direction, one for people who are not in rush and one for people who are in rush)


They couldn't be direct, because it's not a straight line (but they could go quite a distance).

How about contacting the contractor (Mowat, I think) and telling them not to bid 90m on a project that should cost 55m? That's the only way we're going to afford moving walkways.


----------



## spongeg

UrbanBen said:


> I think I'm not being very clear here. Okay, so let's say there's an express train for Surrey, and a local right in front of it? How exactly does it get to Surrey any faster than the local? You do realize that the local train is on the same track the whole time?


yes - thats what would happen

I think thats why they stopped it ??

all I remember is a number of years ago I was at the Granville Street station and a train came that said something to the effect of "This train will be making limited stops (and it listed the stations) to King George" on the notice board ticker and than the voice inside the train said the same thing

this was before the M lin was running so there were a lot less trains on the line

I think all it accomplished was getting groups of people out of downtown and not picking more up along the way as the trains were already pretty full


----------



## Jaxom92

If you do not yet know, Sound Transit has a list of milestones they put out every year to complete that year. September had 7 of them completed. If you want to see the whole list, click here.


----------



## Northsider

^^ Great link! Thanks for that...I will be using that on my project.


----------



## jam5

*Audit finds improvements but "unnecessary" costs in Sound Transit light rail*

_By Mike Lindblom
Seattle Times transportation reporter_

A new state audit of Sound Transit found that the agency has spent $5 million to cover "unnecessary" costs and fines while building its light-rail line from Seattle to Tukwila.

Though significant, that's a fraction of the project's overall budget of $2.4 billion, and Sound Transit maintains the losses are actually lower.

The line is scheduled to open in late 2009.

The audit brings up some recent history. Sound Transit was unable to complete what was promised to voters in 1996: a line from the University District to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport by 2006 for $3.6 billion in current dollars. (Estimates now are $2.7 billion for Westlake Center to the airport by 2009, plus $1.8 billion, including inflation and short-term financing, for a 3-mile tunnel to Husky Stadium by 2016. A First Hill station has been dropped.)

Still, the audit praises the agency for making progress.

"In the last five years, Sound Transit has extensively improved its construction planning and management processes," it says.

The audit is a result of Initiative 900, a Tim Eyman measure passed by state voters two years ago. It was performed by Talbot, Korvola and Warwick of Portland, and released this morning.

It lists 20 "findings," which are suggestions to improve what auditors consider weaknesses in project management.

The strongest criticisms involve environmental problems. In Seattle's Rainier Valley, the agency failed to identify in advance several sites where soil contamination caused $3.5 million in cleanup costs after construction began, the audit says.

Sound Transit disagrees, saying it would have spent much of the cleanup money even if it had located the tainted soils ahead of time.

Auditors also suggested that Sound Transit base its payments to contractors on performance "milestones," as an incentive to reduce the time that traffic and businesses are disrupted by heavy construction. (Work on Martin Luther King Way South is taking at least a year longer than originally planned.)

The audit did not examine how Sound Transit would perform as a transportation system.

Nor did it delve into the proposal to add 50 miles of light rail, as part of Proposition 1 on the Nov. 6 ballot in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Not exactly good news, but better performance than how these num-nuts (http://www.truthabouttraffic.org/) we're painting ST.


----------



## UrbanBen

BoulderGrad said:


> Not exactly good news, but better performance than how these num-nuts (http://www.truthabouttraffic.org/) we're painting ST.


Actually, if one reads the report (or some of the other reporting on it) instead of the sensationalist papers, you find that it's good news:

http://www.horsesass.org/?p=3526

Sound Transit has made leaps and bounds in maturing and effectively delivering projects, and they're going to keep becoming more effective. It would be nuts to derail them now - we'll just have to start over with another agency later, who will probably have the same problems Sound Transit did to begin with.


----------



## Daguy

Thanks for that link that you put on the Canada Line theard of the pics you've taken Ben. It looks pretty impressive, and I must say it'll be nice to ride it when I'm in Seattle to avoid all that traffic. 

I have quick question approximately what percentage of the line is separated from traffic? I know that some of it is at-grade but does the entire at-grade section run through intersections or are there any overpasses?


----------



## UrbanBen

Daguy said:


> Thanks for that link that you put on the Canada Line theard of the pics you've taken Ben. It looks pretty impressive, and I must say it'll be nice to ride it when I'm in Seattle to avoid all that traffic.
> 
> I have quick question approximately what percentage of the line is separated from traffic? I know that some of it is at-grade but does the entire at-grade section run through intersections or are there any overpasses?


I don't know the percentages, but if you look at Google Maps, it runs on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd with the southernmost crossing at Henderson Street and the northernmost at Alaskan St.

So I think the southernmost crossing is here, and the northernmost here. Looking at Google Maps, I'm actually remembering one more crossing south of Henderson, but I'm not sure where it is.

In that section, the major arterials (or as major as one gets down there) and a few smaller streets have intersections, and there are a few pedestrian crossing points (with lit signs for the peds). The signals are timed for the trains in the peak direction (I don't know how much of this you know). It won't be bad.


----------



## greg_christine

This week's Sound Transit photo of the week illustrates several aspects of the design and construction of the viaduct segments:










The orange overhead girder structure provides temporary support while the viaduct segments are lifted into position. Shear keys are fitted into the pockets in the ends of each set of viaduct segments to keep them in vertical alignment. Once the span is assembled, steel tendons are installed that connect the segments longitudinally. Under bending loads, compressive forces are transmitted through bearing between the concrete segments and tensile forces are transmitted through the steel tendons.


----------



## greg_christine

King County Executive and Sound Transit Board Member Ron Sims has created some controversy with an editorial in the Seattle Times publicly declaring his opposition to the RTID/ST2 ballot measure. This led columnist Danny Westneat to ask the obvious question of why Ron Sims voted with the rest of the Sound Transit board to advance the ballot measure to the public:

==========================================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003905815_ronsims27.html

Guest columnist

The roads-and-transit plan: so much cost to do so little
By Ron Sims

Special to The Times

This November, voters must carefully consider the $47 billion regional roads and transit package. This is a momentous decision, with construction scheduled to last 20 years, funded with bonds that won't be fully repaid for 50 years.

While containing some good projects, this plan doesn't solve traffic congestion in the short term, nor does it provide enough long-term relief to justify the financial and environmental costs. Tragically, this plan continues the national policy of ignoring our impacts upon global warming. In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, this plan will actually boost harmful carbon emissions. In its entirety, I regrettably conclude that costs exceed benefits.

If approved, we will see the largest tax increase in state history. Starting in January, car-tab taxes will triple, and the sales tax will be 9.5 percent (10 percent in King County restaurants).

I look at this package with the knowledge that in 50 years, my oldest son will be 80 when it's paid off. My granddaughter will be 55. Their ability to make public investments relevant to their lives and times will be severely limited by this package. Should I be so lucky, I will use my pension until I am 110 years old to pay my share!

The benefits of this package are far from immediate. Even if on schedule, 60 percent of new light rail won't open until 2027. Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away.

The road package is equally back-loaded, with replacement of Highway 520 only partially funded. The 520 funding shortfall is $1.3 billion, even with past gas-tax money and tolls. But the plan still calls for landscaped lids in Medina, the wealthiest neighborhood in our state, financed with regressive taxes on the working poor. When finished, RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District) increases highway capacity by 4.9 percent while traffic is projected to grow eight times faster.

This roads-and-transit plan just doesn't move enough people.

Projected light-rail ridership to Bellevue and Overlake is lackluster because of indirect routing. Traveling from Capitol Hill to the Microsoft campus via downtown Seattle and Mercer Island is slow and cumbersome. The retrofit of Interstate 90 for light rail will slow express-bus service and increase commute times to Issaquah, Sammamish and North Bend.

To the south, we have different inefficiencies. Light rail would connect Seattle to Tacoma (already served by faster Sounder Trains) and run along Highway 99 (where last year's King County Metro "Transit Now" tax increase is ramping up bus-rapid-transit service).

Instead, expanded bus service could generate much higher ridership in this corridor while freeing up funds for light rail to Southcenter and Renton. In Pierce County, we can achieve more traffic relief by extending light rail within Tacoma to the University of Puget Sound and Pacific Lutheran University.

Service to Northgate finally delivers on the promise of light rail. But delay to 2018 is inexcusable; this badly needed segment can and should be built sooner.

Further north, we will probably regret the decision to build along I-5, which limits future development. And, ridership would be higher building from Everett to the south.

We can't afford to wait two decades to do so little. We need a solid transportation plan that moves this region forward with immediate congestion relief.

The package before us does not include solutions like congestion pricing or variable tolls. The goal of congestion pricing is to keep our highways moving efficiently, getting people to work or home in the shortest amount of time. With congestion pricing we would see immediate results.

The private sector is already a tremendous partner, with many employers providing subsidized bus passes and van pools. In concert with congestion pricing, we need to consider remote work sites, telecommuting and other alternatives.

But, the most important option to accompany congestion pricing must be better access to transit. Transit is also critical to the environment.

University of Colorado researchers forecast that the Arctic ice cap will have completely melted by the summer of 2030, shortly after this package is completed. By 2050, around the time we finish paying for this package, two-thirds of the world's polar bears are expected to be extinct.

We must not make transportation decisions without considering the impact on global warming.

I have introduced several initiatives as county executive to combat climate change. We operate the state's largest fleet of biodiesel-fueled buses, and we are pursuing a green-fleet initiative to bring more clean and climate-friendly vehicles to King County. We joined the Chicago Climate Exchange and developed a detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We've preserved more than 100,000 acres of carbon-absorbing forests. But all this progress on global warming would be negated by this plan.

Faced with catastrophic climate change, we need to have courage in our convictions, in our leadership and in our transportation solutions. We must question the environmental implications of our actions.

I commend the Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club and Conservation Northwest for showing great courage in asking these important questions.

This plan is inadequate. We need to refocus on bold solutions that offer immediate relief and a better tomorrow — future generations deserve no less.

Until we have real transportation solutions, I'm a "no" vote.

Ron Sims is the King County executive. 
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

==========================================================

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003921121_danny03.html

Danny Westneat

Take a break, Ron, and give us one
By Danny Westneat

Seattle Times staff columnist

I spent an hour talking to Ron Sims yesterday, and now all I feel is sad.

Sad for him. Sad for the dysfunction of our politics. And sad for the future of this region. Sims is the top-ranked politician in Puget Sound. Last week he announced he's against this fall's big highways and light-rail plan.

Yet if any power broker is responsible for what we're about to vote on, it's Sims.

He is Mr. Light Rail. For a decade he has served on the board that is proposing to add 50 miles of light rail. He appointed nine of 18 members, giving him the most influence of anyone over the rail routes and the taxes to pay for them.

It took three years to create that light-rail plan. Somehow politicians across three counties, from Lakewood in the south to Issaquah in the east up to Edmonds in the north, hashed out something they all agreed on. In April it passed the board unanimously. Including the yes vote of King County Executive Ron Sims.

Except he didn't mean it.

It turns out Sims has felt for at least a year that the light-rail plan is fatally flawed. He says it will take too long to build, costs too much and goes to some of the wrong places.

OK. But why in the world didn't he say something before? Back when it might have done some good?

He says he objected privately. His colleagues say that's news to them. The record shows he voted for every aspect he now decries, from the sales-tax boost to the routes.

"Ron was at the table for the whole thing," says Dave Enslow, the Sumner mayor who has served with Sims on the Sound Transit board since 1997. "Who knows what he was thinking? He sure wasn't saying any of it."

"He never once said to me, 'Hey, I think we need to change course,' " says Dow Constantine, King County Council member and transit-board member.

Sims says he went along for one reason: human weakness. After all the fighting about light rail six years back, Sims says, he was tired. He could no longer hack the slings and arrows.

"Face it, this is not a town that tolerates dissent," Sims says. "I voted for it because I didn't want the hassle of getting beat up. I didn't want to take one more punch."

That meant working on other issues that wouldn't flood his office with nasty calls. And it meant sitting silently by as everyone hashed out a plan he knew he couldn't abide.

I said this story makes me sad. It's true Sims gets a lot of personal abuse, often just for putting up the good fight.

But it also makes me angry. Sims is admitting he abdicated his job. Which was to lead, not shrink from the challenge.

How will we ever solve our transportation mess when the top guy seems so worn out?

Leadership is doing tough work in closed rooms to reach compromises — as Sims himself did to save light rail back in 2001. It isn't harboring private qualms, then detonating a last-minute public bomb.

Now, years of political work may be blown apart. Yes, we'll survive. Especially if we have a strong King County executive to help pick up the pieces.

I admire Ron Sims the man as much as anyone I've met in public life. But if his job makes him this unhappy, maybe it's time to move on.

Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or [email protected].

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company


----------



## greg_christine

*A couple of Sound Transit Announcements*

Ride the Lunch Bus 

Take a guided tour of Link light rail construction on Sound Transit's Lunch Bus. Tour the Link light rail initial segment followed by lunch at a local eating establishment. You are responsible for buying your own lunch. Tours depart and return at the southwest corner of 5th Ave S & S King Street in the International District. Tours depart at 11:30 a.m. sharp and return by 3 p.m. 

Next tour: Friday, October 26, 2007 

SODO, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Tukwila and Airport 

To RSVP or for more information please contact Wilbert Santos at 206-398-5300 or via e-mail: [email protected] 

==========================================================

30% design of the Capital Hill Station is complete. The public was invited to see and comment on the design at an open house on September 26, 2007. The slideshow presentation is now available for viewing online. 

See the slideshow and submit your feedback>>> 

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/link/north/Capital Hill/20070926_CHOpenHouse.pdf

Learn more about University Link>>> 

http://www.soundtransit.org/x1698.xml


----------



## citruspastels

^^ nice. lets hope the "tod" materializes quickly and looks good. 

man 9 minutes from the uw.. awesome.


----------



## citruspastels

Also, does anyone know why the bus tunnel is closed on weekends? It's just confusing and doens't really appear to have much purpose, other than saving money I guess. 

And, will the busses run 20 hours/day and on weekends when light rail service starts?


----------



## aznichiro115

citruspastels said:


> Also, does anyone know why the bus tunnel is closed on weekends? It's just confusing and doens't really appear to have much purpose, other than saving money I guess.
> 
> And, will the busses run 20 hours/day and on weekends when light rail service starts?


i believe it is closed because of light rail testing, closing the tunnel was gradual, so opening might be too


----------



## citruspastels

well, im pretty sure it has never been open on weekends or after 7pm for as long as i have been living in seattle, but i only moved here in 2004, so i suppose it could have been different before then. i definitely remember being confused by where i was supposed to catch the 71/2/3 when it was closed though.


----------



## HAWC1506

Hey does anyone know approximately how fast the light rail train will be traveling in the tunnel? If I'm not mistaken, buses in the past were allowed to travel up to 40 miles an hour down those tunnels, but I'm not sure if the train will do the same...


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Hey does anyone know approximately how fast the light rail train will be traveling in the tunnel? If I'm not mistaken, buses in the past were allowed to travel up to 40 miles an hour down those tunnels, but I'm not sure if the train will do the same...


I believe buses were limited to 35mph. Trains will operate at 35mph.


----------



## UrbanBen

citruspastels said:


> well, im pretty sure it has never been open on weekends or after 7pm for as long as i have been living in seattle, but i only moved here in 2004, so i suppose it could have been different before then. i definitely remember being confused by where i was supposed to catch the 71/2/3 when it was closed though.


It is now back on the same hours it used to keep.

It makes sense to close it at night and on Sunday (it is open Saturday) - it costs money to operate, and it's no longer necessary for buses to use it when the bad traffic has died down for the evening.


----------



## HAWC1506

Okay so that means there won't be any difference riding the train or the bus in terms of speed in the bus tunnel right?


----------



## mhays

It would be less confusing to run every route in the same place no matter what the time. I'd like the tunnel to be open 24/7 (do any of these routes go all night?) .


----------



## [email protected]

Why is this thread continued to Part 2?
Is LRT rare?


----------



## citruspastels

from the king county metro website-

Q. What are the operating hours of the tunnel?

A. Starting on Sept 24, 2007 the tunnel will be open Monday through Friday from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. There will be a significant amount of light rail training going on at night and on weekends in the months that follow reopening.

It's actually not open on saturdays, but I guess this partially explains it.

I still wish it was open for all hours the bus lines ran though.


----------



## UrbanBen

citruspastels said:


> from the king county metro website-
> 
> Q. What are the operating hours of the tunnel?
> 
> A. Starting on Sept 24, 2007 the tunnel will be open Monday through Friday from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. There will be a significant amount of light rail training going on at night and on weekends in the months that follow reopening.
> 
> It's actually not open on saturdays, but I guess this partially explains it.
> 
> I still wish it was open for all hours the bus lines ran though.


Thanks for the correction. I saw the gates up at ID station on Saturday and assumed it was open.


----------



## UrbanBen

mhays said:


> It would be less confusing to run every route in the same place no matter what the time. I'd like the tunnel to be open 24/7 (do any of these routes go all night?) .


A few go pretty close, I think - the 71,72,73 run pretty late. I don't know if the 174/194 go in there, but they do too.

It doesn't really make sense to keep it open late until we have mass transit to bring people into downtown. We have a dearth of pedestrians in downtown in the evenings, and sucking some of them down into the tunnel just makes the streets less safe.


----------



## Tcmetro

^^ The 174 goes in the tunnel, and is 24 hr.


----------



## citruspastels

the 71,2,3 have a differently numbered late bus that comes all night long, but it's pretty sparse.


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> Hey does anyone know approximately how fast the light rail train will be traveling in the tunnel? If I'm not mistaken, buses in the past were allowed to travel up to 40 miles an hour down those tunnels, but I'm not sure if the train will do the same...


I wonder if the trains will go to 55 mph between Capitol hill to Montlake. It's a long gap between stations. 35 mph sounds right because the stations are close together so it doesn't make sense to go 55 mph and it only saves several seconds of time.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> I wonder if the trains will go to 55 mph between Capitol hill to Montlake. It's a long gap between stations. 35 mph sounds right because the stations are close together so it doesn't make sense to go 55 mph and it only saves several seconds of time.


I'm almost positive the limit will be 55mph between Capitol Hill and Montlake, yes.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> ^^ The 174 goes in the tunnel, and is 24 hr.


I wouldn't call any Metro service 24 hour. 1am, 2:15, 3:30, and then 5:00am doesn't really count as 24 hour service in my book. I have to catch that 3:30 fairly often for an 8am flight - that hole in service affects me.


----------



## greg_christine

The T-shirts are now available over the Internet:










http://www.donkeyts.com/customize/6/498/


----------



## webeagle12

greg_christine said:


> The T-shirts are now available over the Internet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.donkeyts.com/customize/6/498/


great way to spam a good thread, u go man

especially posting same shit in diff threads :bash:


----------



## greg_christine

webeagle12 said:


> great way to spam a good thread, u go man
> 
> especially posting same shit in diff threads :bash:


You are right. I shouldn't have posted the same thing in two different threads. I should have shown a different color:


----------



## mhays

Retard.


----------



## greg_christine

They come in red too:


----------



## sequoias

funny thing is that the light rail train's maker said that the train can go up to 65 mph. We got a really long gap between S. 154th/international blvd station and the last station on mlk blvd. It would feel like its taking a long time going at 55 mph.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> funny thing is that the light rail train's maker said that the train can go up to 65 mph. We got a really long gap between S. 154th/international blvd station and the last station on mlk blvd. It would feel like its taking a long time going at 55 mph.


Let me preface this by saying that this is getting built by a *sliver*. Why isn't there transit oriented development all over the station property at Tukwila? Because materials costs have SKYROCKETED in the last decade, and Sound Transit can barely afford to build at all.

65mph would have required more expensive engineering and possibly larger curves in places where more property takings would have meant impacting extra businesses and creating bad will - bad will that could shut down future votes. It would have added a lot of cost to the project.

It's not going to feel like anything, though. Seriously - 55mph max instead of 65mph? There's this weird idea people have that the train goes right from 0 to max and stays at max - it doesn't. You'd be talking about saving like 20 seconds, for another 10 million in costs.


----------



## sequoias

Let me preface this by saying that this is getting built by a *sliver*. Why isn't there transit oriented development all over the station property at Tukwila? Because materials costs have SKYROCKETED in the last decade, and Sound Transit can barely afford to build at all. 

*but the materials for transited oriented development is not related to Sound Transit. Rainier Valley is experiencing transit oriented development around the stations, so I don't think cost is the issue. It could be a late bloomer, or just not feasible*

65mph would have required more expensive engineering and possibly larger curves in places where more property takings would have meant impacting extra businesses and creating bad will - bad will that could shut down future votes. It would have added a lot of cost to the project.

*Hmmmm, I didn't think of that.* 

It's not going to feel like anything, though. Seriously - 55mph max instead of 65mph? There's this weird idea people have that the train goes right from 0 to max and stays at max - it doesn't. You'd be talking about saving like 20 seconds, for another 10 million in costs.

*If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, it's going to feel like a "long" trip. Buses can go to 60-70 mph on the freeway on the HOV lanes, unless you can get stuck in traffic, though.*


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> Let me preface this by saying that this is getting built by a *sliver*. Why isn't there transit oriented development all over the station property at Tukwila? Because materials costs have SKYROCKETED in the last decade, and Sound Transit can barely afford to build at all.
> 
> *but the materials for transited oriented development is not related to Sound Transit. Rainier Valley is experiencing transit oriented development around the stations, so I don't think cost is the issue. It could be a late bloomer, or just not feasible*
> 
> 65mph would have required more expensive engineering and possibly larger curves in places where more property takings would have meant impacting extra businesses and creating bad will - bad will that could shut down future votes. It would have added a lot of cost to the project.
> 
> *Hmmmm, I didn't think of that.*
> 
> It's not going to feel like anything, though. Seriously - 55mph max instead of 65mph? There's this weird idea people have that the train goes right from 0 to max and stays at max - it doesn't. You'd be talking about saving like 20 seconds, for another 10 million in costs.
> 
> *If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, it's going to feel like a "long" trip. Buses can go to 60-70 mph on the freeway on the HOV lanes, unless you can get stuck in traffic, though.*


On TOD in Tukwila - I'm just saying that Sound Transit could have done some of that work themselves, but they didn't have the money. Personally, I think there's some merit to having Sound Transit build mixed-use buildings around their stations and use the rents to pay for later operating costs. I believe Japan Rail uses this method.

If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, you're getting a one seat ride instead of going *north* to downtown and transferring to buses that don't use I-5. The 174 uses surface streets near Boeing Field, not I-5. And there's no HOV lane on I-5 immediately south of downtown.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> On TOD in Tukwila - I'm just saying that Sound Transit could have done some of that work themselves, but they didn't have the money. Personally, I think there's some merit to having Sound Transit build mixed-use buildings around their stations and use the rents to pay for later operating costs. I believe Japan Rail uses this method.
> 
> If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, you're getting a one seat ride instead of going *north* to downtown and transferring to buses that don't use I-5. The 174 uses surface streets near Boeing Field, not I-5. And there's no HOV lane on I-5 immediately south of downtown.


Japan Rail stations ARE mixed use buildings.


----------



## sequoias

If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, you're getting a one seat ride instead of going *north* to downtown and transferring to buses that don't use I-5. The 174 uses surface streets near Boeing Field, not I-5. And there's no HOV lane on I-5 immediately south of downtown.

yes there is hov lanes all the way to around king/pierce county line on I 5 corridor. The hov lanes stretches from just north of fife all the way to south everett on I 5 and the whole 1 405 corridor and also all the way to near issaquah on 1 90.


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> If you're traveling from Rainier Valley to Tukwila, you're getting a one seat ride instead of going *north* to downtown and transferring to buses that don't use I-5. The 174 uses surface streets near Boeing Field, not I-5. And there's no HOV lane on I-5 immediately south of downtown.
> 
> yes there is hov lanes all the way to around king/pierce county line on I 5 corridor. The hov lanes stretches from just north of fife all the way to south everett on I 5 and the whole 1 405 corridor and also all the way to near issaquah on 1 90.


Along with construction of outer HOV lanes on I-90 on Mercer Island, not just the reversible. That will most likely help the buses quite a bit I'm assuming.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> yes there is hov lanes all the way to around king/pierce county line on I 5 corridor. The hov lanes stretches from just north of fife all the way to south everett on I 5 and the whole 1 405 corridor and also all the way to near issaquah on 1 90.


I think that there's a good section of Seattle without HOV lanes:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/HOV/Projects.htm#


----------



## mhays

Keep in mind those are just the freeway HOVs. 

I don't know how many non-freeway HOVs we're getting, but that is a big aspect of the recent bus expansion measure, so we're getting more.


----------



## Jaxom92

In regards to the heavy-rail vs. light-rail debate, I think that a valid definition of either ought to be put in terms of level of service/efficiency. That is, what is the time saved and convenience gained over the cost incurred. Unfortunately, some of these measures are fuzzy - subjective.

So, if my headways, speed of travel, and money spent (tax and fare) is comparably equal to that of heavy-rail, what does it matter? From what I see being built in Seattle, there's enough grade-separation and "high-speed" (relative term there) corridors to make the cost justifiable in comparison to heavy-rail. Also, if there is another line that needs to be put into an environment that utilizes light-rail's more flexible (but slower) at grade abilities, there's no need to switch trains from line to line. While the line that's at grade is less efficient, the over all system is more efficient because of the existing grade separation, convenience for riders, as well as ease of construction and other technical details.

My thoughts are NOT based on hard numbers but on what makes sense from my limited observations.


----------



## UrbanBen

mhays said:


> Keep in mind those are just the freeway HOVs.
> 
> I don't know how many non-freeway HOVs we're getting, but that is a big aspect of the recent bus expansion measure, so we're getting more.


Where? There's not any place to put them in the most heavily congested corridors.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> I think that there's a good section of Seattle without HOV lanes:
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/HOV/Projects.htm#


That's the reversible HOV lanes north of downtown to Northgate. That's the only area in Seattle's city limits with no seperate HOV, common elsewhere in the metro area.


----------



## HAWC1506

mhays said:


> Keep in mind those are just the freeway HOVs.
> 
> I don't know how many non-freeway HOVs we're getting, but that is a big aspect of the recent bus expansion measure, so we're getting more.


Just out of curiosity, are there any bus-only lanes in Downtown Seattle?


----------



## citruspastels

HAWC1506 said:


> Just out of curiosity, are there any bus-only lanes in Downtown Seattle?


you mean besides 3rd ave? (all busses)


----------



## HAWC1506

citruspastels said:


> you mean besides 3rd ave? (all busses)


Other than that. I don't remember hearing of any new ones planned. Do you guys think it will be a nice addition to put into Bellevue? There's certainly room in some undeveloped areas.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Other than that. I don't remember hearing of any new ones planned. Do you guys think it will be a nice addition to put into Bellevue? There's certainly room in some undeveloped areas.


And there's no demand in those undeveloped areas. This is the fundamental problem with the "BRT" argument. In the only places where you want separation for transit, you have to build entirely new right of way anyway - making BRT just as expensive as rail. The thing is, in the long-term, the maintenance and operations for rail cost much less - trains last longer, rails last longer, electricity is less expensive than maintaining diesel motors - so it *never* makes sense to build bus transit.

There's always this fringe argument that buses would be cheaper, and then the people making the argument ignore the fact that there isn't any place to put bus lanes in the places where people need to *go* - the urban cores. And I'm sorry, but the service levels on a bus system with traffic lights right through the major destinations do not compare to rail, and will never garner good ridership in and be a real alternative to driving in a place where we build so many highways.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> And there's no demand in those undeveloped areas. This is the fundamental problem with the "BRT" argument. In the only places where you want separation for transit, you have to build entirely new right of way anyway - making BRT just as expensive as rail. The thing is, in the long-term, the maintenance and operations for rail cost much less - trains last longer, rails last longer, electricity is less expensive than maintaining diesel motors - so it *never* makes sense to build bus transit.
> 
> There's always this fringe argument that buses would be cheaper, and then the people making the argument ignore the fact that there isn't any place to put bus lanes in the places where people need to *go* - the urban cores. And I'm sorry, but the service levels on a bus system with traffic lights right through the major destinations do not compare to rail, and will never garner good ridership in and be a real alternative to driving in a place where we build so many highways.


That brings up another question, what's the difference between a streetcar and a bus and a train?


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> That brings up another question, what's the difference between a streetcar and a bus and a train?


I'll give that my best shot:

A streetcar is a train, but it's the lowest form of train. Usually, when one refers to a streetcar, they're also indicating that you can't link a bunch of them together (or that the platforms aren't intended for it). They're also generally at-grade in town, although often separate from traffic in their own lane. Portland has a streetcar that's largely in traffic. Strasbourg has streetcars that are marginally in traffic, but usually in their own right-of-way outside of the city center. You'll also hear "tramway" used to refer to streetcars and light rail. They blend a little with light rail at the high end - Strasbourg's has its own tunnel on one line, it's almost light rail.

Light rail is the next step - you can link the cars, it might be at-grade in places, but it's got some grade separation and higher maximum speeds. Like a streetcar, it tends to be powered by an overhead wire so it has the option of crossing streets. It's almost always in its own lanes.

Heavy rail includes subways and commuter rail, as well as above-ground rail. Japan Rail's lines in Tokyo are heavy rail. Sounder is commuter rail, but has very high capacity (there are over a thousand riders on some individual trips). Subways we all know. People will tell you that this stuff is usually third rail, not overhead wire, but that's generally only true of older systems and true subways - lots and lots of heavy rail, and all real bullet trains (Eurostar doesn't count for another month) are overhead wire.

All of these are really arbitrary distinctions, though, made by focusing on one aspect or another - the terms are almost universally thrown around to detract from mass transit systems, there's no argument among supporters because they understand that it doesn't matter what you call it - what matters is how many it can move, at what average speed, with what headways. In all of those measurements, Central Link is between a typical light rail and a typical heavy rail system, and the Sound Transit 2 expansion is slightly closer to looking like heavy rail. The limiter on calling it heavy rail, in my opinion, is that we're limited at the moment to four car trains. Frankly, that doesn't matter, we're building in a lot more capacity than Portland's got.

Just a little on buses versus streetcars:
Buses are kind of bad news, in the long term. They're unreliably slow, and subject to weather issues. Streetcars have a lot fewer variables during operation - electric motors with standard overhead wire systems are very robust, rails prevent most accidents, schedules are easier to keep. Developers are afraid to rely on buses for transit because they're so "flexible" - they could go away with the political winds. It's pretty hard to get rid of a train, so it's reasonable to do your couple of years of planning work for a site relying on its existence. This applies to your government as well - transit isn't typically run by the same part of the government that controls land use (although I think it should be). They're just as worried about buses as your developers are - but a train convinces them to raise building heights and allow mixed use.


----------



## greg_christine

^^The assumption of the permanence of streetcar lines is not supported by history. Seattle once had an extensive streetcar network. It was torn out after WWII and replace with buses. More recently, Seattle had the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar. Service on that line ended so that the maintenance shed could be torn down to make way for a sculpture garden. A deal has been in the works for sometime now to build a new maintenance shed as part of a development in Pioneer Square; however, it is not clear whether streetcar service will resume prior to the line having to be shutdown to make way for demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In the meantime, the route is being served by a bus:










I also am perplexed by the statement that streetcars are more reliable than buses. Something as simple as an illegally parked car can bring a streetcar line to a halt. Buses have the flexibility of going around such obstructions.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Let me preface this by saying that this is getting built by a *sliver*. Why isn't there transit oriented development all over the station property at Tukwila? Because materials costs have SKYROCKETED in the last decade, and Sound Transit can barely afford to build at all.
> 
> 65mph would have required more expensive engineering and possibly larger curves in places where more property takings would have meant impacting extra businesses and creating bad will - bad will that could shut down future votes. It would have added a lot of cost to the project.
> 
> It's not going to feel like anything, though. Seriously - 55mph max instead of 65mph? There's this weird idea people have that the train goes right from 0 to max and stays at max - it doesn't. You'd be talking about saving like 20 seconds, for another 10 million in costs.


Regarding the 55 mph maximum speed of Central Link, this is probably governed by the design of the signaling system. This is a reasonable design decision for a light rail project given that most light rail vehicle manufacturers claim a top speed no higher than 55 mph.

The 70% low-floor light rail vehicles typically use odd axle arrangements in way of the low-floor segment in order to avoid encroaching on the seating and floor space. The result is that the axles in way of the low-floor segment are never powered and often the ride quality is somewhat compromised. The 70% low-floor vehicles from some manufacturers have a reputation for “hunting”, which is an oscillation that occurs at higher speeds. The Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles that I rode in San Jose seemed very steady at speed. The floor area in way of the low-floor segment was narrower than the floor area in the rest of the vehicle, which leads me to believe that perhaps Kinkisharyo found a good compromise between encroaching on the floor area and providing good ride quality:


----------



## greg_christine

Jaxom92 said:


> In regards to the heavy-rail vs. light-rail debate, I think that a valid definition of either ought to be put in terms of level of service/efficiency. That is, what is the time saved and convenience gained over the cost incurred. Unfortunately, some of these measures are fuzzy - subjective.
> 
> So, if my headways, speed of travel, and money spent (tax and fare) is comparably equal to that of heavy-rail, what does it matter? From what I see being built in Seattle, there's enough grade-separation and "high-speed" (relative term there) corridors to make the cost justifiable in comparison to heavy-rail. Also, if there is another line that needs to be put into an environment that utilizes light-rail's more flexible (but slower) at grade abilities, there's no need to switch trains from line to line. While the line that's at grade is less efficient, the over all system is more efficient because of the existing grade separation, convenience for riders, as well as ease of construction and other technical details.
> 
> My thoughts are NOT based on hard numbers but on what makes sense from my limited observations.


I can understand the “It’s good enough!” attitude of Seattle residents who have been waiting decades for a rail transit line. Still, I can’t imagine systems like BART or the Washington Metro being built as light rail.

I used to live in Boston and had a daily commute that involved the Green Line (light rail) and Red Line (heavy rail). For my commute, the contrast between the two lines did not involve differences in grade separation as I boarded the Green Line at either Prudential or Copley, both of which are on the downtown subway segment. Prudential was a shorter walk but Copley was a shorter wait as it was served by trains from all branches. The Green Line was always slower, noisier, and felt more crowded due to there being less space inside the vehicles.



















I would highly recommend taking the “Pepsi Challenge” by visiting a city that has both light rail and heavy rail. Cities that have both include Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Baltimore and Los Angeles probably give the fairest comparison as their light rail and heavy rail systems are fairly new; however, the light rail systems of both use high-floor light rail vehicles rather than the 70% low-floor vehicles that will be used in Seattle. Los Angeles has high-floor platforms to provide level-floor boarding for the high-floor light rail vehicles.


----------



## citruspastels

^^

heavy rail is faster in a lot of cases, but this is what we have. plus, it will be one of the fastest light rail systems in the world, which is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> ^^The assumption of the permanence of streetcar lines is not supported by history. Seattle once had an extensive streetcar network. It was torn out after WWII and replace with buses. More recently, Seattle had the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar. Service on that line ended so that the maintenance shed could be torn down to make way for a sculpture garden. A deal has been in the works for sometime now to build a new maintenance shed as part of a development in Pioneer Square; however, it is not clear whether streetcar service will resume prior to the line having to be shutdown to make way for demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In the meantime, the route is being served by a bus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also am perplexed by the statement that streetcars are more reliable than buses. Something as simple as an illegally parked car can bring a streetcar line to a halt. Buses have the flexibility of going around such obstructions.


Dude, we started collecting the federal gas tax and using the FHWA (well, its predecessor) to build roads back in 1932. Of course the streetcars died, they were private and started competing with public funds. Where, exactly, have you seen a public system (and two ancient trolleys is not a system) dismantled? You haven't.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Regarding the 55 mph maximum speed of Central Link, this is probably governed by the design of the signaling system. This is a reasonable design decision for a light rail project given that most light rail vehicle manufacturers claim a top speed no higher than 55 mph.
> 
> The 70% low-floor light rail vehicles typically use odd axle arrangements in way of the low-floor segment in order to avoid encroaching on the seating and floor space. The result is that the axles in way of the low-floor segment are never powered and often the ride quality is somewhat compromised. The 70% low-floor vehicles from some manufacturers have a reputation for “hunting”, which is an oscillation that occurs at higher speeds. The Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles that I rode in San Jose seemed very steady at speed. The floor area in way of the low-floor segment was narrower than the floor area in the rest of the vehicle, which leads me to believe that perhaps Kinkisharyo found a good compromise between encroaching on the floor area and providing good ride quality:


I've also ridden the Kinkisharyo cars in Hiroshima - those are almost never grade-separated, but they rarely hunt.

Hunting is mostly a function of the tolerances in the rail laid - trucks are trucks for the most part, there's nothing inherent in the design of the axles that makes them move differently relative to each other (I really don't know where you're coming up with that, all systems have lots of non-powered axles). Look at the date the rail you're riding was most recently relaid, and whether they used concrete ties. Also look at the rail classification.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> I can understand the “It’s good enough!” attitude of Seattle residents who have been waiting decades for a rail transit line. Still, I can’t imagine systems like BART or the Washington Metro being built as light rail.
> 
> I used to live in Boston and had a daily commute that involved the Green Line (light rail) and Red Line (heavy rail). For my commute, the contrast between the two lines did not involve differences in grade separation as I boarded the Green Line at either Prudential or Copley, both of which are on the downtown subway segment. Prudential was a shorter walk but Copley was a shorter wait as it was served by trains from all branches. The Green Line was always slower, noisier, and felt more crowded due to there being less space inside the vehicles.
> 
> I would highly recommend taking the “Pepsi Challenge” by visiting a city that has both light rail and heavy rail. Cities that have both include Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Baltimore and Los Angeles probably give the fairest comparison as their light rail and heavy rail systems are fairly new; however, the light rail systems of both use high-floor light rail vehicles rather than the 70% low-floor vehicles that will be used in Seattle. Los Angeles has high-floor platforms to provide level-floor boarding for the high-floor light rail vehicles.


You're pointing out low floor versus high floor as your primary difference between light and heavy rail, but there are a lot of differences between the light rail systems you're talking about and Link. Remember, unlike most light rail, we're more grade separated. Unlike most light rail, we have a 55mph top speed. Unlike most light rail, we have four car platforms (and we'll use them). We're also *nowhere* near the size of those cities, and we'll build more before we are.


----------



## Jaxom92

An article in the Times this morning about the eastside portion of Proposition 1.

Transit Package's Eastside Benefits Debated

I would challenge any skeptic of rail transit in Seattle to go to Portland and ride their system for a day. One of the columnists for the times did this and he changed his tune.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> An article in the Times this morning about the eastside portion of Proposition 1.
> 
> Transit Package's Eastside Benefits Debated
> 
> I would challenge any skeptic of rail transit in Seattle to go to Portland and ride their system for a day. One of the columnists for the times did this and he changed his tune.


I sent a response last night to the author:

You mention Freeman contributing to the no campaign... but not Microsoft contributing a lot more to the yes campaign.

There is basically no such thing as "bus rapid transit". In very limited situations, buses can be made faster, but there's basically no political will to do so. In the long term, every time it's studied, rail comes out cheaper because the real costs are the right of way itself - which is the same for buses and rail when you're building the same service. Sticking HOV lanes on a freeway isn't that hard - it's getting people into the cores that costs money. Seriously - BRT is just a stalking horse for the anti-transit. If it worked, we'd have built it after Forward Thrust failed in 1970. Isn't it telling that it's been nearly 40 years since then, and no fast buses have *ever* been proposed past the vague suggestions in Transit Now?

ST2 only plans for $1B in federal dollars. ST1 got $1.5 billion (including the basically guaranteed FTA grant next year for University Link) on less than half the capital costs of ST2. "Finding more money" to go to Redmond is likely to happen - also because Sound Transit is basically counting every single thing that's cost them extra money on Sound Move, just to cover all the bases. ST2 is not lowballed - since 2001, the agency's been on track and meeting goals on time, and it's the same people who've made this plan. They listen to criticism and learn from mistakes - they took a nearly dead agency and now have 80% completion on light rail to the airport.

Really, what I don't understand is how the "congestion" framing has been taken hook, line and sinker. There is no way to "fix" or even reduce congestion for more than a couple of years at a time (right after a project is done). Induced traffic from the new capacity immediately negates any new investments. There are no examples of reduced congestion (except for cherry-picked cases from the year after construction completes) - overall, you can pour tens of billions into a highway and get nowhere. But if you build highways *and* rail, you prevent a lot of the trips that cause congestion from happening, and you keep congestion from getting worse. An Oregon blogger took apart the Times' ridiculous claims about Portland: http://loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=412

I do appreciate that your piece didn't really attack the 2027 date for reaching Overlake. Do note that in Dallas and Salt Lake City, voters were presented with acceleration packages after a few years to knock a decade (each) off construction. They worked. We just can't ask voters for that much money all at once - would a 1% addition to the sales tax fly today? No, even though it would get us all these projects by 2015.

Anyway, I hope the Blethens realize they'll sink their own paper if population growth stalls due to gridlock! Sorry you have to be in the middle of all this. I do hope this helps.


----------



## HAWC1506

Why is Freeman opposing the package? Maybe I'm reading it wrong? I can't see that guy opposing this somehow...


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

HAWC1506 said:


> Why is Freeman opposing the package? Maybe I'm reading it wrong? I can't see that guy opposing this somehow...


Probably because he's kinda like me; we both love cars and automobile-related accessories (i.e. roads, highways, lanes, etc.)


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Why is Freeman opposing the package? Maybe I'm reading it wrong? I can't see that guy opposing this somehow...


Kemper Freeman is ideologically opposed to transit. He talks about buses because buses aren't on the ballot, but what he *believes* (and he has talked about this on video) is that cars are necessary and good and a fundamental part of an inalienable American lifestyle.

Until recently, there was a site called http://truthabouttraffic.org (you can see some of the nonsense and made-up numbers on the Wayback Machine at archive.org) with one of his videos and a lot of misinformation.

He just *believes* that people who ride transit won't buy things at Bellevue Square. He wants only the elite living and working in downtown Bellevue, and for us plebes to live in Seattle where we can't decrease his property values.

In short... he's nuts. Everything I've said here is paraphrase of things I've heard him say (in person and on video).


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Probably because he's kinda like me; we both love cars and automobile-related accessories (i.e. roads, highways, lanes, etc.)


No wonder you're opposed to Prop 1. It's not rational at all, is it?


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Dude, we started collecting the federal gas tax and using the FHWA (well, its predecessor) to build roads back in 1932. Of course the streetcars died, they were private and started competing with public funds. Where, exactly, have you seen a public system (and two ancient trolleys is not a system) dismantled? You haven't.


Many of the streetcar lines that were lost during the “Trolley Holocaust” following WWII were publicly owned. A notable case is in Los Angeles. The conversion of the Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway streetcar systems to bus service began while those lines were under the control of private companies; however, many of the streetcar lines survived the era of private ownership. Both systems were taken over by a government run transit agency in 1958. The last rail passenger service on the former Pacific Electric was in 1961. The last rail passenger service on the former Los Angeles Railway was in 1963. Public ownership did little to ensure the survival of the old streetcar systems. The main thing that the rail transit lines that survived had in common was a high degree of grade separation. 

In Boston, a major segment of a light rail line was abandoned in 1985 when the Arborway segment of the E-Branch was “temporarily” suspended. This was the last significant length of streetcar operation in mixed traffic lanes on the Boston light rail system though short segments with shared traffic lane operation still exist at the turn back points of some of the lines. The MBTA agreed to restore service on the Arborway segment as part of the remediation effort for the “Big Dig” highway project. The MBTA subsequently reneged on this promise. A citizens group took the MBTA to court over this but the outcome was that the MBTA only needs to do a study of transit options for the corridor.

In Philadelphia, streetcar service was eliminated on three lines in 1992. Service was subsequently restored on one of the lines (Girard Avenue) but the suspension of service on the other two lines now appears to be permanent as segments of the tracks have been removed. The resumption of service on the Girard Avenue line was delayed for sometime by local residents who resented the loss of on-street parking.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> I've also ridden the Kinkisharyo cars in Hiroshima - those are almost never grade-separated, but they rarely hunt.
> 
> Hunting is mostly a function of the tolerances in the rail laid - trucks are trucks for the most part, there's nothing inherent in the design of the axles that makes them move differently relative to each other (I really don't know where you're coming up with that, all systems have lots of non-powered axles). Look at the date the rail you're riding was most recently relaid, and whether they used concrete ties. Also look at the rail classification.


Track quality definitely plays a role in ride quality; however, hunting can be a problem even on relatively new track. I have heard anecdotes of hunting problems on the central segment of 70% low-floor light rail vehicles in Portland. I believe those light rail vehicles were produced by Siemens.

The report at the following link describes some of the issues with the center trucks on 70% low-floor light rail vehicles:

http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_114.pdf

The following is a short excerpt:

“… The low-floor hieght precludes the sue of conventional wheel sets with solid axle connections between right and left wheels of the center truck.
… 
Unlike a conventional wheelset, the independently rotating wheels (IRWs) of such a center truck cannot steer the wheelset through the curve. This inability leads to increased flange wear, gauge face wear, stick slip noise, and the potential for derailment at curves and on lateral discontinuities in alignment. …”


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> You're pointing out low floor versus high floor as your primary difference between light and heavy rail, but there are a lot of differences between the light rail systems you're talking about and Link. Remember, unlike most light rail, we're more grade separated. Unlike most light rail, we have a 55mph top speed. Unlike most light rail, we have four car platforms (and we'll use them). We're also *nowhere* near the size of those cities, and we'll build more before we are.


Excluding streetcars, most light rail lines built during the last few decades do have segments that exploit the 55 mph maximum operating speed of the typical new light rail vehicle.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> I sent a response last night to the author:
> ...
> 
> There is basically no such thing as "bus rapid transit". In very limited situations, buses can be made faster, but there's basically no political will to do so. In the long term, every time it's studied, rail comes out cheaper because the real costs are the right of way itself - which is the same for buses and rail when you're building the same service. Sticking HOV lanes on a freeway isn't that hard - it's getting people into the cores that costs money. Seriously - BRT is just a stalking horse for the anti-transit. If it worked, we'd have built it after Forward Thrust failed in 1970. Isn't it telling that it's been nearly 40 years since then, and no fast buses have *ever* been proposed past the vague suggestions in Transit Now?
> 
> ...


Sound Transit actually evaluated bus rapid transit alternatives to light rail for the line that will run east across Lake Washington:

- Capital Cost
Busway BRT: $3.1 - $4.2 Billion 
Rail Convertible BRT: $3.7 - $5.0 Billion
Light Rail: $4.6 - $6.2 Billion

- Operations & Maintenance Cost (Net change relative to common baseline)
Busway BRT: -$5.5 million/year
Rail Convertible BRT: -$17.2 Million/Year
Light Rail: +$29.0 Million/Year

The cost numbers are from the following document, which might still be available on the Sound Transit website:

“Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update, Issue Paper E.1: I-90/East King County High Capacity Transit Analysis”, Sound Transit, March 2005.

Sound Transit also did a study of streetcar and electric trolley bus alternatives to serve the First Hill area:

- Capital Cost 
Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2 in Millions of 2006$ (Bus in 2005$)
Electric Trolley Bus: $13.4 - $15.4 

- Annual Operating Cost in Millions of 2006$ (Bus in 2005$)
Streetcar: $5.2 
Electric Trolley Bus: $3.5

The above numbers were part of a document that used to reside on Sound Transit’s website for Sound Transit 2; however, the document has now disappeared.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Sound Transit actually evaluated bus rapid transit alternatives to light rail for the line that will run east across Lake Washington:
> 
> - Capital Cost
> Busway BRT: $3.1 - $4.2 Billion
> Rail Convertible BRT: $3.7 - $5.0 Billion
> Light Rail: $4.6 - $6.2 Billion
> 
> - Operations & Maintenance Cost (Net change relative to common baseline)
> Busway BRT: -$5.5 million/year
> Rail Convertible BRT: -$17.2 Million/Year
> Light Rail: +$29.0 Million/Year
> 
> The cost numbers are from the following document, which might still be available on the Sound Transit website:
> 
> “Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update, Issue Paper E.1: I-90/East King County High Capacity Transit Analysis”, Sound Transit, March 2005.
> 
> Sound Transit also did a study of streetcar and electric trolley bus alternatives to serve the First Hill area:
> 
> - Capital Cost
> Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2 in Millions of 2006$ (Bus in 2005$)
> Electric Trolley Bus: $13.4 - $15.4
> 
> - Annual Operating Cost in Millions of 2006$ (Bus in 2005$)
> Streetcar: $5.2
> Electric Trolley Bus: $3.5
> 
> The above numbers were part of a document that used to reside on Sound Transit’s website for Sound Transit 2; however, the document has now disappeared.


The only reason those maintenance costs are lower is because they're piggybacking off of Metro maintenance facilities. What those numbers hide is that new facilities would later be needed - Metro is already charging more every year for maintenance (look at the recent ST financial report - running a bus cost 114/hr in 2006, up from the mid-90s/hr in 2005). And if you take into account the cost of replacing your fleet, and the cost of replacing your driving surface (which are capital costs by those numbers), LRT is much cheaper.

Since when did this become an argument? Light rail trains stay in service for 30 years without major overhaul. Buses stay in service for 12 (generally) without major overhaul. Tracks last two to four times as long as asphalt under equivalent use, and are cheaper and faster to replace. Start thinking 100 years ahead, not 20 years ahead.

By the way, another comment about your earlier "streetcars were removed" snark - grade separated transit is *never* removed.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Excluding streetcars, most light rail lines built during the last few decades do have segments that exploit the 55 mph maximum operating speed of the typical new light rail vehicle.


And go 20mph downtown. Did you miss that bit where Link will have the fastest average speed in the US?


----------



## SteveM

greg_christine said:


> I also am perplexed by the statement that streetcars are more reliable than buses. Something as simple as an illegally parked car can bring a streetcar line to a halt. Buses have the flexibility of going around such obstructions.


Yeah, but have you asked Portland how many people actually park illegally on a streetcar track? Any idiot can see the streetcar can't get around their parked car, so they pick somewhere else to park illegally.

What really makes buses unreliable in urban settings is:

1) The randomness of boarding times once the bus fills up -- loading everyone through one door, trying to squeeze standing room passengers through a narrow corridor, etc. Modern streetcars (like Portland's) are much, much better than buses at loading and unloading people quickly. (That's not to say someone couldn't design a multi-door, wide-aisle, low-floor bus and use it in a proof-of-payment system where everyone could unload and load at the same time. But it's not the reality of buses in use today.)

2) Pulling in and out of traffic at each stop. Streetcars don't need to do this. (Again, buses can do this, and there's some of it around Seattle, but it's not the typical reality of buses.)


----------



## Tcmetro

UrbanBen said:


> By the way, another comment about your earlier "streetcars were removed" snark - grade separated transit is *never* removed.


Not necessarily. In Rochester, NY they had a subway, but it was abandon in 1956. The subway tunnels still have tracks, but there has been a debate between people who want subway service restored, those who want the tunnels filled in, and those who don't want to bring them back, because they would have to do something with all the homeless living in the tunnels. In Chicago, branches of the "L" have been torn down, and in Manhattan, El's were torn down, subways were planned for replacement, but were never built. In Sioux City, there was an El, from 1891, to 1899. And in Seattle the Interurban line was torn out, now causing the need for Link LRT, and interurbans were torn out all across the country.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> Not necessarily. In Rochester, NY they had a subway, but it was abandon in 1956. The subway tunnels still have tracks, but there has been a debate between people who want subway service restored, those who want the tunnels filled in, and those who don't want to bring them back, because they would have to do something with all the homeless living in the tunnels. In Chicago, branches of the "L" have been torn down, and in Manhattan, El's were torn down, subways were planned for replacement, but were never built. In Sioux City, there was an El, from 1891, to 1899. And in Seattle the Interurban line was torn out, now causing the need for Link LRT, and interurbans were torn out all across the country.


I knew I should have said "grade separated in their own right of way".

The interurbans were not grade separated - they were on streets in the core. That's why I said grade separated. Rochester was *barely* grade separated - it operated freight, long-distance and single-car trolleys, not its own right of way. It needed the local interurban in order to justify maintenance costs - when the interurbans died, it did too. Like the streetcars, the reasons for its abandonment are understood and basically impossible to repeat without having twenty cent per gallon gas. I believe Rochester was also the smallest city in the world to build a "subway" (which was really just retained cut).

I really can't believe that we're so pedantic that the point is being nitpicked to death. Link will be around for far longer than any of us will be alive. It's being built in areas that are already built-up, and unlike Rochester, it will only operate its own service - it won't be dependent upon other services.

There is no rational argument against the reality here - because new rail drives development in places that are unnaturally low density (forced to stay low due to the effects of highway investment), ridership will be strong and sustained as station areas are built out, and we will probably have service for a hundred years or more.


----------



## Tcmetro

^^ The only problem is getting the voters to pass the RTID. I doubt this will happen though. Sound Transit should have the vote in 2010, after the first stage of Link opens, it would have a much better chance of passing.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> ^^ The only problem is getting the voters to pass the RTID. I doubt this will happen though. Sound Transit should have the vote in 2010, after the first stage of Link opens, it would have a much better chance of passing.


Sound Transit doesn't have that luxury. They would have had the vote last year, but the state legislature delayed them because even-numbered years coincide with legislative elections.


----------



## deasine

SteveM said:


> Yeah, but have you asked Portland how many people actually park illegally on a streetcar track? Any idiot can see the streetcar can't get around their parked car, so they pick somewhere else to park illegally.
> 
> What really makes buses unreliable in urban settings is:
> 
> 1) The randomness of boarding times once the bus fills up -- loading everyone through one door, trying to squeeze standing room passengers through a narrow corridor, etc. Modern streetcars (like Portland's) are much, much better than buses at loading and unloading people quickly. (That's not to say someone couldn't design a multi-door, wide-aisle, low-floor bus and use it in a proof-of-payment system where everyone could unload and load at the same time. But it's not the reality of buses in use today.)
> 
> 2) Pulling in and out of traffic at each stop. Streetcars don't need to do this. (Again, buses can do this, and there's some of it around Seattle, but it's not the typical reality of buses.)


Well King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit can allow all door boarding for some major stops, with only paid fare users boarding in the back of the bus. Currently, Vancouver uses this for the 99 B-Line, articulated bus with all door boarding for all stops (since it is an express bus). But then, you must implement the proof-of-payment system: in which then there is the problem of fare envasion, a problem that hasn't been tackled by Vancouver. Doing this can also speed up busses, travelling from destinations at a shorter time.

For #2, the city can build a "bus buldges," which is an extension of the sidewalk curb, which allows buses to stay in their lanes when stopping. Buses can also pull away from their stop without having to re-enter moving traffic. Vancouver is also trying to implement this on their #3 Bus. 

But of course, anything on rail is much more attractive no matter what. People have a false (but good) feeling that cars on rail travel much faster. And of course LRT is much more smooth than buses. Quiet, electric vehicles also make a route much more attractive.


----------



## greg_christine

Tcmetro said:


> Not necessarily. In Rochester, NY they had a subway, but it was abandon in 1956. The subway tunnels still have tracks, but there has been a debate between people who want subway service restored, those who want the tunnels filled in, and those who don't want to bring them back, because they would have to do something with all the homeless living in the tunnels. In Chicago, branches of the "L" have been torn down, and in Manhattan, El's were torn down, subways were planned for replacement, but were never built. In Sioux City, there was an El, from 1891, to 1899. And in Seattle the Interurban line was torn out, now causing the need for Link LRT, and interurbans were torn out all across the country.


Yes, the demolition of the Third Avenue Elevated in the 1950s left much of the eastern edge of Manhattan without convenient access to rail transit. Part of the rationale for the demolition of the Third Avenue Elevated was that it would be replaced by the Second Avenue Subway. After several false starts, it looks as though the Second Avenue Subway is finally under construction about fifty years behind schedule.

A similar situation exists in Boston where the elevated section of the Orange Line along Washington Street was torn down and replaced by a subway section several blocks to the north. The MBTA's transit solution for Washington Street is the bus rapid transit Silver Line.


----------



## mhays

deasine said:


> Well King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit can allow all door boarding for some major stops, with only paid fare users boarding in the back of the bus. Currently, Vancouver uses this for the 99 B-Line, articulated bus with all door boarding for all stops (since it is an express bus). But then, you must implement the proof-of-payment system: in which then there is the problem of fare envasion, a problem that hasn't been tackled by Vancouver. Doing this can also speed up busses, travelling from destinations at a shorter time.
> 
> For #2, the city can build a "bus buldges," which is an extension of the sidewalk curb, which allows buses to stay in their lanes when stopping. Buses can also pull away from their stop without having to re-enter moving traffic. Vancouver is also trying to implement this on their #3 Bus.
> 
> But of course, anything on rail is much more attractive no matter what. People have a false (but good) feeling that cars on rail travel much faster. And of course LRT is much more smooth than buses. Quiet, electric vehicles also make a route much more attractive.


We have all-door boarding Downtown, which is also a free-ride area. This is possible because you pay getting on if you're going toward Downtown, and when you get off if you're going away from it. 

We're getting more and more bus bulbs. University Way NE is among the first, with its recent reconfiguration.

Another positive is that many of the bus routes through Downtown use bus-only routes, whether in the Bus Tunnel or along Third Avenue. 

Add our HOV system and it's a reasonably quick system as bus systems go. We're also adding a lot more HOVs and some BRT in the next couple years.


----------



## spongeg

i always wondered how the free bus zone works - you get on downtown for free and than you go outside of the free zone - does the driver stop and collect everyones fare? or do the free zone busses not go out of the free zone?


----------



## mhays

There are no routes that simply circulate within Downtown. All Downtown routes go to/from other neighborhoods. 

For any bus outbound from Downtown, you simply pay when you get off. 

For any bus inbound toward Downtown, you pay when you get on. 

If you get on and get off without leaving Downtown, you don't pay. 

The free zone includes the Bus Tunnel, which is basically five subway stations. You can go the length of the tunnel without paying.


----------



## spongeg

ah ic

thanks for the info


----------



## Tcmetro

There used to be some DT circulators, like the 98, and 944. They were cut because of I-695.


----------



## UrbanBen

It's honestly less the all-door boarding and more the separation of driver and passenger, the lack of farebox on the vehicle, that makes the light rail fast.


----------



## mhays

Buses really ought to run like that. Tickets on the honor system with ruthless security to keep it functional. No stupid questions of the driver...maybe automated kiosks at major stops instead.


----------



## deasine

mhays said:


> We have all-door boarding Downtown, which is also a free-ride area. This is possible because you pay getting on if you're going toward Downtown, and when you get off if you're going away from it.
> 
> We're getting more and more bus bulbs. University Way NE is among the first, with its recent reconfiguration.
> 
> Another positive is that many of the bus routes through Downtown use bus-only routes, whether in the Bus Tunnel or along Third Avenue.
> 
> Add our HOV system and it's a reasonably quick system as bus systems go. We're also adding a lot more HOVs and some BRT in the next couple years.


Sorry I don't live in seattle and I'm just engaged with this topic. Thanks for telling me this.

I think the main concern is that people think buses are worst that LRTs. Of coures I prefer LRTs but then transit authorities should make bus systems much more attracting.

As I said earlier, all door boarding, proof of payment system, and passenger-friendly features all make a bus system attractive. And what I mean by passenger-friendly features include:

1) Real Time Display: Many BRT routes implemented throughout the world have this. The 98 B-Line in Vancouver has this (but ours is horrible as it doesn't work too well) and the VIVA BRT Network has this too.

2) Automated Voice (regarding stops): bridges the gap between LRT and BRT, a passenger friendly feature.

3) Stunning, modern bus stops: include the real time display, map, and even in major bus stops, a ticket vending machine so passengers can purchase their tickets before the bus comes, security camera (for security purposes obviously), and benches. The should be very bright and "transparent" to.

4) Bus Lanes and HOVs: Seattle has a great network of HOV lanes and HOV exits. More should be created to speed up buses.

5) Maybe even include free Wi-Fi in buses (i'm not sure if this is in seattle buses).

My point is that we need to get rid of the idea of riding the bus is a secondary option. We need peoples minds to think that buses are an excellent way of travelling within the region. If a commuter who is stuck in traffic sees a bus speeding down the freeway, they may want to take a bus next time. We need buses/public transit to have a higher priority on the roads than single occupancy vehicules first!


----------



## Mongo8780

mhays said:


> There are no routes that simply circulate within Downtown. All Downtown routes go to/from other neighborhoods.
> 
> For any bus outbound from Downtown, you simply pay when you get off.
> 
> For any bus inbound toward Downtown, you pay when you get on.
> 
> If you get on and get off without leaving Downtown, you don't pay.
> 
> The free zone includes the Bus Tunnel, which is basically five subway stations. You can go the length of the tunnel without paying.


Not true. The 99, which is the streetcar replacement bus, travels entirely within the ride-free zone.


----------



## uwhuskies

greg_christine said:


> ...
> 
> I would highly recommend taking the “Pepsi Challenge” by visiting a city that has both light rail and heavy rail. Cities that have both include Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Baltimore and Los Angeles probably give the fairest comparison as their light rail and heavy rail systems are fairly new; however, the light rail systems of both use high-floor light rail vehicles rather than the 70% low-floor vehicles that will be used in Seattle. Los Angeles has high-floor platforms to provide level-floor boarding for the high-floor light rail vehicles...


^^ Just an FYI, the Seattle area also has Heavy gauge Sounder Trains in addition to the light rail under construction.


----------



## Tcmetro

deasine said:


> Sorry I don't live in seattle and I'm just engaged with this topic. Thanks for telling me this.
> 
> I think the main concern is that people think buses are worst that LRTs. Of coures I prefer LRTs but then transit authorities should make bus systems much more attracting.
> 
> As I said earlier, all door boarding, proof of payment system, and passenger-friendly features all make a bus system attractive. And what I mean by passenger-friendly features include:
> 
> 1) Real Time Display: Many BRT routes implemented throughout the world have this. The 98 B-Line in Vancouver has this (but ours is horrible as it doesn't work too well) and the VIVA BRT Network has this too.
> 
> 2) Automated Voice (regarding stops): bridges the gap between LRT and BRT, a passenger friendly feature.
> 
> 3) Stunning, modern bus stops: include the real time display, map, and even in major bus stops, a ticket vending machine so passengers can purchase their tickets before the bus comes, security camera (for security purposes obviously), and benches. The should be very bright and "transparent" to.
> 
> 4) Bus Lanes and HOVs: Seattle has a great network of HOV lanes and HOV exits. More should be created to speed up buses.
> 
> 5) Maybe even include free Wi-Fi in buses (i'm not sure if this is in seattle buses).
> 
> My point is that we need to get rid of the idea of riding the bus is a secondary option. We need peoples minds to think that buses are an excellent way of travelling within the region. If a commuter who is stuck in traffic sees a bus speeding down the freeway, they may want to take a bus next time. We need buses/public transit to have a higher priority on the roads than single occupancy vehicules first!



Wi-Fi is avalable for free on some King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit buses and trains. Seattle tried a few real time signs at stops on Aurora Ave, Metro deemed the project too expensive. I don't know about Seattle, but in Chicago, and Toronto they have buses that tell you what stop it is automatically, and in Chicago bus shelters, which can be found almost anywhere, have system maps in them. Chicago bus stops have route maps, schedule info, and destination info on the bus stop sign. KCM's buses are relatively new, and an order of up 715 articulated hybrid buses is being considered. KCM's RapidRide BRT service is supposed to begin in 2009.


----------



## milwaukee-københavn

UrbanBen said:


> It's honestly less the all-door boarding and more the separation of driver and passenger, the lack of farebox on the vehicle, that makes the light rail fast.


In Århus, Denmark, you board all city buses in the back, where there is a ticket dispensor and validator, and exit out the front. It works fine, but I am not sure how many people ride free on average (they have fare checkers but the also have hundreds of buses) or what they do with wheelchairs as most of their buses are high-floor. 

This photograph is old but you get the idea. The green stripes mean in, the red, exit doors. There is room to stand in the entrance area, so the bus doesn't have to wait for everyone to get their tickets to leave. 

http://myldretid.dk/billeder/vis_billede.php?foto_id=447


----------



## mhays

Mongo8780 said:


> Not true. The 99, which is the streetcar replacement bus, travels entirely within the ride-free zone.


I didn't know that. In any case, while the bus is free, its route actually goes outside the Free Ride Zone. The zone extends to Battery on the north.


----------



## UrbanBen

uwhuskies said:


> ^^ Just an FYI, the Seattle area also has Heavy gauge Sounder Trains in addition to the light rail under construction.


Link light rail and Sounder are the same gauge. "light rail" and "heavy rail" are indistinct categorizations that don't really give us any information in this case.


----------



## HAWC1506

^^Gauge? As in width of the tracks?


----------



## BoulderGrad

HAWC1506 said:


> ^^Gauge? As in width of the tracks?


yes


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

HAWC1506 said:


> I think what we may be facing in the future is more similar to what London's doing with the Tube. Complete renovation, remodeling, and modernization one step at a time. Seattle's going to have to take little steps, we can't get everything at once. We're not China. Can't do a "cultural transportation revolution" from Chairwoman Gregoire and send teenagers into melting their cooking pans to build rail segments.
> 
> I am still fond of Japanese public transportation  But they have so much more people and such a high density that I think it makes it easier for them to implement and fund public transportation. And the people there KNOW they NEED it. They also RELY on it.


Which is why our transportation system cannot be achieved by just building and building. We need ways to cut down congestion (besides Prop 1) like tolling, and basically ways to discourage people from using cars. And another important component of congestion reduction that I have been stressing is ZONING! We zone denser, people rely more on mass transit, and trust me, Seattle needs it.


----------



## Tri-ring

HAWC1506 said:


> I am still fond of Japanese public transportation  But they have so much more people and such a high density that I think it makes it easier for them to implement and fund public transportation. And the people there KNOW they NEED it. They also RELY on it.


It's actually a chicken or the egg kind of situation.
Tokyo private commuter rails(ex.Tokyu, Odakyu, Keio,Keikyu) started development before the war and population became dense in those areas first, which brought in new people and new lines started to pop out to meet the flow of people.
Believe me Tokyo's transportation system did not occur over night not even a couple of decades.
Most commuter rails in Tokyo and/or Osaka are *private* funded not public funded from the start. The subway system are exceptions because of the extremely high building cost and red tapes they have to cut through in order to get them started.


----------



## greg_christine

*Newspaper Editorial Board Endorsements*

SEATTLE TIMES

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003948183_roadsed14.html

Sunday, October 14, 2007 - Page updated at 02:43 PM

The Times recommends ...

Reject Proposition 1

Proposition 1, the increase in sales tax and car tabs to pay for light rail and roads, should be defeated. It costs too much, it lasts too long and it does too little.

Consider first the largest cost. In Seattle, Proposition 1 would increase the rate of general sales tax to 9.5 cents on a dollar, and on restaurant food to 10 cents. In other parts of the Sound Transit district, the total tax varies a bit, but all the rates would be among the highest sales taxes in the United States.

Most of the increase, five-tenths of a cent, is for Sound Transit's 50 additional miles of light rail, which the people are asked to fund before the first miles even open. An additional four-tenths of a cent, which the people agreed to pay for the segment now being built, is extended by Proposition 1 to the new lines. Sound Transit's total, if voters approve it, would be nearly a full penny on every dollar of taxable sales in the urban area from Everett to Tacoma.

There is an argument about how much this really is, and we won't go there. Suffice to say it is billions and billions. The people will not be able to repeal this tax with a local vote, as they did the monorail tax in Seattle, because Sound Transit gives them no mechanism for a local vote. Furthermore, when the agency pledges the tax to a bond, which the monorail was never able to do, the tax will be repeal-proof. Officials know this, and they will do it. The bottom line is that Proposition 1 is virtually irreversible. It obligates you, your children and your grandchildren.

But we need to do something! Yes — but for this price, the people should demand good reasons.

The supporters of Proposition 1 tell us that the politicians chose this package because pollsters told them the people would vote for it. They ask The Times to support it because they agreed on it. The Times' endorsement would, in turn, be used to convince you to vote for it.

This is a circular argument — and entirely political. We think what the people want is a plan to reduce congestion. Proposition 1 spends huge amounts of money to make congestion worsen at a slightly lesser rate.

Seattle may deny this, but the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes. So says a report issued by State Auditor Brian Sonntag last week, and so says human experience. New roads help. The part of Proposition 1 that goes for roads — a 0.8 percentage point jump in car tabs and a tenth of a cent on sales tax — would actually reduce congestion. But it is the minor part.

Buses also reduce congestion if people will ride them. Much more could be done with bus service, particularly if high-occupancy lanes are kept flowing by the smart use of tolls. Light rail replaces buses, and at a much higher cost per rider. Rail soaks up money buses might have used. Rail funnels transit. Buses extend it. And most rail riders will be people who were already riding the bus. If you want to know why King County Executive Ron Sims came out against Proposition 1, remember that he's the county's No. 1 bus guy.

Throw these arguments at the Proposition 1 defenders and the ones thinking about the short term say, yes, we could reduce congestion with roads, tolls and buses, but voters aren't ready to buy that: They believe in light rail, so give the public that. The farsighted ones say light rail is about changing the way we live. It is about increasing density, levering us into apartments around rail stations. If we live next to rail, we will drive less and help save the Earth. It is a fetching, utopian vision, but it is not so easy to change the way Americans live.

Consider Portland. That city opened its first light-rail line two decades ago, and has built several of them, all of which replaced bus lines. Overall, Greater Portland is no less car-dependent than Seattle. Its congestion has gotten worse, just as it has here. Many Portlanders are proud of light rail, but the last three times new light-rail plans have been on the ballot in the Portland area, the people rejected them.

Maybe they learned something.

Proposition 1 is the wrong proposal. Vote "no," and preserve a chance to get it right.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

==========================================================

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/335810_sted.html

Last updated October 17, 2007 4:40 p.m. PT

Roads And Transit: Pay now, not later
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

It's not surprising that Seattle is wigging out over the prospect of paying $47 billion for Proposition 1, a roads and transit project promising us more light rail and roads as well as a few other perks.

As we've said before, Prop 1 isn't perfect. It marries two things some see as essentially contradictory -- roads and mass transit -- in one package. The language on the ballot measure upsets some, while the hotly disputed cost (well, in some circles) gets folks in a lather. Some can't fathom dealing with a project that could take 20 years -- or, let's face it, longer -- to complete. We bear the burden of hitting those people with a few awful truths:

1) Roads can be used for mass-transit vehicles. They're called buses. And while this package isn't aimed at improving bus service in a big way, it will have an impact. Roads -- along with sidewalks and bike paths -- are needed, and until those personal jet packs promised to us by sci-fi writers are delivered, we are bound to them.

2) For those who think this package is too expensive now, we promise, if you find yourself reading a similar endorsement 20 years from now (and this being Seattle, that is a distinct possibility), the cost of construction, materials, labor and reconfiguring the city's infrastructure will be considerably higher. Speaking of the future ...

3) It is coming, regardless of how you vote for this proposition. 

You could vote no and leave us in the transportation "Groundhog's Day" situation we're in. Or you could vote yes -- and we implore you to -- and free this region from its gridlocked thinking.

=========================================================

THE STRANGER

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=418929

Sound Transit/RTID Proposition No. 1

VOTE NO

The joint roads and transit ballot measure shackles expansion of Sound Transit's popular light-rail system to a massive roads- expansion package that could never have passed on its own.

After road proponents realized they didn't have voter support for a stand-alone roads package (a major roads-expansion proposal died at the polls in 2002), legislators in Olympia linked roads expansion to light rail. This proposal is an attempt to use urban voters to pass a suburban agenda. Rather than letting compromised politicians tell us what's possible, the people should tell the leaders what's needed: more light rail without massive roads expansion. It's time to flex some urban muscle. Seattle voters shouldn't have to fund roads on the Eastside in order to get light rail.

But by voting No on 50 miles of new transit, wouldn't Seattle's pro-transit voting bloc be cutting its nose to spite its face? No. By unwisely voting Yes on 182 miles of new roads, including four new lanes on I-405 to accommodate an extra 40,000 cars a day, they would be.

Supporters of the roads and transit package love to talk about all the light rail we'll be giving away if we don't vote for the $17.8 billion package. The SECB sees it differently. If we turn roads and transit down, the invaluable transit side of the package can come back next year (which would be great given that Democratic Party turnout will be huge), or else in 2009, when the light rail track from Sea-Tac Airport to downtown will be rolling out and making the on-the-ground case for expansion. True: Voters turned down a rail package in 1968. But this isn't 1968. This is 2007. Global warming is an international crisis, Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize, and Sound Transit is already building a $5.7 billion line that will demand expansion in its own right.

For roads, this package is the last gasp. No one in his right mind looks at the environmental realities we're currently facing and says, "Let's build hundreds of miles of new roads!" But that's exactly what this package would do—152 new miles of new general-purpose lanes, 30 miles of HOV. If we pass this package, we'll have wasted our last chance in a generation to do light rail right. Yes, we'll get light rail to Microsoft and Tacoma (by 2027) but we'll also get a 43 percent increase in miles driven in this region. The new roads will just fill up, as roads do; they'll contribute more to global warming than light rail takes away; and they won't do anything to reduce congestion without further investments in transit in the future. But we won't be able to make those investments, because we'll be committed to paying for a compromised light rail system for the next 50 years.

There are other problems with the package. The light rail in this proposal would be paid for with a regressive sales tax instead of user fees (like tolls). The line itself (through a low-density area) may feed sprawl in south King County, instead of promoting the dense urban development that will grow alongside light rail stations in North Seattle. Meanwhile, the roads in the package are not, as supporters of the package claim, necessary investments in safety and maintenance: The biggest investments in the package include a massive expansion of a suburban freeway (I-405), new connections between sprawling exurbs and an already overtaxed I-5 (SRs 509 and 167), and a highway that will serve sprawl and pave over some of the last remaining oak prairie in Western Washington (the still-on-the-table cross-base highway.)

The SECB wants light rail, but we can do better than a package that shackles a transit solution to a transportation disaster. Vote No on Proposition 1.


----------



## UrbanBen

The Tacoma News Tribune and Everett Herald both say vote yes. I think the Seattle Weekly does too.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Which is why our transportation system cannot be achieved by just building and building. We need ways to cut down congestion (besides Prop 1) like tolling, and basically ways to discourage people from using cars. And another important component of congestion reduction that I have been stressing is ZONING! We zone denser, people rely more on mass transit, and trust me, Seattle needs it.


We can't zone more densely because most municipalities have laws preventing upzoning when there's already bad traffic. People have been trying to change those laws to no avail for 40 years. Go read the Bel-Red corridor plan, it talks about some of this.

WE. CANNOT. TOLL. I don't know if you noticed, but this entire *state* has laws against tolling existing roadways. Who are you going to convince to change those? Legislators from Spokane? And how does passing Prop 1 make that *harder*?


----------



## UrbanBen

Tri-ring said:


> It's actually a chicken or the egg kind of situation.
> Tokyo private commuter rails(ex.Tokyu, Odakyu, Keio,Keikyu) started development before the war and population became dense in those areas first, which brought in new people and new lines started to pop out to meet the flow of people.
> Believe me Tokyo's transportation system did not occur over night not even a couple of decades.
> Most commuter rails in Tokyo and/or Osaka are *private* funded not public funded from the start. The subway system are exceptions because of the extremely high building cost and red tapes they have to cut through in order to get them started.


It isn't chicken and egg at all once you realize we were on the same track Tokyo was until we shot down our private railways. We built highways with public funds, and now we're finally figuring out that can't move enough people, so we have to build rails with public funds. Until the *infrastructure in place* is much more balanced, we'll never see viable private transportation.


----------



## Tri-ring

UrbanBen said:


> It isn't chicken and egg at all once you realize we were on the same track Tokyo was until we shot down our private railways. We built highways with public funds, and now we're finally figuring out that can't move enough people, so we have to build rails with public funds. Until the *infrastructure in place* is much more balanced, we'll never see viable private transportation.


I was talking about the relationship between commuter rail and population density, since I believe that Tokyo would not have grown to it's present size today without commuter rail laid down more than half a century ago but nobody really believed back then that those rails would be needed.
A visonary like Shibusawa(founder of Tokyo-Yokohama Electric Railway which later aquire Odakyu, Keio and, Keikyu) developing a non-profit corporation "Denen Toshi Kaihatu KK" to develop new housing around the Denenchofu area in *1918*.
Shibusawa created demand by supplying large housing areas with easy access to Tokyo via commuters trains and made a fortune by reaping what he sowed because once the demand was there he just expanded beyond the non-profit showcase area.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tri-ring said:


> I was talking about the relationship between commuter rail and population density, since I believe that Tokyo would not have grown to it's present size today without commuter rail laid down more than half a century ago but nobody really believed back then that those rails would be needed.
> A visonary like Shibusawa(founder of Tokyo-Yokohama Electric Railway which later aquire Odakyu, Keio and, Keikyu) developing a non-profit corporation "Denen Toshi Kaihatu KK" to develop new housing around the Denenchofu area in *1918*.
> Shibusawa created demand by supplying large housing areas with easy access to Tokyo via commuters trains and made a fortune by reaping what he sowed because once the demand was there he just expanded beyond the non-profit showcase area.


I do see what you're getting at - I'm just saying that there are plenty of US situations in which it's been all for-profit in the same time period. Granted, at this point, I think it's silly to think urban transportation can ever be for-profit again (and it likely shouldn't, as the same arguments apply to it as do to most other things we consider necessary as public services).

I never knew about Shibusawa, although if Denenchofu is near Chofu today, I've been close by. I think this example does show that at that time, we were still learning about how transportation and urban planning worked. And it does demonstrate the chicken and egg concept. I just think that at this point, the issue is framing - the prior examples are all there, but there's little effort made to dispel the "but we're different!" attitude of detractors from density and transit investment.


----------



## HAWC1506

Article "the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes"

That sickens me. This is completely one-sided and not backed up. Building lanes will only encourage more use of vehicles and a year later, we're going to have a congestion again. Plus, try building more lanes in I-5 in Seattle. Heck it's already hard enough for WSDOT to widen the Renton area of 405.

Buses are cheaper......When they're new. And when you have to spend more money on new buses every 10 years, add it with rising fuel costs, it's not going to save more than Light Rail in the long term. What use are buses if the roads are going to be crowded and falling apart anyway? I can't wait to see what people's reactions are when the 520 collapses.

What happened to the air pollution argument?


----------



## Tri-ring

HAWC1506 said:


> Article "the surest way to reduce congestion on roads is to build more lanes"
> 
> That sickens me. This is completely one-sided and not backed up. Building lanes will only encourage more use of vehicles and a year later, we're going to have a congestion again. Plus, try building more lanes in I-5 in Seattle. Heck it's already hard enough for WSDOT to widen the Renton area of 405.
> 
> Buses are cheaper......When they're new. And when you have to spend more money on new buses every 10 years, add it with rising fuel costs, it's not going to save more than Light Rail in the long term. What use are buses if the roads are going to be crowded and falling apart anyway? I can't wait to see what people's reactions are when the 520 collapses.
> 
> What happened to the air pollution argument?


Is there a bus driver union? because I think that is another pressure group that needs to be addressed when comparing rail versus buses since you need alot more bus drivers to transport the same amount of people when comparing capacity with trains.

Alot of private train operators here in Tokyo are now promoting that trains leaves the smallest carbon foot print per person, a hundred to one when compared to private transportation and twenty to one even when compared to buses.
This is important since Japan is desprate in meeting goals set by the Kyoto protocol.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tri-ring said:


> Is there a bus driver union? because I think that is another pressure group that needs to be addressed when comparing rail versus buses since you need alot more bus drivers to transport the same amount of people when comparing capacity with trains.
> 
> Alot of private train operators here in Tokyo are now promoting that trains leaves the smallest carbon foot print per person, a hundred to one when compared to private transportation and twenty to one even when compared to buses.
> This is important since Japan is desprate in meeting goals set by the Kyoto protocol.


There is a bus operators' union - the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) local 587. I don't think they're opposed to rail transit: there will likely be an increase in the number of operator positions available because the rails will add significant numbers of services to their corridors *and* drive up ridership on connector routes (necessitating improved service).

Can you link me to anything online about those numbers? I saw a release from JR East about their services being vastly more efficient than any other method of transport - especially the shinkansen - but never managed to find it again.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> There is a bus operators' union - the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) local 587. I don't think they're opposed to rail transit: there will likely be an increase in the number of operator positions available because the rails will add significant numbers of services to their corridors *and* drive up ridership on connector routes (necessitating improved service).
> 
> Can you link me to anything online about those numbers? I saw a release from JR East about their services being vastly more efficient than any other method of transport - especially the shinkansen - but never managed to find it again.


Oh how I long for high-speed rail between Seattle, Spokane, and Portland hno:


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Oh how I long for high-speed rail between Seattle, Spokane, and Portland hno:


Read this:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyre...1D1424E7/0/LongRangePlanforAmtrakCascades.pdf

It doesn't cover Spokane, but that's the plan for 12-13 daily round trips between Seattle and Portland with maximum speeds of 110 (or 124?) mph. That would build enough ridership as a local service to build separate HSR - much like what's being done with the TGV Est.


----------



## Tri-ring

UrbanBen said:


> Can you link me to anything online about those numbers? I saw a release from JR East about their services being vastly more efficient than any other method of transport - especially the shinkansen - but never managed to find it again.


Here is a link to an old white paper created by the ministry of Transportation.

http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/white-paper/unyu-whitepaper/1998/frame.html

The most recent one is only in Japanese.

http://www.mlit.go.jp/toukeijouhou/energy/h19_energy.pdf

The figures you are looking for is on page 36.
unit Kilojoules per person Kilometer
From top;2003~2007
Japan rail
Private rail
Rail total
Commuter bus
Lease bus
Bus total
Commercial car
Private car
car total
Private truck
domestic ship
Domestic air travel


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Read this:
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyre...1D1424E7/0/LongRangePlanforAmtrakCascades.pdf
> 
> It doesn't cover Spokane, but that's the plan for 12-13 daily round trips between Seattle and Portland with maximum speeds of 110 (or 124?) mph. That would build enough ridership as a local service to build separate HSR - much like what's being done with the TGV Est.


Have they implemented the 110 mph plan yet? I certainly hope they construct real HSR, not a semi-HSR Acela service they have on the East Coast. I also heard that California was thinking about buying French TGVs...why can't we make our own???...


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Have they implemented the 110 mph plan yet? I certainly hope they construct real HSR, not a semi-HSR Acela service they have on the East Coast. I also heard that California was thinking about buying French TGVs...why can't we make our own???...


Read it! 

No, the fastest we can currently go is 79mph, due to federal regulations.

All of this is linked to the state legislature doling out funds for particular projects, though. And none of this is as fast as Acela. We don't have the ridership built up to do service like Acela - it would be a field day for opponents if we built a service like that now, because none of the places it would serve have transit systems yet and ridership would be abysmal. It would quickly become the system to kill all future systems.

First, we need to pass Prop. 1 to help create ridership to fill up the existing four daily round trips between Seattle and Portland. It'll also help to get the second round trip running between Seattle and Vancouver BC (this will happen before the Olympics).

The next step is to do the Point Defiance Bypass project (in conjunction with Sound Transit's service to Lakewood), as that will provide our first segment of passenger only track. With track and signal improvements, the track between Nisqually and Lakewood could be operated at 90mph (or possibly 110mph) in the next decade. This is really key - that track is right next to I-5. Trains passing at even 90mph will make drivers much more aware of alternatives, and help build ridership naturally.

There is no way to do real HSR in our region without first having strong local service. Sounder is the base service, and Cascades creates a limited express service on top of that. Both of those are fledgling and need more round trips, and until we have more of our own (state-owned) right of way, that's dependent upon onerous agreements we have to scratch and claw out of BNSF.

If you want to help with this, make sure everyone you know votes for Prop. 1 - give them stamps, mail ballots for them, drag them to their polling places on the 6th. Sound Transit 2 will dramatically build ridership on Cascades by making the Tacoma and Seattle Amtrak stations accessible to a lot more people. Then start writing letters to your state legislators about funding the long range plan, and if there are projects listed that cities or counties might be able to help with, lobby for local partnerships to help WSDOT out.

If you really just want bullet trains right now, move to California and lobby for the real thing: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
They can't build anything right now either, because the legislature and Governor are blocking them. Here, at least, we have a largely friendly state government.


----------



## Tcmetro

Is there a possibility of extending the Cascades to San Francisco? How do people get between Portland and Seattle? Do most drive? Are there flights? Take the Train? Greyhound Bus?

P.S. Sorry for all the questions .


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> Is there a possibility of extending the Cascades to San Francisco? How do people get between Portland and Seattle? Do most drive? Are there flights? Take the Train? Greyhound Bus?
> 
> P.S. Sorry for all the questions .


I love these questions, because I know some of the answers! 

There's currently an Amtrak service called the Coast Starlight to San Francisco. It's one of the Amtrak long-distance trains, so it's entirely funded by the federal government. That system, overall, can't improve on its own - Amtrak doesn't have lobbyists, they don't have any power to get track maintenance done, etc. - and the track in southern Oregon and northern California sucks. So no, Cascades would never be extended to SF unless we ended up with the right environment for private rail (or national rail funding).

Cascades is interesting. The Seattle to Portland trips are funded by the WA state government, and the Portland to Eugene trips (that's as far south as it goes) are funded by the OR government. Here's the timetable as it stands.

You can see that there are trains and there are bus connections. The goal right now is to get all those buses on the second page converted to trains, but that will require more capital investment (which is happening, slowly).

Regardless - most people drive. Some fly - most business travelers I'm aware of fly, simply because it's faster than driving. If you're going on a weekday, driving can take quite a long time - well over 3 hours is common.

The train takes 3:30 at the moment assuming no delays, and as trackwork continues, the number of delays is decreasing. For instance, the Steilacoom freight derailment a few days ago that blocked passenger service will be bypassed entirely by the Point Defiance Bypass project. Right now, what's blocking that project is the fact that construction costs have skyrocketed and nobody wants to let Sound Transit do the D to M street work in Tacoma with at-grade crossings. I think that's reasonable, but I think Tacoma needs to pony up the money for grade separation at this point.

There is Greyhound service, but it's subject to traffic just like driving, so basically only people with no other options use that. Flying is most common, but the WSDOT's corridor projects (and Link light rail) will very slowly shift that toward rail. Rail will eventually be faster - no security crap, no taxi time, and no taking an extra half hour on each end to get to the airport. That's why the TGV does so well in France.


----------



## Tcmetro

There should be hourly trains to Portland, then Seattle and Portland could become like Sacremento and the Bay Area. One of the things that should have been included in ST2, is a light rail branch to Renton. I used to always take the bus (340) to Renton when I lived in Seattle.


----------



## HAWC1506

Our main setback: Low population? Or low support? Or low common sense among the people?


----------



## HAWC1506

Keep it cool guys.

Taiwanesedrummer, I understand all the grudge against China, but they need an infrastructure to move their 1.6 billion people/economy and what they are doing is essentially the same thing Bellevue is doing, except on a larger scale. 

Yes we can say that China is driving up the cost and it's eating our economy, but do realize that's what many countries thought about us decades ago. You're Taiwanese and I am of Taiwanese descent too, and it would be great for that little island to go independent without Chinese pressure, but I personally don't support their independence if it's going to lead to World War III. But then, we'd probably bomb the hell outta China anyway, driving our construction costs down. End of discussion. Back to Light Rail.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Well, I partially object to the statement above, but I don't think I should continue whatever has been going on Seattle-related threads for the past weeks.

So as far as i've heard, the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is finished and testing has begun between the Operations and Maintainence Facility and the Pine Street Stub Tunnel. The southbound Beacon Hill Tunnel has been completed and I don't know about the northbound Tunnel. Paving and restoration on Martin Luther King Junior Way S. has been completed, so remaining construction is on stations and the tracks. The Tukwila elevated guideway is completed and I believe remaining construction involves track placement and wiring, plus construction of the park and ride at the Tukwila International Blvd. Station. As for the Airport section, some guideway construction has begun, but most of the route is dependent on the construction and relocation of the North Airport Expressway.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle P-I: Prop. 1 fundraising nears $5 million*

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/337649_tranmoney01.html

Thursday, November 1, 2007
Last updated 12:18 a.m. PT

Prop. 1 fundraising nears $5 million
Backers outspend opponents by more than 5 to 1
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

The campaigns over the Puget Sound area's $47 billion roads-and-transit measure soon could become a $5 million affair, as backers raise and spend more than five times as much as opponents.

Those for and against Proposition 1 have raised more than $4.9 million in cash and in-kind contributions -- dwarfing fundraising for the three previous statewide transportation measures. Together they've spent more than $4.8 million. 

Backers, who say the projects in the measure are vitally needed, have raised and spent nearly 84 percent of the money, $4.1 million, as the measure faces what could be a close vote on Proposition 1 Nov. 6. Opponents, who say the measure will cost too much and won't do enough to ease congestion, have raised about $794,000 as of Tuesday, according to figures filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Polls have been mixed. With that backdrop, "this is going to be extremely close on Election Day," said Aaron Toso, spokesman for the pro-proposition Keep Washington Rolling campaign, which has spent more than $4 million so far, compared with opponents spending $790,600.

"We have to get our message out to voters, and sometimes that takes money."

Toso's organization is raising the most money for the proponents; three smaller groups are the main fundraisers for the opposing campaign, Citizens Against RTID, Neighbors Opposing Prop. 1 and NoToProp1.org.

Microsoft co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer contributed $100,000 each to Keep Washington Rolling, and the corporation kicked in $300,000, bringing the total from the company and top executives to $500,000.

Boeing contributed $175,000, the Seattle Mariners $89,000, and $50,000 contributions came from the International Union of Operating Engineers, one of its locals and the Laborers' Political League.

Realtors and some business and labor organizations historically have supported transportation-improvement measures. 

The Washington Association of Realtors, a proponent, gave $250,000 in early October in addition to $50,000 it contributed in June. The measure's listed projects should help ease congestion, as the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has, and keep prospective buyers from rejecting homes because of long commutes, some Realtors agreed.

"We spend a lot of time stuck in traffic, with clients in the car," said Sam Pace, a Kent-based real estate salesman and association board member. 

Boeing hopes the improvements will help keep aircraft parts flowing steadily to its factories. Traffic "is not nearly as predictable as it might have been 20 years ago," spokesman Peter Conte said.

Unions and labor groups, according to filings with the commission, accounted for more than $826,000 of supporting cash contributions. The Laborers' International Union gave $155,000 through local and political action committees. The operating engineers' union contributed a total of $135,000, while the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council, an umbrella group for 21 construction unions and 20,000-plus area construction workers, donated $33,000. 

Union leaders think the measure would provide jobs and improve commutes, and help train needed new construction workers as the baby-boom generation retires, said Dave Johnson, executive secretary of the building and construction council. 

Without this, "What do you do 20 years from now when you know you have infrastructure to be replaced?" Johnson said, calling the measure "the most comprehensive package out there." 

Construction companies and trade groups also contributed nearly $378,000 to support the campaign, as have several transportation consulting firms, such as David Evans and Associates, Parametrix, HDR Engineering and Shannon & Wilson. 

Other corporate backers include Washington Mutual Inc. at $100,000; Puget Sound Energy at $60,000; Weyerhaeuser Co. at $50,000; and PEMCO and Safeco at $50,000 each.

Proponents spent more than $2.8 million, nearly 70 percent of the contributions they raised, on production and placement of TV commercials and other advertising, compared with the $272,000 opponents reported spending. About $207,000 of proponents' money went to consultants, $334,500 to campaign literature and $82,978 to research.

Opponents did not report spending in any of those specific categories.

The opposing campaign's big cash contributions come from Eastside businessman Kemper Freeman, who contributed $200,000 through two of his companies, Kemper Development Co. and Bellevue Square Managers. Telecommunications mogul Bruce McCaw contributed $25,000. 

Freeman is a longtime opponent of light rail systems and a bus system proponent who argues the transportation package won't reduce congestion and will hurt business and "all of us." Freeman's contributions went to the NoToProp1.org Committee. 

Mark Baerwaldt, founder of several high-tech companies, has paid more than $200,000 of the expenses of the opposition group NoToProp1.org, for which he is treasurer and spokesman.

Funds and spending linked to this year's three-county measure exceed the amounts raised and spent on previous statewide transportation measures. Both sides in the 2002 campaign for the unsuccessful Referendum 51 to raise the gas tax raised and spent $4.7 million. 

In 1998 campaigners for and against a highway measure, Referendum 49, raised and spent slightly less than $1.1 million; that measure passed. In 2005 campaigners for and against a gas-tax rollback, Initiative 912, received and paid out about $3.7 million before voters rejected that measure. 

This time, campaigners for both sides say, costs are higher, the issues are more complex and the greater Seattle area is the most expensive for buying TV advertising time. "There are a lot of details to try to explain to voters," Toso said.

Baerwaldt and other opponents agreed the anti-proposition campaign is being outspent partly because it organized late.

"There are a number of against-Prop. 1 groups, but they haven't come together the way the 'pros' have," said Mary Ann Mundy of Neighbors Opposing Proposition 1, a group of opponents living near the west end of the Evergreen Point Bridge who don't like the proposals for replacing it.

The Sierra Club's state chapter has organized, however. On Wednesday, it reported having contributed more than $124,000 in staff time, phone calls, printing, legal assistance and one TV commercial to the opposition cause through the group Citizens Against RTID. The group is made up largely of club members.

The club said the ballot measure would spend too much on roads and increase car traffic and pollution, confounding efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and deal with global warming. They're being outgunned financially because major backers are "the establishment" that wants "transportation for their employees at taxpayer expense," said Cascade Club Chapter Chairman Mike O'Brien.

But, "what we've seen is that the public is responsive to the message that transportation matters but so does global warming," O'Brien said, predicting a close vote. "I don't think anyone thinks it's going to be a runaway landslide."



THE LATEST POLL

Proposition 1, the roads and mass transit package that goes before voters Tuesday, is narrowly trailing, according to a non-partisan poll by a University of Washington research center. 

The poll, released this week, shows 43 percent of those surveyed were certain or leaning toward a yes vote, with 46 percent in the no category. A total of 11 percent remained undecided. The transit package runs well among Democratic voters and holds a narrow 47-43 lead in King County. But Republicans oppose it 2-to-1. The poll was taken Oct. 21-29 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. 



TOP CONTRIBUTORS

Cash and in-kind services: 

BACKERS
Washington Association of Realtors, $300,000
Microsoft Corp., $300,000
The Boeing Co., $175,000
Laborers International Union, $155,000
Operating Engineers Union locals, $135,000
Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman, $100,000
Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, $100,000
Washington Mutual Inc., $100,000
Seattle Mariners, $89,000
Washington State Labor Council, $60,000

Opponents
Mark Baerwaldt, $200,993
KF & DS Partnership, $124,402
Kemper Development Co., $110,000
Bellevue Square Managers, $100,000
Bruce McCaw, $25,000
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, $15,000
Donald F. Padelford, $10,000
Hoglund Transfer Co., $5,000
Peninsula Truck Lines, $5,000
Margaret C. Simpson, $5,000
Charlotte Tochterman, $5,000
Washington Traffic Institute, $5,000
Michael J. Wensman, $5,000

Source: Washington State Public Disclosure Commission


P-I reporter Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or [email protected]seattlepi.com.


----------



## guinessbeer55

why is Bellevue Square opposed?? 

because they want their stupid fucking city of bellevue to stay suburbia!! god what is wrong with this place??


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

guinessbeer55 said:


> why is Bellevue Square opposed??
> 
> because they want their stupid fucking city of bellevue to stay suburbia!! god what is wrong with this place??


Because Bellevue Square is owned by Kemper Freeman Jr., the road-loving guy that gave birth to Downtown Bellevue.

And does everyone have to turn every Seattle-related forum into a Proposition 1 forum? Please, try to focus on the Central Link, still under construction!

*Anyone got new photos?


----------



## BoulderGrad

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> And does everyone have to turn every Seattle-related forum into a Proposition 1 forum? Please, try to focus on the Central Link, still under construction!


This is the "Seattle Light Rail" thread, not the "Central Link" thread. Prop 1 includes 50 miles of light rail, So... any discussion about Seattle light rail will eventually include discussion about prop 1.


----------



## Tri-ring

guinessbeer55 said:


> why is Bellevue Square opposed??


Actually it is probably because the real estate prices will drop in relative to the area that have access to light rail because when people find convenience of light rail they will flock to those areas.
It happened all the time here in Japan.
The smartest thing to do is sell real estate that does not have access and wait for it to drop rock bottom then re-purchase it and wait till they announce development of transit system into that area.
Again alot of Japanese investors and re-developers uses this scheme to make revitalize the community while making capital gain.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tri-ring said:


> Actually it is probably because the real estate prices will drop in relative to the area that have access to light rail because when people find convenience of light rail they will flock to those areas.
> It happened all the time here in Japan.
> The smartest thing to do is sell real estate that does not have access and wait for it to drop rock bottom then re-purchase it and wait till they announce development of transit system into that area.
> Again alot of Japanese investors and re-developers uses this scheme to make revitalize the community while making capital gain.


Bellevue Square will have access to light rail. Kemper Freeman stands to benefit monstrously from the package.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle Times: Light rail to Tacoma: Is it worth the money?*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003986898_elexprop1tacoma01m.html

Light rail to Tacoma: Is it worth the money?
By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

Sidebar====================================================

Travel times in 2030: On your mark, get set ...

Sound Transit says light rail between Seattle and Tacoma is worth the price. But critics say it won't compete with buses and commuter trains, based on ridership and travel time. Here are Sound Transit's travel-time estimates between Westlake Center and Tacoma in 2030:

By train:

66 minutes, including bus transfer

By light rail

70 minutes

By bus

80 minutes

==========================================================

Sound Transit's plan to extend light rail to Tacoma at a cost of almost $3.4 billion is drawing more criticism than any other part of its proposal on next week's ballot.

Both King County Executive Ron Sims, a former Sound Transit chairman, and the Sierra Club, a light-rail advocate, say taking light rail to Tacoma doesn't make much sense.

They argue the projected 70-minute light-rail trip from the Tacoma Dome to downtown Seattle wouldn't be able to compete with the bus and Sounder commuter-rail service that exists now.

"It's the one thing that's the big weakness in this package," said Sims, who chaired the Sound Transit board in 2002 and 2003. "You can't justify it."

Sound Transit officials disagree. They predict strong ridership, and argue that by the time the route is completed, light-rail trains would beat buses to Seattle because of growing traffic congestion.

The proposed $3.36 billion, 19-mile-long, Sea-Tac-to-Tacoma extension is part of the largest tax package ever put before Washington voters. Light rail from Seattle to Sea-Tac is under construction as part of the line approved by voters in 1996.

Proposition 1 on Tuesday's ballot would increase car-tab and sales taxes in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to improve highways and extend light rail north of Lynnwood, south to Tacoma and east to the Redmond area.

In 2006 dollars, the package is expected to cost nearly $18 billion. Those costs are expected to reach $38 billion over the next 20 years and $47 billion in 50 years.

Sound Transit officials say there's a strong case for extending light rail to Tacoma.

The agency projects that about 45,000 people a day would use the route. It says that out of 12 rail projects reviewed by the federal government in recent years, only one had higher projected ridership than Sound Transit's proposed south and east routes.

Sound Transit also predicts traffic congestion will slow buses down by the time the light-rail system is completed in 20 years.

In 2006, it took an average of 69 minutes to travel by bus from the Tacoma Dome to Westlake in downtown Seattle, Sound Transit said. But by 2030, the agency projects, it will take buses 80 minutes to make the trip — 10 minutes longer on average than light rail.

And Sound Transit argues that light rail would be more reliable because it's not affected by traffic jams.

Besides, the agency says, most people using the route are expected to make shorter trips in Pierce and southern King counties instead of traveling all the way to Seattle. The proposed line would have seven stops from Sea-Tac to Tacoma.

The Sounder commuter trains that now run between Tacoma and Seattle will always be faster, because they travel at higher speeds and make fewer stops.

But Sounder serves a different set of passengers, said Geoff Patrick, a Sound Transit spokesman. He also noted that light rail would run all day while the Sounder trains, which share tracks with freight trains, only run during the commute hours.

Sound Transit also promised that money raised by tax increases would be spent where it's generated. In this case, Pierce County residents said they wanted light rail, Patrick said.

"We heard overwhelmingly that there was preference for a light-rail connection that would offer service throughout the day," he said. "There was no question about public preference for that."

Of the nearly $3.4 billion cost of the route, more than $1.9 billion would come from Pierce County and more than $1.4 billion from King.

Sims said Sound Transit needs a better justification for spending the money. "You can't simply say 'because we want it,' " he said.

At Sims' request, the King County Office of Management and Budget did a rough cost-benefit analysis of each proposed light-rail segment in Proposition 1, as well as bus and commuter rail. The analysis was done before the measure was placed on the ballot.

It estimated that for every $1,000 spent, the Sea-Tac-to-Tacoma extension would carry 69 passengers. By comparison, the analysis found that light rail to Bellevue would carry 106 people per $1,000, and the extension north would move 369 people per $1,000.

Analysts arrived at the estimates by taking projected costs of the projects and dividing them by estimates of how many people would ride each segment.

Sound Transit officials dismissed the analysis. Patrick, in an e-mail, called it "a very bizarre set of calculations that is well outside the boundaries of anything our staff has seen."

Sound Transit said its ridership projections from Sea-Tac to Tacoma are the same as its projections for the light-rail route to the Redmond area.

Sims and the King County Office of Management and Budget stand by their numbers.

"The key is not whether this would be nice to have in 2030," Sims said of the proposal to extend light rail to Tacoma. "If you are looking at investments per thousand, is this where you would build it? Do you get a big bang for the buck? And why would people use it? My thing is, people won't."

In terms of Sound Transit's projected travel times in 2030, Sims and his staff also disagree that growing congestion will make buses slower than light rail.

"You can't project forward and say everything else is going to remain constant except light rail, that's just not the case," Sims said.

He predicts the state will take steps, such as using tolls, to keep the car-pool and bus lanes moving.

"In fact, you're going to see congestion relief," Sims said. "You're going to see lanes that are designed to move your buses."

Plus, Sims questions Sound Transit's projections that most people would ride light rail to places inside Pierce County instead of traveling all the way to Seattle.

"That's not where the jobs are," he said. "I don't know how they can argue that."

Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, the current Sound Transit board chairman, said people shouldn't get hung up on ridership projections.

"First of all, the ridership projections are very speculative. They may be double what we think, and that wouldn't be out of the range of possibility. But what you do know is that once you build a permanent rail corridor, it's there for 100 years," he said.

"We're now 20 years late bringing light rail to Seattle. I don't want to see us be 20 years late to bring it to Tacoma. Now is the right time to bring it there. It's an investment in the future."

Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company


----------



## UrbanBen

^^ I wrote a pretty basic takedown of this completely bullshit article here:

http://seatrans.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-you-should-read-p-i-instead.html

The article basically just creates a false frame - it's not Seattle to Tacoma travel that matters here, it's all the points in between.


----------



## greg_christine

^^I tend to agree that the article misses the point regarding service to all the places between Seattle and Tacoma. My family used to live near Kent and might have been regular users of a transit line between Seattle and Tacoma. The article does reinforce my opinion about the decision to use light rail for the line. If it weren't for the non-grade separated section through the Rainier Valley and if higher-speed heavy rail metro trains had been used, the line would have been faster than the parallel Sounder line and the ridership probably would have been higher than has been forecast.


----------



## greg_christine

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/new_poll_numbers_one_week_out

New Poll Numbers, One Week Out 
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on October 30 at 13:47 PM

A new poll by University of Washington researchers finds that the roads and transit ballot measure, Prop. 1, is trailing among registered voters, with 43 percent in favor and 46 against (11 percent were undecided), but doing much better among likely voters (those who voted in the previous two November elections). Among those voters—400 of the poll’s total sample of 600—49 percent supported the measure, 38 percent opposed it, and 13 percent were undecided. ...


----------



## Tcmetro

That is an obviously flawed article (the Seattle Times one). Sounder will never be as good as Link Light Rail. BNSF probably would never let ST run trains every 5 minutes all day. And Ron Sims is a fool, buses will never be able to compete with LRT, like UrbanBen said, LRT has the advantage of serving intermediate stops without slowing the trip down a lot. Buses would only be able to compete with LRT, if they used the transit tunnel, they grade seperated the Busway, extended the Busway south, to connect into I-5 with Direct access to the HOV lanes, and connected the Tacoma Dome station directly to the HOV lanes, and they wouldn't have the ridership because of the lack of intermediate stops.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> ^^I tend to agree that the article misses the point regarding service to all the places between Seattle and Tacoma. My family used to live near Kent and might have been regular users of a transit line between Seattle and Tacoma. The article does reinforce my opinion about the decision to use light rail for the line. If it weren't for the non-grade separated section through the Rainier Valley and if higher-speed heavy rail metro trains had been used, the line would have been faster than the parallel Sounder line and the ridership probably would have been higher than has been forecast.


Actually, for Tacoma Dome to King Street, light rail is six minutes slower than Sounder. Their 70 minute number is four stops later, at Westlake.

The key is, everyone transfers when getting off Sounder. Most passengers from Tacoma will likely take Link to avoid the transfer, and will also likely save time over walking from King Street to International District stations.

The other thing here is that there will likely eventually be a bypass of the rainier valley, something on Marginal Way. Look at how Link leaves and then comes back to the Duwamish valley.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> That is an obviously flawed article (the Seattle Times one). Sounder will never be as good as Link Light Rail. BNSF probably would never let ST run trains every 5 minutes all day. And Ron Sims is a fool, buses will never be able to compete with LRT, like UrbanBen said, LRT has the advantage of serving intermediate stops without slowing the trip down a lot. Buses would only be able to compete with LRT, if they used the transit tunnel, they grade seperated the Busway, extended the Busway south, to connect into I-5 with Direct access to the HOV lanes, and connected the Tacoma Dome station directly to the HOV lanes, and they wouldn't have the ridership because of the lack of intermediate stops.


There's probably not going to be much difference between them in ridership per capital dollar spent for a long time. There wasn't really the ROW to build light rail through Kent, Auburn, etc, so you get a lot more bang for your buck just using the freight tracks. I mean, I totally agree with you, but *shrug*.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Speaking of Seattle-Tacoma buses, is Sound Transit even going to construct the Star Lake Freeway Station? A couple of years ago I heard it was going to be a direct-access ramp, then a freeway station, and now nothing. I'm probably going off topic, but Seattle-Tacoma buses could run even faster with the Star Lake Freeway Station (HOV access), along with HOV lanes to Tacoma and all that.....(but i'll leave that for another time).

So, does anyone know?


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Speaking of Seattle-Tacoma buses, is Sound Transit even going to construct the Star Lake Freeway Station? A couple of years ago I heard it was going to be a direct-access ramp, then a freeway station, and now nothing. I'm probably going off topic, but Seattle-Tacoma buses could run even faster with the Star Lake Freeway Station (HOV access), along with HOV lanes to Tacoma and all that.....(but i'll leave that for another time).
> 
> So, does anyone know?


Hey mister "stay on topic", this is the light rail thread.  (I don't care)

http://soundtransit.org/x1779.xml

Why don't you call Roger Iwata on Monday and ask him?


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> Hey mister "stay on topic", this is the light rail thread.  (I don't care)
> 
> http://soundtransit.org/x1779.xml
> 
> Why don't you call Roger Iwata on Monday and ask him?



In the spirit of off-topic-ness that's been going on, I thought i'd join the "off-topic-ness" bandwagon :lol:. And i've given up asking Sound Transit questions. When I asked them about the Everett Station expansion project construction dates, they gave me the same information that I found on the website. Talk about customer service....hno:.....


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> In the spirit of off-topic-ness that's been going on, I thought i'd join the "off-topic-ness" bandwagon :lol:. And i've given up asking Sound Transit questions. When I asked them about the Everett Station expansion project construction dates, they gave me the same information that I found on the website. Talk about customer service....hno:.....


No, CALL Roger Iwata.


----------



## guinessbeer55

does anyone know whats going on with the Airport station???

Remember in like June or July when there was that big issue with the contractor wanting like twice as much... what happened?? has the station begun construction yet?


----------



## greg_christine

Assuming that Proposition 1 passes and the Link light rail system reaches Everett and Tacoma, what is the role for Sounder?

I realize that Sounder serves points that are not on the Link light rail line; however, the systems will be largely parallel and the Sounder service is so infrequent and the stations are so far apart that it would probably be more convenient for most passengers to drive to a park-and-ride lot on the Link light rail line.

The commuter rail lines in other cities generally serve points that are well beyond the terminal points of the light rail and/or metro lines. Seattle will have commuter rail and light rail lines largely parallel each other. Under the ST2 plan, the Sounder commuter rail line will continue to serve a line that extends only a modest distance beyond the Link light rail line. The only promise for an extension involves a study to extend Sounder further south. There is no actual funding under ST2 to extend the line. Under ST2, the only funded improvements to Sounder involve the existing tracks and stations.










For more information on the ST2 plan, see the following link:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml


----------



## greg_christine

Looking at the Sounder service schedule < http://www.soundtransit.org/x71.xml >, there are just six round-trip trains per day between Seattle and Tacoma and just five round-trip trains per day between Seattle and Everett. Two of the trains between Seattle and Everett are actually Amtrak. I don't see any mention in the ST2 plan < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml > of funding to increase the service frequency. I vaguely recall reading that it is not practical to increase the service frequency on the line north because it is single track and carries a lot of freight train traffic.


----------



## UrbanBen

guinessbeer55 said:


> does anyone know whats going on with the Airport station???
> 
> Remember in like June or July when there was that big issue with the contractor wanting like twice as much... what happened?? has the station begun construction yet?


The station has begun construction - foundations and some columns are in already. They've just "value engineered" most of the large glass panels out of it, but they're designing so it can be improved later.

The contractor was also off their rocker - this happened because ST isn't allowed to do their own construction (that's US public policy for you), so when they got only one bid, the contractor knew they could ask for as much as they wanted.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Looking at the Sounder service schedule < http://www.soundtransit.org/x71.xml >, there are just six round-trip trains per day between Seattle and Tacoma and just five round-trip trains per day between Seattle and Everett. Two of the trains between Seattle and Everett are actually Amtrak. I don't see any mention in the ST2 plan < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml > of funding to increase the service frequency. I vaguely recall reading that it is not practical to increase the service frequency on the line north because it is single track and carries a lot of freight train traffic.


First, *when* those trains are is very important. Three of the Everett-Seattle round trips and five of the Tacoma-Seattle round trips are peak hour. Of those, Everett will get one more train this year, and Tacoma will get two more. A second reverse commute trip will also be added to the Tacoma schedule this year.

Seattle-Everett BNSF trackway is complex. Most of the line is double tracked, but there are two single track sections. As part of Sound Move, we've paid to upgrade those two sections to double track (making the entire line double track), and those two projects are under way - you can see the more obvious one in Edmonds. WSDOT has also funded several grade separations in the south corridor and plans to do more, making it likely that more trains can be added in a Sound Transit 3 package.

Mukilteo station will open soon, and the large Edmonds Crossing project to create a combined ferry/bus/train station will likely start in the coming few years. The new combined Sounder/Amtrak maintenance base is slated for a near-term construction start in South Seattle, and a complete overhaul of King Street Station as a major bus/rail transit hub is in the works in the coming years, to be implemented with the replacement of the lid over the BNSF line at Jackson Street. Lakewood and South Tacoma stations are under way, and the D to M street trackway project to extend Sounder south to them is in final design. Dupont has expressed an interest in peak-hour service to Tacoma and Seattle, and the potential for extension will be considered in Sound Transit 2. Link won't get anywhere close to the southern Tacoma suburbs, and these projects have started discussions in Thurston County about connecting Olympia to Seattle with rail again in new right of way.

With just the service we have now, Sounder as a whole sees over 10,000 daily passengers with a rather steep curve of new ridership - they're seeing nearly double the ridership of any of the all-day bus lines, some of which are in higher density corridors. Most of the south line riders are coming from the cities in the Sounder corridor and points east - and note that there are only some 1700 parking stalls available, so it should be clear that the vast majority of riders can't "just drive" to another system. The cities of Kent, Auburn and Tukwila also plan to add huge amounts of high-density residential and mixed use to the walkable zones just around the stations. Tukwila platform is basically in the middle of a small undeveloped area right now, and the city plans to coordinate with Sound Transit to build hundreds of residential units and a retail core right there.

I suggest you check out Google Earth so you get an idea of the topography. Sounder runs through a well populated valley that's seeing massive growth and has completely backed up roadways. Link will run through a completely different urban corridor with only a handful of links to the valley - Interstate 5 and a large hill are in the way, as are a number of miles.


----------



## greg_christine

^^Is there a plan to actually increase the number of Sounder trains each day?

I am asking this because I see no mention of an increase in Sounder service in the Sound Transit 2 plan. If there is a plan to increase the number of trains, I assume it is already being accomplished under other funding. Sound Transit still has at least one train on lease to Metrolink in southern California. I have not yet heard of any plan to bring that train back to Seattle.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> ^^Is there a plan to actually increase the number of Sounder trains each day?
> 
> I am asking this because I see no mention of an increase in Sounder service in the Sound Transit 2 plan. If there is a plan to increase the number of trains, I assume it is already being accomplished under other funding. Sound Transit still has at least one train on lease to Metrolink in southern California. I have not yet heard of any plan to bring that train back to Seattle.


You must not read the service implementation plans...
http://soundtransit.org/x1195.xml

We're adding one more peak hour round trip to Everett, and two more to Tacoma, with one more off-peak to Tacoma, all this year. That's all as part of Sound Move, not ST2. ST2 does include major upgrades to Sounder stations, by the way.


----------



## SteveM

greg_christine said:


> ^^Is there a plan to actually increase the number of Sounder trains each day?
> 
> I am asking this because I see no mention of an increase in Sounder service in the Sound Transit 2 plan. If there is a plan to increase the number of trains, I assume it is already being accomplished under other funding. Sound Transit still has at least one train on lease to Metrolink in southern California. I have not yet heard of any plan to bring that train back to Seattle.


Sound Transit would need to pay BNSF more to run more than the already negotiated and planned 9 south round-trips and 4 north round-trips. I presume the planned expansion (which should be in place in 2008) includes calling back the Metrolink-leased train, but as far as I know, there is no further expansion planned at present.

One of the key issues (UrbanBen alluded to this but didn't call it out explicitly) is that the BNSF rail lines used for Sounder are already pretty congested. So even though the trains are quite popular (nearly 1000/people per train per day) it's hard to imagine that expanding the service would be cheap -- unlike Eastside line discussed elsewhere, BNSF really needs the Sounder tracks for its core business.


----------



## UrbanBen

SteveM said:


> Sound Transit would need to pay BNSF more to run more than the already negotiated and planned 9 south round-trips and 4 north round-trips. I presume the planned expansion (which should be in place in 2008) includes calling back the Metrolink-leased train, but as far as I know, there is no further expansion planned at present.
> 
> One of the key issues (UrbanBen alluded to this but didn't call it out explicitly) is that the BNSF rail lines used for Sounder are already pretty congested. So even though the trains are quite popular (nearly 1000/people per train per day) it's hard to imagine that expanding the service would be cheap -- unlike Eastside line discussed elsewhere, BNSF really needs the Sounder tracks for its core business.


Yes - the trackage rights for the trains we have now were in the hundreds of millions of dollars, although part of the cost was because they're *perpetual* agreements. I didn't read whether we'll get the Metrolink train back, but I'm sure we will. We won't need replacements for any of our current equipment for a good twenty-five years, and there's some dumb federal rule about not allowing operation of any equipment more than 30 or 40 years old, so it makes sense not to bother buying more in ST2.

A few of our trains are now operating with over 1000 passengers - more passengers than seats. The discussions right now are about extending platform lengths to accomodate an eighth car, and potentially getting new or doubling up locomotives to accomodate more than that. It doesn't matter to BNSF how long our trains are (to a point), just how many we run.

The eastside line is totally bogus, by the way. The people touting it are all either nutjobs who oppose transit, or nutjobs who don't use their brains. It doesn't run through ANY urban cores - if someone told you where it runs in Bellevue is "downtown", they're lying or dumb. It's well outside 90% of passengers' willing walking distance from ANY of the downtown office core, and there is no way Bellevue is going to accept a CBD split across 405 without huge federal funding for lids that can support multistory development. That ain't happening in the next decade.

Oh, I went and actually checked, and Sounder has about 2500 parking spaces - I didn't realize Kent station had 1000 spaces, I was thinking more like 500. This is still less than a third of ridership for the south line - it'll be a quarter of south line ridership by the end of 2008, and likely less than a fifth by the end of 2009 as the new trips start to mature.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

guinessbeer55 said:


> does anyone know whats going on with the Airport station???
> 
> Remember in like June or July when there was that big issue with the contractor wanting like twice as much... what happened?? has the station begun construction yet?


I passed that site last Wednesday. They already started working on it. The foundation part is almost finished and getting ready to get new airport station built. The track is almost arrive at the airport station. Its looking good.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> The eastside line is totally bogus, by the way. The people touting it are all either nutjobs who oppose transit, or nutjobs who don't use their brains. It doesn't run through ANY urban cores - if someone told you where it runs in Bellevue is "downtown", they're lying or dumb. It's well outside 90% of passengers' willing walking distance from ANY of the downtown office core, and there is no way Bellevue is going to accept a CBD split across 405 without huge federal funding for lids that can support multistory development. That ain't happening in the next decade.


eastside line of the SOUNDER???


----------



## kub86

I emailed Sound Transit about a sounder "East line" a few weeks ago and they said it can be studied with ST2. The tracks will somehow either be integrated with Link or Sounder. Since the tracks aren't in downtown Bellevue, then it'd be logical to build underground tracks for Sounder to the Bellevue Transit Center...probably underneath the East Link platforms.

Ben: The next Sounder service increase is *next* September in 2008. Not this year.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

kub86 said:


> I emailed Sound Transit about a sounder "East line" a few weeks ago and they said it can be studied with ST2. The tracks will somehow either be integrated with Link or Sounder. Since the tracks aren't in downtown Bellevue, then it'd be logical to build underground tracks for Sounder to the Bellevue Transit Center...probably underneath the East Link platforms.
> 
> Ben: The next Sounder service increase is *next* September in 2008. Not this year.


That's just crazy. They could just build a streetcar line along NE 6th connecting the BNSF tracks west through Downtown to Bellevue Square. Bellevue is going to redevelop that east area anyway, why not add a streetcar line to boost development on both sides of I-405?


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> That's just crazy. They could just build a streetcar line along NE 6th connecting the BNSF tracks west through Downtown to Bellevue Square. Bellevue is going to redevelop that east area anyway, why not add a streetcar line to boost development on both sides of I-405?


I really do not see the point of having streetcars in Bellevue. I think it would be more important to integrate some real mass transit in Bellevue. The buses can do the job in Bellevue just fine. 

But what's this I hear? There is a Sounder proposal coming to Bellevue? How is that going to work? Bellevue hasn't got much room at grade rail lines in the heavily populated areas. Underground tunnel maybe? Maybe the sounder train is a little...big...I think something along the lines of a DC Metro system would fit nicely in the future.


----------



## kub86

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> That's just crazy. They could just build a streetcar line along NE 6th connecting the BNSF tracks west through Downtown to Bellevue Square. Bellevue is going to redevelop that east area anyway, why not add a streetcar line to boost development on both sides of I-405?


You're expecting that 1000 commuters from a single Sounder train will patiently wait for a little streetcar to ferry all of them (making about 4-5 trips) across the freeway. That's just crazy.

The BTC is in a perfect location already. Just build underground tracks to the BTC like what East Link will (hopefully) do....I don't see anything crazy about this?

HAWC: the sounder idea is just a study. Sound transit is buying rights for the BNSF tracks in Bellevue and Renton. The problem is that the BNSF tracks don't run through downtown Bellevue. Another kink is how to connect the Renton tracks with the South Line.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> You must not read the service implementation plans...
> http://soundtransit.org/x1195.xml
> 
> We're adding one more peak hour round trip to Everett, and two more to Tacoma, with one more off-peak to Tacoma, all this year. That's all as part of Sound Move, not ST2. ST2 does include major upgrades to Sounder stations, by the way.


I was hoping that the Sounder improvements might bring the sort of service schedule that is seen on the Metrolink San Bernardino line < http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=281 > or the Caltrain line < http://www.caltrain.org/timetable.html >. For both lines, trains are at twenty minute intervals during the height of rush hour and run approximately hourly for the rest of the day until fairly late in the evening. I guess this sort of schedule isn't possible for Sounder given the amount of freight train traffic.

Even with a couple of extra trains per day in each direction, the typical Sounder park-and-ride passenger is likely to be tempted to drive an extra 10 or 15 minutes to the nearest Link light rail station where the wait time for a train is no more than 10 minutes during rush hour rather than risk waiting 30 minutes for the next Sounder train. This would also avoid any anxiety that the passenger might have regarding working late and missing the last Sounder train out of Seattle.


----------



## greg_christine

To all those who live in the Seattle area, don't forget to vote today.


----------



## Tcmetro

Once (and if) Link reaches Ash Way, could Snohomish County vote on money to extend the line to Everett, sooner than ST3?

Also, Sound Transit may be getting the cars from the VRE back in 2009. The VRE operates between Washington and Fredricksburg.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> I was hoping that the Sounder improvements might bring the sort of service schedule that is seen on the Metrolink San Bernardino line < http://www.metrolinktrains.com/schedules/html.php?id=281 > or the Caltrain line < http://www.caltrain.org/timetable.html >. For both lines, trains are at twenty minute intervals during the height of rush hour and run approximately hourly for the rest of the day until fairly late in the evening. I guess this sort of schedule isn't possible for Sounder given the amount of freight train traffic.
> 
> Even with a couple of extra trains per day in each direction, the typical Sounder park-and-ride passenger is likely to be tempted to drive an extra 10 or 15 minutes to the nearest Link light rail station where the wait time for a train is no more than 10 minutes during rush hour rather than risk waiting 30 minutes for the next Sounder train. This would also avoid any anxiety that the passenger might have regarding working late and missing the last Sounder train out of Seattle.


The typical Sounder passenger isn't a park and ride passenger.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> Once (and if) Link reaches Ash Way, could Snohomish County vote on money to extend the line to Everett, sooner than ST3?
> 
> Also, Sound Transit may be getting the cars from the VRE back in 2009. The VRE operates between Washington and Fredricksburg.


Sure, Snohomish could get their own ballot measure set up to direct Sound Transit to operate an extension.


----------



## UrbanBen

kub86 said:


> I emailed Sound Transit about a sounder "East line" a few weeks ago and they said it can be studied with ST2. The tracks will somehow either be integrated with Link or Sounder. Since the tracks aren't in downtown Bellevue, then it'd be logical to build underground tracks for Sounder to the Bellevue Transit Center...probably underneath the East Link platforms.
> 
> Ben: The next Sounder service increase is *next* September in 2008. Not this year.


Yeah, I know when it is, I just already consider this the 2008 service implementation year, sorry to be all confusing.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> I really do not see the point of having streetcars in Bellevue. I think it would be more important to integrate some real mass transit in Bellevue. The buses can do the job in Bellevue just fine.
> 
> But what's this I hear? There is a Sounder proposal coming to Bellevue? How is that going to work? Bellevue hasn't got much room at grade rail lines in the heavily populated areas. Underground tunnel maybe? Maybe the sounder train is a little...big...I think something along the lines of a DC Metro system would fit nicely in the future.


There is NO sounder proposal coming to Bellevue. I was just trying to pre-empt someone bringing up the crazy talk.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> There is NO sounder proposal coming to Bellevue. I was just trying to pre-empt someone bringing up the crazy talk.


Awwwww darnit  We'll just stick with light rail then haha.

Anyone know when the results for the vote are going to come?


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Awwwww darnit  We'll just stick with light rail then haha.
> 
> Anyone know when the results for the vote are going to come?


It should post starting at 8:15.
http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/200711/resPage5.htm


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> The typical Sounder passenger isn't a park and ride passenger.


The following are the parking lot capacities at Sounder stations:

Tacoma Dome: 2410
Puyallup: 364
Sumner: 286 primary lot + 41 secondary lot
Auburn: 676
Kent: 1101
Tukwila: 233
Edmonds: 115
Everett: 481

The total number of parking spaces is 5707. The average number of boardings for Sounder during the second quarter of 2007 was 7573. The term "boardings" implies that one-way trips are counted, not round-trips. Each round-trip passenger is counted twice. If a majority of the passengers are not park-and-ride passengers, there must be a lot of empty parking spaces at the stations.

Information on the facilities at each station can be found under the station information and maps links on the following webpage:
http://www.soundtransit.org/x1218.xml
A summary of the ridership for all of Sound Transit's operations can be found at the following link:
http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q2_2007.pdf


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

greg_christine said:


> The following are the parking lot capacities at Sounder stations:
> 
> Tacoma Dome: 2410
> Puyallup: 364
> Sumner: 286 primary lot + 41 secondary lot
> Auburn: 676
> Kent: 1101
> Tukwila: 233
> Edmonds: 115
> Everett: 481


I can't believe Everett has such a lack of spaces! Sound Transit better hurry up with the Everett Station expansion project (another disappointment from Sound Transit).


----------



## HAWC1506

NOOOOOOOO!!!! The ballot is failing  44 to 55...BUT, tensions on, because that's only 14 percent of the votes...


----------



## Jaxom92

Indeed the prop seems to be going down. We'll have to wait and see till all the votes are counted, but it doesn't seem promising. Should it fail what do you all think Sound Transit's next move is? Next year? The year after? Will the package change (lesser scope)? Will it be tied with roads again?


----------



## HAWC1506

Does not look too good. It's going down, that's all I can say at this point :bash:


----------



## greg_christine

SEATTLE TIMES

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003998763_elexroadsandtransit07m.html

Election 2007

Huge roads-transit plan gets trounced
By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

Voters rejected a multibillion-dollar regional roads-and-transit package on Tuesday, likely leaving state lawmakers with a transportation mess that could take years to sort out.

With nearly half of the votes counted, Proposition 1 was failing overwhelmingly early today in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. In order to pass, the measure would have to win two out of every three votes remaining to be counted.

"People like roads, people like transit, people don't like taxes," said state Rep. Fred Jarrett, R-Mercer Island, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee and a Proposition 1 supporter.

The measure, the largest tax package ever put on the ballot in Washington, took five years to craft. Political leaders were counting on it to expand light rail, slow the growing gridlock on highways and help pay for enormously expensive projects like replacing the Highway 520 Bridge.

Failure means transportation planners must start over from scratch.

"There is no Plan B," Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen said.

Speculation about what happens next ranges from placing tolls on highways to raise money and reduce congestion, to changing the state constitution so Western Washington can tax itself at higher rates than the rest of the state to pay for projects.

Sound Transit could try to come back to the ballot with a separate transit proposal, and local and state leaders could push a smaller roads package.

Judging from Tuesday's election results, voters were in a belt-tightening mood.

A constitutional amendment that would lower the approval level for school levies from 60 percent of the vote to 50 percent was trailing.

Tim Eyman's Initiative 960, which would require a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature to approve tax increases, was leading. And voters said yes to a constitutional amendment requiring the state to set aside a small portion of tax collections each year in a hard-to-tap "rainy day" fund.

Voters also passed Referendum 67, which would allow policyholders to sue for triple damages if an insurance company "unreasonably" denied a legitimate claim.

In King County races, Republican Dan Satterberg was well ahead of Democrat Bill Sherman for county prosecutor, and Republican incumbent Jane Hague defeated attorney Richard Pope for County Council.

With most of the ballots coming in by mail, it could take several days in some cases to determine for sure who's won or lost.

Proposition 1 would have increased car-tab and sales taxes in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to improve highways and extend light rail. The package would have cost nearly $18 billion in 2006 dollars and around $47 billion over 50 years.

The proposal would have built 186 miles of new road lanes and 50 miles of light rail. Architects of the plan packaged the projects together in the hope of attracting votes from both those who want bigger highways and those who favor mass transit.

They also spread the projects across King, Snohomish and Pierce counties to garner regional support.

Opponents were upbeat late Tuesday night.

Mike O'Brien, chairman of the local chapter of the Sierra Club, watched the results come in at a local pizza restaurant. A well-wisher patted him on the back and whispered, "It's over."

King County Executive Ron Sims, whose reversal on the proposition may have helped defeat it, downplayed his spoiler role. "The voters rejected their plan. I had one vote, the same as anybody else," said Sims, a former Sound Transit chairman.

Sims predicted that Gov. Christine Gregoire would pull all sides together to propose a new plan.

"We've had issues go before the voters the first time, then we came back and were successful the second time. I think that's going to happen this time," he said.

Gregoire could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

If the vote count doesn't turn around, there'll be a lot of second-guessing about what went wrong. Did voters reject the roads part of the package or the light-rail proposal? Or was the tax increase just too big?

"We'll have to look when we get to the end. Is it the money or the program list?" said House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island. "I have no good feeling for why people are saying no."

Post-election polling may provide clues, but the reasons likely will vary depending on which part of the three-county region you're talking about.

The Sierra Club, an advocate of light rail, bashed the measure mainly because of the billions that would be spent on roads.

Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman attacked it because of the money going to light rail. Others, including Sims, found fault with the entire proposal.

Support from the state's top political leaders was lukewarm. Gregoire and the House and Senate transportation chairwomen, Clibborn and Haugen, said they wanted Proposition 1 to pass but also made it clear they weren't entirely happy with the plan.

Earlier this year, Proposition 1 backers seemingly had a lock on the election. They'd lined up the bulk of the region's establishment, including Boeing, Microsoft, labor and most of the environmental groups. They raised about $4 million and blanketed the airwaves with slick commercials.

A defeat may feel like déjà vu to many in the campaign.

In 2002, a lot of the same players backed Referendum 51, a statewide transportation package put on the ballot by the state Legislature. It would have increased the gas tax by 9 cents a gallon to pay for billions of dollars in highway projects. That campaign also raised millions for advertising and yet the measure was defeated by about 62 percent to 38 percent of the vote.

Now state and local political leaders may have to regroup and find another way to deal with the same problems: worsening traffic congestion, bridges in danger of collapsing and a growing population that will likely make conditions even worse.

After Referendum 51 failed, legislators went back and increased state gas taxes in stages without asking for voter approval. An effort to repeal a 9.5-cent gas-tax increase in 2005 failed, and the state Department of Transportation started work on several projects.

Christian Sinderman, a Democratic consultant, said there may be a lesson in the Proposition 1 vote. "It's hard to get a clear take-away message, but if voters are saying anything, it's smaller and less expensive," he said. "If voters reject the 10-course dinner, you've got to go back to a la carte."

Clibborn agreed that might be the route lawmakers would take. But she noted that the Legislature likely would not raise gas taxes like it did in the past to build new projects.

State forecasts project that revenue from gas taxes will decline as drivers reduce consumption because of higher gas prices.

So what will the Legislature do in January?

"I don't really know," Clibborn said.

Many opponents have touted congestion pricing — the use of tolls to discourage driving during peak traffic hours — as a way to both reduce traffic jams and provide money for transportation projects.

But last week, Clibborn said she doesn't expect that option to play a major role soon. "I think we could get there in a decade," she said.

Haugen says she'd like to see the state constitution changed to allow Western Washington to tax itself at a higher rate than the rest of the state to tackle transportation projects if Proposition 1 fails.

Still, whatever happens next "isn't going to happen overnight," she said. "It's not a one-session deal."

Staff reporters Susan Gilmore and Mike Lindblom contributed to this story. Andrew Garber: 360-943-9882 or [email protected]


==========================================================
SEATLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/338623_transpo07.html

Proposition 1: Voters hit the brakes
Most expensive proposal in history losing in 3 counties
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

Voters in the central Puget Sound counties were rejecting the biggest transportation tax proposal in state history, one designed to unite transit and highway advocates to improve regional traffic congestion.

Tuesday night, it appeared that King, Pierce and Snohomish county voters were saying no to the measure, which combined a $30.8 billion Sound Transit proposal to add 50 miles of light rail line over 30 years and a $16.4 billion plan to build 186 miles of new lanes and ramps in the three counties.

The transportation ballot results appeared to follow a theme that voters were watching their pocketbooks during this election cycle. They rejected the proposed transportation taxes, approved a measure making it harder to enact new state taxes, voted to retain "super-majority" approval for local school levies and strongly approved a law that would penalize insurance companies that don't pay legitimate claims.

If Proposition 1, the roads and transit measure fails, King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson, a proponent, hopes that regional leaders will convene again to consider submitting another package of improvements. "We must do that," she said, "because the problem still exists."

Backers weren't conceding defeat Tuesday night. But Shawn Bunney, a Pierce County councilman and chairman of the Regional Transportation Investment District, which drew up the road portion of the measure, said he'd be "fidgeting" while waiting for final results.

Aaron Toso, a spokesman for the Yes on Roads & Transit Campaign, said proponents were surprised at the early returns, but were not conceding defeat.

"A lot of people were undecided and waited until the very end to vote," Toso said. "I think we have to be cautious about calling it; we're hoping some things can turn around in our favor."

Proposition 1 opponents were in a more celebratory mood. King County Executive Ron Sims, an opponent, said he was feeling optimistic, even though it was too early to declare victory.

Leaders "are going to hear from the public about what they really want. This isn't the first time the issue has failed," he said. 

The vote came after the most expensive transportation-issue efforts in nine years; opposing campaigns raised and spent nearly $5 million trying to influence voters.

Proposition 1 would impose a six-tenths of a percent sales tax and an eight-tenths of a percent tax on car licenses in the urban areas of the three counties, on top of current sales and license levies. If passed, it would raise the sales tax in Seattle to 9.4 percent.

With the measure failing, the Legislature likely will act on its own on financing to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge, said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island and chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee. 

With the bridge aging and considered structurally vulnerable, the Legislature will likely consider a package using state gas taxes, federal money and tolls that it enacts on its own. 

"It has to be done," Haugen said. "We can't afford to have a situation like we had in Minnesota," a reference to the urban bridge collapse in August. 

Seattle resident Seung Yi voted for the measure at his polling place near Green Lake. "It's not a really hard vote, seeing how hard (commuting) has gotten. It's only going to get worse,." he said.

Some voters agonized over the ballot measure because of its length and complications. But Amy Larson, a teacher who lives in Seattle and commutes to her job on the Eastside, voted no after a lot of soul-searching. 

"I want to see how the Sea-Tac light rail (segment) goes before we put up 50 more miles of it," she said. 

Detailed construction schedules have not been determined, though the road projects would be completed in 20 years and the light rail extensions in 30 years.

Haugen said she doubts that regional leaders will attempt another transportation-tax package, given the other anti-tax votes Tuesday. 

Others, however, spoke of attempting another proposal, which counties can still do. Mike O'Brien, chairman of the Northwest Chapter of the Sierra Club who opposed the transportation measure, said the region still needs a package that provides more transit options.

"We still care significantly about global warming," he said. 

County Councilwoman Patterson said it wasn't clear to her why voters said no. She worried about the supportive coalition breaking apart, with roads factions and transit factions blaming each other. "We need to do an in-depth analysis of why."

Whatever the outcome, the Regional Transportation Investment District, which developed the highway project list, will meet at 7 p.m. Thursday to discuss its next move. The district was set up to finance the highway projects, though it wouldn't own them. Among the topics when it meets in King County Council Chambers in Seattle will be the next steps, which could include deciding how to handle project construction contracts if voters approve the measure.

"What we consistently hear from our members is that the status quo simply does not work any more for them as business leaders or as residents of the Puget Sound region," said Steve Leahy, president and chief executive officer of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce. 

The ballot measure was "a comprehensive, balanced approach, and with it, we can create a multimodal transportation system that works for our region."

The measure was supported by major businesses, organized labor and most environmental groups, who liked the proposal for an expanded light rail system that included extensions from downtown Seattle to Tacoma, Mill Creek and the Overlake area of Redmond. They also liked 30 miles of car pool-bus lanes that they said would speed up bus service, reduce the numbers of cars and cut pollution.

Seattle stood to get $323 million in regional money if the proposition passed, which would finance about 90 percent of the improvements to Mercer Street, the Spokane Street Viaduct and a new railroad overpass at South Lander Street, all designed to improve traffic flow if the Alaskan Way Viaduct is torn down and rebuilt.

State legislators mandated the joint roads-and-transit measure, hoping to end the historic tug of war between transit and highway advocates over which solutions better deal with congestion. They also were looking for new sources of project funding, convinced that gas tax revenue would drop as cars become more efficient and burn less fuel.

The proposal included money for replacing the Evergreen Point Bridge. But there was no public plan for where to find the $1.1 billion for the span if the measure failed. 

And some critics noted that the package did not include money to replace the viaduct.

KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPOSITION 1

If the measure is rejected, could a similar one appear on a future ballot? 

There is no alternate ballot measure planned right now. The main question is whether supporters would try again with a similar measure, or if a measure separating the transit and road improvement portions of the measure could go to voters. 

Are there alternative possibilities? 

Some politicians are pushing for the two issues to remain part of one measure in any future, related measures. The Legislature would have to re-enact a bill to combine the two issues again on another ballot. The three counties involved in Proposition 1 also could form different districts and create new, less comprehensive ballot measures. The Regional Transportation District and Sound Transit also could offer separate plans to voters. 

What would Proposition 1 cost me if it passed? 

If you lived in an urbanized area of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, you would pay 6 cents on a $10 purchase. That would pay for the rail and road portions of the measure, an increase of $150 a year per typical household. Also a car-tab tax of $80 for each $10,000 of vehicle value would go to roads. 

What about the taxes I already pay for the Sound Transit bill passed in 1996? 

Taxes already levied for Sound Transit -- 4 cents in sales tax on a $10 purchase and $30 for every $10,000 of value in car-tab tax (scheduled to end in 2028, when bonds are repaid) -- remain in effect regardless of the outcome.

P-I reporters Dan Catchpole, Casey McNerthney and Kery Murakami contributed to this report. P-I reporter Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or [email protected].


----------



## Tcmetro

U Link is still going to happen. Will the S 200th St Extension and the Northgate extension be paid for by the current Sound Move taxes?


----------



## citruspastels

no. it won't. sad ain't it?


----------



## Jaxom92

Unfortunately, due to the underestimation of the costs back when the agency was first created, the project had to be scaled back. There is no money for Northgate or S. 200th St.


----------



## citruspastels

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I can't believe Everett has such a lack of spaces! Sound Transit better hurry up with the Everett Station expansion project (another disappointment from Sound Transit).


how exactly do you know that everett needs more spaces?


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> The following are the parking lot capacities at Sounder stations:
> 
> Tacoma Dome: 2410
> Puyallup: 364
> Sumner: 286 primary lot + 41 secondary lot
> Auburn: 676
> Kent: 1101
> Tukwila: 233
> Edmonds: 115
> Everett: 481
> 
> The total number of parking spaces is 5707. The average number of boardings for Sounder during the second quarter of 2007 was 7573. The term "boardings" implies that one-way trips are counted, not round-trips. Each round-trip passenger is counted twice. If a majority of the passengers are not park-and-ride passengers, there must be a lot of empty parking spaces at the stations.
> 
> Information on the facilities at each station can be found under the station information and maps links on the following webpage:
> http://www.soundtransit.org/x1218.xml
> A summary of the ridership for all of Sound Transit's operations can be found at the following link:
> http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q2_2007.pdf


So while it's harder to find, station on/offs in Tacoma are just a couple hundred - almost all of those spaces go to express bus riders (most Tacoma-Seattle trips on transit are bus) and people driving into downtown and taking the streetcar to work. There are also plenty of people driving to the other stations to take other services. I meant there are some 2500 spaces available to Sounder passengers.

And using the average weekday boardings for Q2? First, we're at the end of Q3. Second, the weekday boardings TODAY are 10,000. It doesn't matter what the average was - it matters where the trend ended up. If you average a line that's increasing, you don't get recent data.

I know you think you can smugly argue your way out of anything using numbers from a web site, but I actually talk to ST constantly about what's going on.


----------



## greg_christine

^^

1. I quoted the second qaurter ridership numbers because those are the latest numbers that I could find on the Sound Transit website.

2. I will take you at your word that most of the people who park at the Tacoma Dome Station are using the express bus service to Seattle rather than the Sounder commuter trains. What does this say about the effectiveness of the Sounder commuter train service if the express bus service remains more popular?


----------



## mhays

The express buses travel at freeway HOV speeds, then go all the way through Downtown Seattle, stopping every couple blocks. What's not to like? 

Sounder's role is to stop at a bunch of places. The Tacoma express' role is to avoid stops entirely.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> ^^
> 
> 1. I quoted the second qaurter ridership numbers because those are the latest numbers that I could find on the Sound Transit website.
> 
> 2. I will take you at your word that most of the people who park at the Tacoma Dome Station are using the express bus service to Seattle rather than the Sounder commuter trains. What does this say about the effectiveness of the Sounder commuter train service if the express bus service remains more popular?


From the CEO corner's report last week on ridership:



> In addition, the numbers show that each of our services posted significant ridership gains in the third quarter: Sounder up 33 percent (which includes the bump in south line ridership with the I-5 lane closures in August); ST Express up 11 percent for the quarter; and Tacoma link light rail up six percent for the third quarter.


That's probably 33% from Q3 2006's 6,355 - or 8,400 average. I've been told directly (by asking, something you should really start doing) that daily is now right at 10,000 - largely because of the new round trips - and that the increases are already accelerating in Q4 as the new service fills up. Two more peak-direction trains in 2008 aren't going to hurt, either.

You'll see a new ridership report on the web site tomorrow, I believe - after the board meeting.

Why take me at my word? Ask Sound Transit what weekday Sounder on/offs are at Tacoma Dome station. They have phones and email. Until you learn to do that, you're always going to be three months behind.

How is express bus service that runs all day and gets about 5000 weekday boardings "more popular" than train service that only runs a few times a day and yet manages to get 10000 weekday boardings? I mean, are you serious? In ten years, Sounder will be faster than express bus service to Tacoma, anyway. And why on earth would you make a judgment about a *line* based on a point on that line, instead of the whole? This is the same crap argument that the Seattle Times was making against South Link. I responded here:
http://seatrans.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-you-should-read-p-i-instead.html


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

citruspastels said:


> how exactly do you know that everett needs more spaces?


I parked there dumbass! (sorry)

It took me so long to find a space. I had to park a couple of blocks away and I almost missed the bus.


----------



## citruspastels

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I parked there dumbass! (sorry)
> 
> It took me so long to find a space. I had to park a couple of blocks away and I almost missed the bus.


that's not funny. totally juvenile and pointless.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I parked there dumbass! (sorry)
> 
> It took me so long to find a space. I had to park a couple of blocks away and I almost missed the bus.


This actually reinforces my earlier point - bus users are using Everett park and ride as well.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm not talking about the entire I-405 plan. What I meant was just HOT lanes in general.
> 
> Assuming we (region) begin with a simple HOT lane system (such as with SR 167), the cost will be about $2 million per mile (in each direction). And then assuming we upgrade our HOT lane system to something similar to the California 91 HOT lane-express system, the cost will be about $13 million per mile (in each direction).


That's a ridiculous statement. Restriping 167 for HOT was $18m - but they restriped HOV. Where do you get the extra physical lanes you're talking about?


----------



## UrbanBen

By the way, for those still harping about Link ending "just before the airport", I have for you a pretty picture. Note the part at the top, trackway going from the "just before the airport" station (Tukwila International) to the airport itself.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> That's a ridiculous statement. Restriping 167 for HOT was $18m - but they restriped HOV. Where do you get the extra physical lanes you're talking about?


Don't judge so fast: I was assuming that the number of lanes stay the same on a certain highway and only restriping plus tolling equipment is added. That's all. And i'm not talking about I-405; i'm talking about highways in our region where HOT lanes (from restriped lanes) could reduce congestion the most efficiently and effectively.

Man, you're ridiculous....


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


>


Wow, we're still talking about the Central Link? :lol:

Looks impressive no matter what.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Unless you have 3+ HOV lanes or HOT/HOT Express-Lanes system. I know WSDOT is considering that as part of the I-405 Corridor Program.


I was responding to this - 3+ HOV lanes on 405? There are places where all of 405 is still only 3 lanes, total (2 GP, 1 HOV).


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> I was responding to this - 3+ HOV lanes on 405? There are places where all of 405 is still only 3 lanes, total (2 GP, 1 HOV).


OH! Okay, I meant changing the carpool lane restriction from 2 or more carpools (hence *2+*) to 3 or more carpools (hence *3+*). I remember reading in the *I-405 Corridor Program FEIS* that the restriction would be changed, potentially sometime around 2030. That's probably assuming no one takes mass transit along I-405 and drivers continue to clog our highways instead of giving up driving and wasting gas.


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> OH! Okay, I meant changing the carpool lane restriction from 2 or more carpools (hence *2+*) to 3 or more carpools (hence *3+*). I remember reading in the *I-405 Corridor Program FEIS* that the restriction would be changed, potentially sometime around 2030. That's probably assuming no one takes mass transit along I-405 and drivers continue to clog our highways instead of giving up driving and wasting gas.


I think we would need to change the restrictions faster than 2030...


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> ...that's because we aren't looking at long-term costs. Buses last about 12 years before major overhaul. Train cars generally last twice that. And where's your quality of service metric? You can't possibly think it's valid to blindly compare operating costs for different things.
> 
> One more cranky thing: Where's your alternative for moving the peak-hour riders in th 167/169 corridor? You CANNOT achieve that ridership with bus service without major capital improvements that would not last as long as the Sounder capital improvements (which are perpetual agreements with one-time payment).


Regarding the relative cost of the ST Express buses and the Sounder trains, estimates can be made based on the numbers from the 3rd quarter 2007 ridership report:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q3_2007.pdf

The operating cost per boarding for the buses is $6.40. The operating cost per boarding for the trains is $11.18. The buses carry 28.48 boardings per trip on average. The average number of trips per day is not recorded. For a conservative estimate of the bus cost savings, I will assume that the buses make just two round trips per day or a total of four one-way trips. If the buses operate 250 days per year, the operating cost savings per bus are:

250 days/year x 4 trips/day x 28.48 boarding/trip x ($11.18 - $6.40) per boarding = $136,134 per year per bus

The Sound Transit website features a section about the trains and buses that are used for the various services:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x4270.xml

The cost of the buses varies between $329,178 for a 40' Gillig diesel to $729,928 for a 60' New Flyer diesel-hybrid. The coaches that serve the route between Tacoma and Seattle are 45' MCIs that cost $493,257. Based on these numbers, the operating cost savings of the buses pay for the buses in between three and six years. The result is that the buses would be cheaper to buy and operate even if Sound Transit could obtain the trains for free.

Regarding a "Quality of Service" metric, I am not aware of any such universal metric. If such a metric did exist, it would need to take into account the amount of time that the typical passenger spends waiting at the station. The high frequency of bus service relative to train service would provide the buses with a significant advantage.

Regarding the ability of the buses to meet peak demand in certain corridors, this is a legitimate concern. A study would need to be performed of the cost to add traffic lanes versus build rail lines. The buses might not be the winner in corridors where double-track rail lines already exist; however, such corridors seem to be in short supply in Seattle.


----------



## deasine

UrbanBen said:


> By the way, for those still harping about Link ending "just before the airport", I have for you a pretty picture. Note the part at the top, trackway going from the "just before the airport" station (Tukwila International) to the airport itself.


Omg... looks exactly like Lake-City Way station on the millennium Line in Vancouver. But looks good =D


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine, the operating costs for buses increase over time, and Sounder costs decrease over time. You're kidding yourself if you think you can look at a point on a line and make valid conclusions.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

greg_christine said:


> The result is that the buses would be cheaper to buy and operate even if Sound Transit could obtain the trains for free.





UrbanBen said:


> greg_christine, the operating costs for buses increase over time, and Sounder costs decrease over time. You're kidding yourself if you think you can look at a point on a line and make valid conclusions.


As much as i'm annoyed by UrbanBen, i'd have to agree. Let's say in simple terms: buses and Sounder trains all run on some form of gasoline. However, i'm assuming Sounder has better mileage than a bus (counting in factors such as speed, number of passengers, number of trains, etc.), and buses can get stuck in traffic, therefore buses travel at random speeds, and therefore reducing a bus's mileage. And let's not forget a Sounder train can carry many, many times more passengers than a bus and not affect a Sounder train's performance (just an assumption). I'm guessing if you crammed as much people on a single bus as you did with one Sounder car, the bus's performance (in terms of speed and reliability) would be dramatically reduced, and would require constant (more than average) maintainence, something i'm guessing Sounder doesn't really need. 

So, though Sounder doesn't serve areas that most buses serve (another story for another time), it's still cheaper to use Sounder. Oh, and don't forget that Sound Transit leases a couple of Sounder trains to other transit agencies all over the nation, so we also make additional $$$ from such leases.




> Regarding a "Quality of Service" metric, I am not aware of any such universal metric. If such a metric did exist, it would need to take into account the amount of time that the typical passenger spends waiting at the station. The high frequency of bus service relative to train service would provide the buses with a significant advantage.


I think by "Quality of Service" metric he meant like an official report that documents some of the following to determine the effectiveness of a transit route (using numbers):
a) Operating costs
b) Daily number of passengers
c) Travel times
d) Travel speed
e) Number of obstructions
f) Time delay at stations
g) Time delay at traffic signals/rail crossings
h) Amount of shared traffic on roadway/railway

...and i'm sure there are many more factors, but i'm not a transit expert. I'm just a transit user. And how would the time waiting at a station affect the "quality of service"? If you're referring to the couple of seconds you wait for a bus, I really don't find that to be a factor; it's practically impossible to calculate that (assuming all our time-telling devices are different and a couple of seconds/minutes apart). And sure, SOME bus routes have a higher frequency, but are more slower and more uncomfortable (meaning crowdeness, bumpy road surfaces, etc.)




> Regarding the ability of the buses to meet peak demand in certain corridors, this is a legitimate concern. A study would need to be performed of the cost to add traffic lanes versus build rail lines. The buses might not be the winner in corridors where double-track rail lines already exist; however, such corridors seem to be in short supply in Seattle.


I'm sure most of the tracks Sounder runs on is double-tracked, except for some sections in Tacoma/Lakewood and the tunnel under Downtown Everett. And here's another thing to consider. In the time it takes for WSDOT to build HOV lanes in Tacoma to improve bus speeds (and relieve traffic), the entire Sounder route will travel on double-track sections.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Based on fuel economy, staff requirements, and number of passengers carried, one might hope that the Sounder trains are more cost effective than the ST Express buses, but the 2007 3rd quarter ridership report < http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q3_2007.pdf > tells a different story:

Cost per Boarding (Year-to-Date 2007 Actuals)
ST Express Bus: $6.40
Sounder: $11.18

The numbers are so far apart that it is unlikely that Sounder will become more cost effective than the ST Express buses even with planned increases in service.

If you want to understand the fundamental problem, take a look at the Sounder service schedules < http://www.soundtransit.org/x71.xml >. Most of the trains make one morning trip into Seattle and then sit there all day until they make one evening trip out of Seattle. With such poor utilization of equipment and crews, it is inevitable that the cost per boarding will be high.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^

All that could be due to the problems of the Sounder North Line. The North Line hasn't gotten much "attention" since it began operating in 2003. But with track improvements, the new Mukilteo Station, Edmonds Crossing, and other stuff should improve the cost of Sounder (ANYWAY). And don't forget with all the increase in development in the Snohomish County area that will clog I-5 even more that people will get sick of it and take Sounder. And what about proposed improvements and an extension into S. Tacoma and Lakewood? Have you driven on I-5 through Tacoma? Even on a "good" day, I-5 traffic throughout Tacoma is horrendous, and local streets are even worse. And with no HOV lanes, buses are stuck in all that too. Sounder will just bypass all that crap.

Either way, I am POSITIVE that all improvements to Sounder will make Sounder more cost-effective.




UrbanBen said:


> greg_christine, the operating costs for buses increase over time, and Sounder costs decrease over time.


Could you be a little more specific on the decrease of Sounder costs over time?


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> ^^ Based on fuel economy, staff requirements, and number of passengers carried, one might hope that the Sounder trains are more cost effective than the ST Express buses, but the 2007 3rd quarter ridership report < http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q3_2007.pdf > tells a different story:
> 
> Cost per Boarding (Year-to-Date 2007 Actuals)
> ST Express Bus: $6.40
> Sounder: $11.18
> 
> The numbers are so far apart that it is unlikely that Sounder will become more cost effective than the ST Express buses even with planned increases in service.
> 
> If you want to understand the fundamental problem, take a look at the Sounder service schedules < http://www.soundtransit.org/x71.xml >. Most of the trains make one morning trip into Seattle and then sit there all day until they make one evening trip out of Seattle. With such poor utilization of equipment and crews, it is inevitable that the cost per boarding will be high.


Really? The operating costs for Sounder in 2001 were $30/rider. And you're STILL looking at Sounder as a whole - why don't you find out what the difference in operating costs are between sounder south and sounder north? Sounder South is a lot closer to ST Express in operating costs, and Sounder North will be after the 4th round trip starts, Mukilteo opens, and Edmonds Crossing opens. Operating costs include station maintenance, and the more trips we run the lower those costs go per rider.

Your math is so bad it's astounding. How about the cost of HOV lane installation and maintenance versus our BNSF agreements? How about the cost of replacing buses on a 12 year schedule VERSUS replacing trains on a 30 year schedule? I wish you'd stop making half-assed attempts at pushing your agenda, because you just make life harder for the reality-based population when you wave around incomparable numbers.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^

Yeah, that's what i've pretty much been saying in my last two posts. Thanks for repeating everything I said.


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> ^^
> 
> Yeah, that's what i've pretty much been saying in my last two posts. Thanks for repeating everything I said.


For once we agree wholeheartedly. 

You know, though, these arguments apply to Link as well.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> You know, though, these arguments apply to Link as well.


Yup, i'm aware of that as well.

Link should be even more cost-effective than Sounder or ST Express, assuming ridership is very high upon opening and that Link uses electricity (the type of energy used is still a contributing factor).


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Yup, i'm aware of that as well.
> 
> Link should be even more cost-effective than Sounder or ST Express, assuming ridership is very high upon opening and that Link uses electricity (the type of energy used is still a contributing factor).


Sounder's not electric?


----------



## BoulderGrad

HAWC1506 said:


> Sounder's not electric?


nope, diesel locomotive


----------



## HAWC1506

BoulderGrad said:


> nope, diesel locomotive


I just noticed that it doesn't have a pantograph when I googled it. Wow that's a surprise. I thought commuter trains have gone electric in WA already. Guess not...How long has the sounder been running? The locomotives look pretty old-fashioned to me. Tall and bulky, not much aerodynamic design to it.


----------



## greg_christine

One thing that I like about Sound Transit is that they keep a large library of documents on-line. When I look at the issues of cost and ridership, I always try to use the numbers provided by the transit agency rather than by critics, so I appreciate that Sound Transit provides so much documentation.

The September 2007 Sound Transit report at the following link provides the capital costs for Sounder:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/regional/apr/SounderCommuterRail_10-07.pdf

Capital Costs for Sounder
Lifetime Budget: $1,215 million
Commitment to Date: $950 million
Incurred to Date: $892 million

A similar September 2007 report for the Express Bus service can be found at the following link:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/regional/apr/RegionalExpress_10-07.pdf

Capital Costs for ST Express Bus
Lifetime Budget: $785 million
Commitment to Date: $586 million
Incurred to Date: $505 million

To the best of my knowledge, the reports cover only Sound Move (ST1) and subsequent projects but not ST2 projects.

The ridership numbers for Sounder and the ST Express Bus services for the third quarter of 2007 are reported in the document at the following link:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q3_2007.pdf >

Average Weekday Boardings
Sounder: 8,333
ST Express Bus: 37,689

If you divide the capital cost numbers by the average weekday boardings, you get the following:

September 2007 Incurred to Date Capital Cost/Third Quarter 2007 Average Weekday Boardings
Sounder: $107,000 per boarding
ST Express Bus: $13,400 per boarding

As I have noted in previous postings, the year-to-date operating costs as of the third quarter of 2007 are as follows:

Sounder: $11.18 per boarding
ST Express Bus: $6.40 per boarding

The numbers show that on a cost per boarding basis, the Sounder commuter train service was more expensive to develop and is more expensive to operate than the ST Express Bus service.

The complaint will be made that the capital costs for the ST Express Bus service do not include the costs to build the roads; however, the roads were not paid for by Sound Transit and the roads would have been built regardless of whether the ST Express Bus service had been created.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

greg_christine said:


> The complaint will be made that the capital costs for the ST Express Bus service do not include the costs to build the roads; however, the roads were not paid for by Sound Transit and the roads would have been built regardless of whether the ST Express Bus service had been created.


So you're saying all those direct-access ramps, new park & rides, various local street improvements and so on would have been built even if ST Express wasn't instituted? I really doubt WSDOT even had the faintest interest in building direct-access ramps, or local cities make local street improvements with the funding they have (which is really low). 

Just curious: when was the last time you were in Seattle?


----------



## greg_christine

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> So you're saying all those direct-access ramps, new park & rides, various local street improvements and so on would have been built even if ST Express wasn't instituted? I really doubt WSDOT even had the faintest interest in building direct-access ramps, or local cities make local street improvements with the funding they have (which is really low).
> 
> Just curious: when was the last time you were in Seattle?


1. I was speaking of the traffic lanes when I noted that Sound Transit did not pay to build the roads. You are correct that Sound Transit paid for the access ramps and parking areas. This is likely the largest part of the capital expenditures for the ST Express Bus service.

2. I am originally from Seattle and that is why I pay attention to Seattle transit issues though I have not lived there for many years. I still have friends in Seattle with whom I visited in September. When was the last time you were in Seattle?


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

greg_christine said:


> When was the last time you were in Seattle?


Yesterday; I live in Everett; in fact if you want to know about Seattle, click on the link in my signature.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Here's a piece from "Getting There" in the Seattle P-I that might indicate why Sounder costs are the way they are (but I wouldn't know):

*Question:* Mike Davison, boarding a Sounder train from Everett to an Oct. 14 Seahawks game in Seattle, was startled to see how many riders didn't appear to be buying tickets and said nobody checked to see who paid to get on.

"I only saw half the people at the Edmonds station buying tickets at the electronic kiosk. It became apparent why when we boarded the train: No one took anyone's tickets, or even checked to see if they had one," he said. 

An announcement asked non-payers to get a ticket in Seattle, but "no one checked when we arrived to ensure that the people without tickets were doing this. The same scenario was repeated for the return trip after the game." 

Given the number of round trips on the trains, "I don't think I would be exaggerating to say that a bunch of the riders did not pay. I don't want to fund a system with my hard-earned tax dollars when they don't even attempt to take the fares from the riders."

*Answer:* Not everyone gets checked on every trip. Your columnist took two trips between Everett and Seattle last week and was asked to produce a ticket once. Sound Transit said it doesn't have enough train staff to check all riders all the time, but the Oct. 14 instance was not typical.

Sound Transit spokeswoman Linda Robson said the agency experienced the "very unusual" circumstance of having just one of three ticket vending machines working that day at the Everett station. To stay on schedule and be fair to all riders along the line, she said, staffers decided not to check tickets for that event but to ask people to buy tickets in Seattle, as Davison heard. 

The number of riders "was so high it was not feasible or safe for the staff to strictly enforce ticket purchases at King Street Station," Robson said, and staff decided that day to "resolve the issue in the customers' favor." The ticket-machine problem has since been fixed.

Robson said some of the riders Davison saw may have had passes, and therefore wouldn't need to buy tickets at the station. She said staffers check for tickets randomly, avoiding predictable patterns, and four times a year hire consultants to check every rider for fare evasion. She estimates that "less than 3 percent" of riders get on without tickets or after paying the wrong fare.

Everett trains are staffed by an engineer, a conductor and security officers; trains to Tacoma carry two conductors, she said. Staffers waiting for trains, Robson said, don't collect fares as riders board because it's not their job or they have other duties. Turnstiles like those at state ferry terminals couldn't be justified given fare losses in the hundreds of dollars, she said.

"It's possible someone could ride (free) once or twice, but if they make a habit of it ... they're going to get caught," Robson said. When they are, they're asked to buy their ticket at a subsequent stop, their name is logged and "if their name is found ... on the list for the second time, they may be issued a citation."


----------



## citruspastels

I don't understand this old-fashioned way of checking tickets on the train. Why don't we just do what most modern systems do and use ticket gates? DC, Chicago, Japan... you don't pay the fare, you don't get onto the train. I don't see what's so hard about that.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

citruspastels said:


> I don't understand this old-fashioned way of checking tickets on the train. Why don't we just do what most modern systems do and use ticket gates? DC, Chicago, Japan... you don't pay the fare, you don't get onto the train. I don't see what's so hard about that.


Apparently it's costlier to install ticket gates (never really got that though). I think they should be installed anyway.

On another note: does anyone know when the ORCA Card will be implemented? I'm just dying for a card I can use on any transit agency; beats finding change and what not.


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Apparently it's costlier to install ticket gates (never really got that though). I think they should be installed anyway.
> 
> On another note: does anyone know when the ORCA Card will be implemented? I'm just dying for a card I can use on any transit agency; beats finding change and what not.


Would come in handy if that Starbucks card worked for transit as well  Either way, it'll either buy you 6 cups of coffee or two dozen trips. Whichever one you prefer.


----------



## Tri-ring

HAWC1506 said:


> Would come in handy if that Starbucks card worked for transit as well  Either way, it'll either buy you 6 cups of coffee or two dozen trips. Whichever one you prefer.


Suica/Pasumo cards (Radio Frequency) can be used at variety of shops in and around Tokyo. The card is interchangable with all transit companies around Tokyo so you only need one card to ride all. Right now they are changing the money collect machines in buses so this card can be used as well.
It is simple to use, you deposit money into the card via electronic KIOSK or be charged later through credit and it is great, no more loose change if this system is thoroughly implemented.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

I never really used Suica cards in Japan. Found it easier to just purchase single JR tickets. 

Not to be rude, I think most of use here know how to use some sort of pre-paid transit card [EDIT: that you can continually use, like a Starbucks gift card]. I prefer Taipei's card, you just scan and go; it's even better now that they upgraded the ticket gates.


----------



## Tri-ring

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I never really used Suica cards in Japan. Found it easier to just purchase single JR tickets.
> 
> Not to be rude, I think most of use here know how to use some sort of pre-paid transit card. I prefer Taipei's card, you just scan and go; it's even better now that they upgraded the ticket gates.


Please read closelyhno:, Suica/Pasumo is a radio frequency card like the one used for ID clearance, that balance the deposit within the card through touching the card on a panel it is not a pre-paid single use type.
The great thing about this system is that with the cross-transferable contract by all transit companies making this card to be used at ALL transit system in the greater Kanto region as well as various convenience shops, coffee shops and Kiosk also participating quickly making Tokyo a coin free society.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^

Huh? From what i'm reading, we're pretty much talking about the same thing. A transit card (or in your case, a gift card?) that is either pre-paid or like a credit card you can continually use and reuse for paying fares for participating transit agencies. In Seattle's case, the ORCA card would be acceptable on Metro Transit, Sound Transit (Sounder, Link, ST Express), Community Transit, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit, maybe the SLUT (?), and ferries. Maybe you should read closely hno:....


----------



## Tcmetro

He is talking about a transit pass that is the same technology as the ORCA pass, and is accepted on all transit services in the whole Kanto region. In Tokyo so many people use public transport that stores have decided to accept the pass as payment. It is a good idea, that your bus pass can also be how you buy your next sandwich or magazine.

If the ORCA is ever implemented it would most likely be on: KCM, CT, PT, ET, ST Exp, KT(?), LINK, Sounder, Waterfront Streetcar, SLUT, Seattle Center Monorail (?). So it has good coverage. It would be nice to have it on the Olympia Express.

In Minneapolis we have the Go-To card that was supposed to be the first smart transit card in the US, but we spent $50 million on it. It was supposed to work in 2001 (I think), and it finally opened to the public earlier this year. The $50 million could have been spent better elsewhere, like avoiding the 10% service cut in 2001/2002, or the cuts in 2003, or the 10% cuts in 2005.



> 2. I am originally from Seattle and that is why I pay attention to Seattle transit issues though I have not lived there for many years. I still have friends in Seattle with whom I visited in September. When was the last time you were in Seattle?


I haven't lived in Seattle since I was 5. I was always exited about buses as a kid, and so I have a fairly good memory of Metro. It is interesting to talk about LINK, although I probably won't be riding it on opening day.


----------



## Tri-ring

Yeah, Japan is making great strides with the radio frequency ID technology.(I think it is called Felica here in Japan)
Some of the mobile phones have the chips imbedded within them so the mobile acts as a card and payment can be handled through the monthly phone bill.
A super market chain, Aeon also accept the card so we can pick up groccery with the card as well.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> One thing that I like about Sound Transit is that they keep a large library of documents on-line. When I look at the issues of cost and ridership, I always try to use the numbers provided by the transit agency rather than by critics, so I appreciate that Sound Transit provides so much documentation.
> 
> The September 2007 Sound Transit report at the following link provides the capital costs for Sounder:
> 
> http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/regional/apr/SounderCommuterRail_10-07.pdf
> 
> Capital Costs for Sounder
> Lifetime Budget: $1,215 million
> Commitment to Date: $950 million
> Incurred to Date: $892 million
> 
> A similar September 2007 report for the Express Bus service can be found at the following link:
> 
> http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/regional/apr/RegionalExpress_10-07.pdf
> 
> Capital Costs for ST Express Bus
> Lifetime Budget: $785 million
> Commitment to Date: $586 million
> Incurred to Date: $505 million
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the reports cover only Sound Move (ST1) and subsequent projects but not ST2 projects.
> 
> The ridership numbers for Sounder and the ST Express Bus services for the third quarter of 2007 are reported in the document at the following link:
> 
> http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q3_2007.pdf >
> 
> Average Weekday Boardings
> Sounder: 8,333
> ST Express Bus: 37,689
> 
> If you divide the capital cost numbers by the average weekday boardings, you get the following:
> 
> September 2007 Incurred to Date Capital Cost/Third Quarter 2007 Average Weekday Boardings
> Sounder: $107,000 per boarding
> ST Express Bus: $13,400 per boarding
> 
> As I have noted in previous postings, the year-to-date operating costs as of the third quarter of 2007 are as follows:
> 
> Sounder: $11.18 per boarding
> ST Express Bus: $6.40 per boarding
> 
> The numbers show that on a cost per boarding basis, the Sounder commuter train service was more expensive to develop and is more expensive to operate than the ST Express Bus service.
> 
> The complaint will be made that the capital costs for the ST Express Bus service do not include the costs to build the roads; however, the roads were not paid for by Sound Transit and the roads would have been built regardless of whether the ST Express Bus service had been created.


Your numbers only show that you don't understand amortization. Sorry.


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I never really used Suica cards in Japan. Found it easier to just purchase single JR tickets.
> 
> Not to be rude, I think most of use here know how to use some sort of pre-paid transit card [EDIT: that you can continually use, like a Starbucks gift card]. I prefer Taipei's card, you just scan and go; it's even better now that they upgraded the ticket gates.


From what I read, it's basically a limited debit card without the bank. You can do anything with it, shop, ride transit, use transit services, buy coffee, etc. Basically a gift card you can continually add money into and use for any of the services stated above.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Your numbers only show that you don't understand amortization. Sorry.


On a per boarding basis, Sounder has both a much higher capital cost and a much higher operating cost than the ST Express Bus service. Even if you were to apply a zero interest rate and an infinite period of payments to the capital costs, the total annualized cost of Sounder would be much higher than the ST Express Bus service. Based on your snippy response, I can only assume that you have given up debating the point and are now focused on being annoying.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> On a per boarding basis, Sounder has both a much higher capital cost and a much higher operating cost than the ST Express Bus service. Even if you were to apply a zero interest rate and an infinite period of payments to the capital costs, the total annualized cost of Sounder would be much higher than the ST Express Bus service. Based on your snippy response, I can only assume that you have given up debating the point and are now focused on being annoying.


No, you're just completely wrong.

-ST Express HOV ramps and lanes do cost money and some will cost Sound Transit money to replace in the future (the ones they're responsible for), but _all_ of them will cost taxpayers money to replace in the future. You're also ignoring the fact that roadway funding is broken in WA right now - ST Express capital costs don't factor in the full cost of their HOV lanes, but they likely will in the future when we build sustainable funding sources to replace the MVET loss. You can't just ignore the real costs here because we have a problem - that problem will be fixed in the future; you can't just pretend your roads are free.

-You don't know what Sounder operating costs will look like in the future as service increases, because you stick your fingers in your ears when it's pointed out to you that those costs are dropping like a stone while ST Express operating costs are rising.

Your arguments against those points so far just haven't existed, but they're huge gaping holes in your assertions. You can't look at a system with costs that change every year and make absolute arguments based on a single point in time. The fact that you keep doing it makes it clear that you're pushing an agenda. Calling me annoying doesn't change the fact that you're cherry-picking costs to make your agenda look better.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^

Hmmm.....maybe UrbanBen was right all along (?). greg_christine only focuses mainly on the 2007 3rd Q report and the past instead of looking towards the future. Sounder costs will decrease. One reason I can think off the top of my head right now is new transit-oriented development. Let's start: Downtown Everett is adding new condos everyday with many more planned, plus the UW Everett. And with the transit connections at Everett Station, people from all over the county who work in Seattle might take Sounder to work assuming gas prices rise outrageously and I-5 traffic gets even worse. The new Mukilteo Station will be able to serve passengers coming off the ferry (who go to work in Seattle), and don't forget the new condos to be added on Mukilteo's waterfront. Downtown Edmonds is in the midst of planning and rezoning to add condos and new mixed-use development. And with the Edmonds Crossing project, passengers from buses and ferries will be able to transfer onto Sounder. So just in the North Line, new development(s) will certainly add passengers to Sounder.

Tacoma should be going through a redevelopment phase, with the Tacoma Link and several urban renewal projects. Sounder is going to be extended south to large residential communities of S. Tacoma and Lakewood. Imagine the thousands of people parking their cars (from Tacoma, Fort Lewis and maybe even Olympia) there instead of clogging I-5 (which is going into construction for HOV lanes in the next 20 years or so). New suburban developments in the Puyallup and Sumner/Bonney Lake area will add passengers to Sounder because those new residents would probably not want to drive on clogged SR 167/I-5/I-405. That also applies with the Auburn and Kent stations. And don't forget a proposed North Sumner station, only a stone's throw away from Lake Tapps and mainly the Lakeland Hills development. The Kent Station development is also adding residents/shoppers into downtown and the Sounder station, therefore promoting usage of Sounder. As for Tukwila, the new station (to be built ???) will serve new passengers from the redevelopments of (Downtown) Tukwila/Southcenter and Downtown Renton. 

Can you imagine all those people piling onto Sounder in the next year or twenty years? I'm excited already!




HAWC1506 said:


> From what I read, it's basically a limited debit card without the bank. You can do anything with it, shop, ride transit, use transit services, buy coffee, etc. Basically a gift card you can continually add money into and use for any of the services stated above.


My GOD! YES!! It's that simple. I don't know why everyone can't understand that....


----------



## UrbanBen

^^Yeah, the information we really need is the marginal cost of additional riders on each system, instead of the average cost.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Holy crap, mr. Drummer and mr. UrbanBen agreeing on something? Should I start looking for the 4 horsemen?


----------



## UrbanBen

BoulderGrad said:


> Holy crap, mr. Drummer and mr. UrbanBen agreeing on something? Should I start looking for the 4 horsemen?


Well, it's math.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Well, it's math.


when done right.  See? Math is the unspoken peace treaty. Just make those Iranians learn math and we'll all be in agreement. "You guys have 2 nukes, we have 40,000. *dead silence* Good we're in agreement."


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> when done right.  See? Math is the unspoken peace treaty. Just make those Iranians learn math and we'll all be in agreement. "You guys have 2 nukes, we have 40,000. *dead silence* Good we're in agreement."


*laughing*


----------



## Jaxom92

In reference to UrbanBen's and Greg_Christine's disagreement, why don't either one of you post the figures for all the years the sounder and express bus have been in operation in the same manner as Greg_Christine did above. That way all the data will be out there.

I imagine the data will be in the respective year's dollars, so if one really wants to get technical, one can correct the figures to whatever year they want to. I doubt this is necessary considering that the real comparision here is between the systems, in each given year (or quarter).

As for projecting out into the future, that is always a best estimate, no matter how good your estimation model is, and any estimation model always takes into account previous trends. In arguing system financial effeciency, it's much more prudent to stick to past and current data, especially for people not directly working for Sound Transit.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> In reference to UrbanBen's and Greg_Christine's disagreement, why don't either one of you post the figures for all the years the sounder and express bus have been in operation in the same manner as Greg_Christine did above. That way all the data will be out there.
> 
> I imagine the data will be in the respective year's dollars, so if one really wants to get technical, one can correct the figures to whatever year they want to. I doubt this is necessary considering that the real comparision here is between the systems, in each given year (or quarter).
> 
> As for projecting out into the future, that is always a best estimate, no matter how good your estimation model is, and any estimation model always takes into account previous trends. In arguing system financial effeciency, it's much more prudent to stick to past and current data, especially for people not directly working for Sound Transit.


Why don't we, rather than doing tons of work for basically no benefit, just realize that Sound Transit isn't dumb?


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> Why don't we, rather than doing tons of work for basically no benefit, just realize that Sound Transit isn't dumb?


Well, Sound Transit is kind of dumb (in terms of planning, construction schedules, and stuff). And they were REALLY dumb in the early days (I don't even want to be reminded of that). But as Sound Transit aged, people understood mass transit operations more and more so that there wouldn't be mistakes made again, and that has been the case.

And Jaxom92, why don't you go to the Sound Transit website and find out yourself. It's so easy to find it's easier than finding a Starbucks.....ha ha....


----------



## Marcus797

any recent construction pics?


----------



## greg_christine

For anyone who is interested, the following are plots of the operating cost per boarding and average weekday boardings as recorded in the quarterly ridership reports:


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> For anyone who is interested, the following are plots of the operating cost per boarding and average weekday boardings as recorded in the quarterly ridership reports:


I see you made sure not to include anything more than a couple of years old.

Also, apples to oranges - Sounder operating costs include stations, ST Express operating costs don't include the cost of maintaining shelters/park and rides, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Marcus797 said:


> any recent construction pics?


Here are some I found online, but don't expect the kind of extensive coverage the Canada Line has...


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> I see you made sure not to include anything more than a couple of years old.
> 
> Also, apples to oranges - Sounder operating costs include stations, ST Express operating costs don't include the cost of maintaining shelters/park and rides, as far as I'm aware.


1. I included all the data that is available in the quarterly ridership reports. The Sound Transit website does not include ridership reports for earlier quarters and the first few ridership reports do not include operating cost data.

2. If ST Express does not cover the cost of maintaining shelters and park and rides, how is the cost of those facilities covered?


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> 2. If ST Express does not cover the cost of maintaining shelters and park and rides, how is the cost of those facilities covered?


Through King County Metro, as they're largely KC Metro facilities.


----------



## RawLee

Sorry,I didnt read through all 44 pages,but I have some questions:
1,will there be noise/vibrancy inhibitors at the urban parts of the tracks?
2,what will be the average speed/following frequency of the trams?
3,projected ridership?
thank you!


----------



## UrbanBen

RawLee said:


> Sorry,I didnt read through all 44 pages,but I have some questions:
> 1,will there be noise/vibrancy inhibitors at the urban parts of the tracks?
> 2,what will be the average speed/following frequency of the trams?
> 3,projected ridership?
> thank you!


1. Yes and no. Much of the urban portion of the corridor is underground. The elevated portions have padding between guideway and support columns that will effectively reduce vibration. The at-grade portion of the trackway (through residential areas) has shallow enough curves to prevent most noise. Station stopping/starting occurs in commercial areas.

2. At-grade portions will be limited to 35mph, grade separated portions will be 55mph. Average speed depends on what part of the line you're measuring - initial segment will have the lowest average, but airport link will increase that, and university link will increase that again. Further extensions will increase it still. Following frequency will be 6 minutes at peak service, 15 at maximum - but the system is built to operate at a 2.4 minute peak frequency (from International District Station northward) as ridership increases and as the system is extended.

3. 2030 ridership of only what's underway now (Airport to Husky Stadium) is projected at 114000. If ST2 were built, 2030 ridership would be 305000. True ridership will be somewhere in between, depending upon what extensions are built. Northgate is virtually assured, because for northward expansion, construction really has to start before Husky Stadium station opens - King County might fund that themselves in the absence of other options.


----------



## RawLee

^^Thank you!


----------



## UrbanBen

RawLee said:


> ^^Thank you!


No problem. 

By the way, I have the map of what we're building plus what was on the ballot (and failed) here: http://soundtransit2.com. The dark blue in the middle is what's under way, the red failed (but we'll probably see most of it on the ballot by itself this year), and the very light blue / cyan is Sounder Commuter Rail, currently in operation except for two stations at the southern end.

Remember to zoom in to see stations!


----------



## RawLee

UrbanBen said:


> on the ballot


You have to vote about such things?


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

RawLee said:


> You have to vote about such things?


Kind of good and kind of bad isn't it?

Here, you can choose (or at least try) to see where light rail will go to and what you want to see in terms of transportation improvements. But then there's all that technical and political details that can really screw up such a vote, as what happened here.


----------



## HAWC1506

RawLee said:


> You have to vote about such things?


What throws a lot of great projects off is that people want those projects, but they don't want to pay taxes.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> 2. At-grade portions will be limited to 35mph, grade separated portions will be 55mph. Average speed depends on what part of the line you're measuring - initial segment will have the lowest average, but airport link will increase that, and university link will increase that again. Further extensions will increase it still. Following frequency will be 6 minutes at peak service, 15 at maximum - but the system is built to operate at a 2.4 minute peak frequency (from International District Station northward) as ridership increases and as the system is extended.
> 
> I thought frequency was 4 minutes at peak service.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

HAWC1506 said:


> What throws a lot of great projects off is that people want those projects, but they don't want to pay taxes.


Or at least NEW taxes.

Just curious: how many of you would pay tolls on most of our freeways to pay for transportation improvements (minus the constitution crap)?


----------



## Tri-ring

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Or at least NEW taxes.
> 
> Just curious: how many of you would pay tolls on most of our freeways to pay for transportation improvements?


Japan's highways are all tolled and gasoline has a special purpose tax added to the price at the pump to develop and maintain roads.
Railroad on the otherhand is mostly tax free since the privatization of JNR into JR. Mega projects like development of new Shinkansen lines still gain subsidy for construction from the government but not many are built these days. 
Some municipal govenment like my own develop subways to better transportation but they do it within the constrains of the budget and issuing of new bonds. 
Repayment of construction is set at around 30 years but most ends up paying ahead of schedule due to increase in ridership through population growth within the region by added mobility convenience.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> I thought frequency was 4 minutes at peak service.


Initially it will be 6 minutes. 4 minutes won't start until University Link starts operating, more than likely.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tri-ring said:


> Japan's highways are all tolled and gasoline has a special purpose tax added to the price at the pump to develop and maintain roads.
> Railroad on the otherhand is mostly tax free since the privatization of JNR into JR. Mega projects like development of new Shinkansen lines still gain subsidy for construction from the government but not many are built these days.
> Some municipal govenment like my own develop subways to better transportation but they do it within the constrains of the budget and issuing of new bonds.
> Repayment of construction is set at around 30 years but most ends up paying ahead of schedule due to increase in ridership through population growth within the region by added mobility convenience.


Yeah, we can't do that here because we don't have any existing rail infrastructure to make money, and because we still give out highways like candy.


----------



## Tri-ring

UrbanBen said:


> Yeah, we can't do that here because we don't have any existing rail infrastructure to make money, and because we still give out highways like candy.


Yeah, I know and I sympathize. I was just answering to Taiwanese's question.
With the looks of it and talking to some people from the US in general concerning taxes. I personally think that there is too much individuality mentality where people tend to think that if it does not bring benefit to me then I will not agree, not being able to look at the big picture.
Too much political feet pulling as well, where everyone thinking that "His/Her way" is the only way.
I was quite suprised on how a news media which should be neutral to any subject was so biased although I guess editorials pieces does reserve privilage to speak out their mind as long as it does not mask their opinion as if it was neutrally reported news piece. 

Anyways I believe that extentions of the already constructing LTR will be accepted as soon as people realizes how convenient rail transits are.(Probably look back and start looking for someone to blame for delaying construction as well but I guess that is another story.)


----------



## RawLee

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Kind of good and kind of bad isn't it?
> 
> Here, you can choose (or at least try) to see where light rail will go to and what you want to see in terms of transportation improvements. But then there's all that technical and political details that can really screw up such a vote, as what happened here.


Here,there is no voting about such things. In fact,we dont vote about transportation things(roads,rails,nothing). Everybody is glad,when a tram or a metro is built nearby their houses,because it raises its value. If you want,you can try and collect enough signatures to hold off the constructions,but since almost everybody likes it,this usually fails. Its just been announced that 2 tramlines will be extended here.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15115475&postcount=198


----------



## HAWC1506

RawLee said:


> Everybody is glad,when a tram or a metro is built nearby their houses,because it raises its value.
> [


Wait it raises the value there?

Didn't Freeman vote against Light Rail because it decreases the value of the homes here?


----------



## Tri-ring

HAWC1506 said:


> Wait it raises the value there?
> 
> Didn't Freeman vote against Light Rail because it decreases the value of the homes here?


It usually does since convenience of mobility is highly up-graded to who ever lives near a station.
Japanese still flocks to snatch a piece of land that had just been announced for new station development. Not to mention the occasional high ranking officials caught in middle of an insider scandal trying to purchase a peice of real estate before announcement of plan.


----------



## RawLee

Tri-ring said:


> It usually does since convenience of mobility is highly up-graded to who ever lives near a station.
> Japanese still flocks to snatch a piece of land that had just been announced for new station development. Not to mention the occasional high ranking officials caught in middle of an insider scandal trying to purchase a peice of real estate before announcement of plan.


I was talking about the value of homes nearby the future stations. If you live near a bus-stop,or a tram stop,or a metro station,it raises the value of the flat. Lets just say a similar flat here(at my place,where there are only 3 bus stations) is cheaper than at a metro/tram station. Where there are new tramlines,development of the area usually follows it. New apartments and such.


----------



## RawLee

BTW,I know it is waaay off-topic,but today it was exactly 120 years ago that the first tramline was opened in Budapest. If interested:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=16762004&postcount=267


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> Why don't we, rather than doing tons of work for basically no benefit, just realize that Sound Transit isn't dumb?


Because that clearly isn't working. At best, there is a misunderstanding of the data that each of you are looking at. Your posts have attempted to explain that misunderstanding, but not in a way that seems to make sense. This is why I suggested doing the math yourself in order to show the results your saying would be the case. So, factor in all these costs you're talking about that aren't shown in the "limited" figures that are popping up in this thread.



taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> And Jaxom92, why don't you go to the Sound Transit website and find out yourself. It's so easy to find it's easier than finding a Starbucks.....ha ha....


Because I'm not the one that's having the disagreement. My post was an attempt to find a solution, but the parties involved have to be willing to do the work.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> Because that clearly isn't working. At best, there is a misunderstanding of the data that each of you are looking at. Your posts have attempted to explain that misunderstanding, but not in a way that seems to make sense. This is why I suggested doing the math yourself in order to show the results your saying would be the case. So, factor in all these costs you're talking about that aren't shown in the "limited" figures that are popping up in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm not the one that's having the disagreement. My post was an attempt to find a solution, but the parties involved have to be willing to do the work.


Do you have any idea how much work you're talking about? I'm sorry that greg_christine is crazy, and if a lot of Seattle agrees that they want to keep pissing money away on buses, that's frankly their problem.


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> Do you have any idea how much work you're talking about? I'm sorry that greg_christine is crazy, and if a lot of Seattle agrees that they want to keep pissing money away on buses, that's frankly their problem.


If the work hasn't already been done, and thus postable, then how do you know for sure what your saying is true? I assumed that somewhere the data was already compiled, considering how vehemently you've been proclaiming your side of the argument.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> If the work hasn't already been done, and thus postable, then how do you know for sure what your saying is true? I assumed that somewhere the data was already compiled, considering how vehemently you've been proclaiming your side of the argument.


It is already compiled, it's just no longer online. I've been following this for years, since well before the Sound Transit site redesign, and the information about previous years just isn't there anymore.

But that's still pointless - averaging Sounder North with Sounder South will never give us an accurate representation of costs. The entire source of this latest assertion that the buses are cheaper is simply invalid. You can't compare them directly because they offer radically different service quality that garners different corridor ridership, we aren't talking about mature systems, and it's not like you need "sources of data" to understand that Sound Transit isn't paying for the lanes their buses use, which will be recurring capital costs that Sounder will not incur.

This isn't a "side". Greg_Christine is just pretending he can make value judgments based on partial data. Putting the burden of proof on me to "disprove" something as half-baked as his assertions is a logical fallacy in itself.


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> It is already compiled, it's just no longer online. I've been following this for years, since well before the Sound Transit site redesign, and the information about previous years just isn't there anymore.
> 
> This isn't a "side". Greg_Christine is just pretending he can make value judgments based on partial data. Putting the burden of proof on me to "disprove" something as half-baked as his assertions is a logical fallacy in itself.


I wasn't asking you to disprove greg_christine so much as proving your own point. It's unfortunate that the data isn't as easily available anymore though. It would make backing up your assertions a lot easier, and in turn help greg_christine understand what you're saying. I'm not going to address the "side" thing. It's pointless to argue semantics and it would derail the thread.

For the record, I understand what you're saying about the costs being distributed over agencies and over time, and therefore not reflected in the capital costs as reported by Sound Transit. One of the biggest problems in shaping public policy, for any field, but in our case, transportation, is this distribution of costs over place and time. It requires a lot of effort on the part of the layman to 1) understand where and when those costs are incurred and 2) compile that data to shape an informed opinion. Most people don't have the time or inclination to actively do this. I know I don't, and therefore while understanding your points but not having the data can neither agree or disagree in this particular case (buses vs rail).

One question, I pose to you, UrbanBen, is that, as a transit advocate, why would it be a waste of effort to have this compilation of costs readily at hand to you personally? If it's already been done, and was available at one time, presumably one could request it from Sound Transit or any other agency that's responsible for that information. My point in asking is that, as I said before, it seems it would make your goals as a transit advocate much easier to accomplish in the long run.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> I wasn't asking you to disprove greg_christine so much as proving your own point. It's unfortunate that the data isn't as easily available anymore though. It would make backing up your assertions a lot easier, and in turn help greg_christine understand what you're saying. I'm not going to address the "side" thing. It's pointless to argue semantics and it would derail the thread.
> 
> For the record, I understand what you're saying about the costs being distributed over agencies and over time, and therefore not reflected in the capital costs as reported by Sound Transit. One of the biggest problems in shaping public policy, for any field, but in our case, transportation, is this distribution of costs over place and time. It requires a lot of effort on the part of the layman to 1) understand where and when those costs are incurred and 2) compile that data to shape an informed opinion. Most people don't have the time or inclination to actively do this. I know I don't, and therefore while understanding your points but not having the data can neither agree or disagree in this particular case (buses vs rail).
> 
> One question, I pose to you, UrbanBen, is that, as a transit advocate, why would it be a waste of effort to have this compilation of costs readily at hand to you personally? If it's already been done, and was available at one time, presumably one could request it from Sound Transit or any other agency that's responsible for that information. My point in asking is that, as I said before, it seems it would make your goals as a transit advocate much easier to accomplish in the long run.


The answer to your question is - I am in the process of getting that data, actually, and the projections into the future. The problem is, the only people making these arguments _won't believe_ Sound Transit's projections anyway, so it is actually a waste of effort. The best transit advocacy has nothing to do with data, it has to do with selling a look and feel. Nobody votes based on the cost-effectiveness of a particular system.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> The answer to your question is - I am in the process of getting that data, actually, and the projections into the future. The problem is, the only people making these arguments _won't believe_ Sound Transit's projections anyway, so it is actually a waste of effort. The best transit advocacy has nothing to do with data, it has to do with selling a look and feel. Nobody votes based on the cost-effectiveness of a particular system.


You probably do (on a more complex level).

I (and probably many others) vote on how far a line stretches and how much we have to pay. 

[Disregard] Ahh, forget it...


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> The answer to your question is - I am in the process of getting that data, actually, and the projections into the future. The problem is, the only people making these arguments _won't believe_ Sound Transit's projections anyway, so it is actually a waste of effort. The best transit advocacy has nothing to do with data, it has to do with selling a look and feel. Nobody votes based on the cost-effectiveness of a particular system.


One advantage is that the data will span multiple agencies, and therefore should have more credibility, though with the historical and current opinion of transportation issues in this region, I doubt that'll actually hold true. Indeed, you are absolutely right about people not voting based on cost-effectiveness, which is an unfortunate human reality that will never change.

For the purposes of this thread though, it seems many of us are interested in the data, so it might have some use there, and people who actively participate in this discussion seem to be the few that do look at these factors when voting. But you're right. Wide spread usage of the data will probably be slim.



taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Can we please get back to _light rail_?


I'm sorry for mildly side-tracking the thread, but it is somewhat related.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Jaxom92 said:


> I'm sorry for mildly side-tracking the thread, but it is somewhat related.


Well, it was worth a shot...

...here are some more pictures I found of the Central Link construction by Peter deLory, a professional photographer working with Sound Transit to track construction progress:


----------



## Jaxom92

Yeah, he does some great photos. He's a professional, so they all have an artistic flavor to them.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> One advantage is that the data will span multiple agencies, and therefore should have more credibility, though with the historical and current opinion of transportation issues in this region, I doubt that'll actually hold true. Indeed, you are absolutely right about people not voting based on cost-effectiveness, which is an unfortunate human reality that will never change.
> 
> For the purposes of this thread though, it seems many of us are interested in the data, so it might have some use there, and people who actively participate in this discussion seem to be the few that do look at these factors when voting. But you're right. Wide spread usage of the data will probably be slim.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for mildly side-tracking the thread, but it is somewhat related.


I think that the people here who care most about that data are the ones least likely to let it affect their opinion.


----------



## RawLee

^^Are there people who oppose the tramline? Why?


----------



## UrbanBen

RawLee said:


> ^^Are there people who oppose the tramline? Why?


Because there's been a concerted disinformation campaign, and because nobody here has experienced one.


----------



## greg_christine

Regarding the numbers that I have recently posted from Sound Transit reports regarding the relative cost of Sounder and the ST Express Bus service, I feel as though I've just told a small child that there is no Santa Claus!

The truth is that if I still lived in the Seattle area I probably would have voted for the recent Roads and Transit ballot measure even though I considered it to have major flaws. I consider rail transit to be an amenity that adds value to a metropolitan area in ways that cannot be quantified in terms of dollars. I do not try to delude myself into thinking that trains are cheaper than buses. Indeed, Sound Transit does not make any such claim. For both the trans-Lake Washington branch of Central Link and the First Hill Streetcar, Sound Transit has issued reports that show buses to be cheaper than rail, yet Sound Transit has decided to pursue the rail option anyway.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

^^

OMG, this won't end, will it?


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> ^^
> 
> OMG, this won't end, will it?


I'm just having fun watching you guys burning through the pages on this thread  Two and a half pages in only two days, not bad guys, not bad at all...


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Regarding the numbers that I have recently posted from Sound Transit reports regarding the relative cost of Sounder and the ST Express Bus service, I feel as though I've just told a small child that there is no Santa Claus!
> 
> The truth is that if I still lived in the Seattle area I probably would have voted for the recent Roads and Transit ballot measure even though I considered it to have major flaws. I consider rail transit to be an amenity that adds value to a metropolitan area in ways that cannot be quantified in terms of dollars. I do not try to delude myself into thinking that trains are cheaper than buses. Indeed, Sound Transit does not make any such claim. For both the trans-Lake Washington branch of Central Link and the First Hill Streetcar, Sound Transit has issued reports that show buses to be cheaper than rail, yet Sound Transit has decided to pursue the rail option anyway.


Sound Transit has issued reports that say that building and maintaining a new operations base is more expensive than the marginal cost of adding buses to existing operations bases (duh). That's the first hill streetcar.

For East Link, cost per rider was lower for rail than for rail-convertible BRT.

For basically any system, once you build rail, it becomes cheaper per rider than buses to operate because it moves a lot more people. Rail generates its own ridership growth - and it's perfectly quantifiable. You just have to pay attention to your guideway.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Love the pictures! I love one of these artworks that just installed (one of these pictures shows it)! 

I understand that many people are skeptical about Sound Transit light rail projects because we don't have it in operate right now yet. Most of people like some of you here will changed the minds once light rail opens in 2009. That will convince more people to change their minds after they ride it and see the result.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Another picture of Airport link construction. Still think it's going kind of slow...


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Another picture of Airport link construction. Still think it's going kind of slow...


I think you'll always find a reason to hate. The reality is, no one else could do it faster.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> I think you'll always find a reason to hate. The reality is, no one else could do it faster.


Are you sure?


----------



## mr.x

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Are you sure?


*waves Canadian/BC flag*


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> I think you'll always find a reason to hate. The reality is, no one else could do it faster.


That's right because that airport station used to be part of the highway section which they had to remove and move around the soil and level it and now they have support posts for the station popping up. They will pick up quickly since they're in this phrase now. It's only been roughly a year after they broke ground on the new highway loop/light rail construction.


----------



## greg_christine

The Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles being supplied to Sound Transit are sleek and attractive; however, the paint scheme does little for their appearance:










I am not sure if the pattern is supposed to represent mountains or waves. Perhaps it is supposed to suggest both.

The paint scheme for the new light rail system being built in Norfolk was recently revealed:










The Norfolk wave paint scheme is much more attractive.


----------



## greg_christine

For anyone who is still interested in this subject, the following are some cost comparisons from various studies for rail and BRT in the same corridor:

VANCOUVER - COQUITLAM/EVERGREEN LINE
- Capital Cost
Guided Buses: $285 Million
Light Rail: $670 Million
Skytrain: $840 Million
- Operations and Maintenance Costs per Passenger Boarding
Guided Buses: $4.10 /Passenger
Light Rail: $6.95 /Passenger
Skytrain: $4.30 /Passenger
- Selected Mode
Light Rail

LAS VEGAS - HENDERSON TO NORTH LAS VEGAS
- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $700 Million
Light Rail: $1,115 Million
- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $218 Million/Year
Light Rail: $203 Million/Year
- Selected Mode
Bus Rapid Transit

SAN JOSE - WARM SPRINGS BART CONNECTOR
- Capital Cost
Busway BRT: $1,155 Million
Light Rail: $1,514 Million
BART: $3,710 Million
- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Busway BRT: $19.5 Million/Year
Light Rail: $41.8 Million/Year
BART: $63.0 Million/Year
- Selected Mode:
BART

NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA
- Capital Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $178 Million
Light Rail: $250 Million
- Operations & Maintenance Cost
Bus Rapid Transit: $4.7 Million/Year
Light Rail: $9 Million/Year
- Selected Mode
No decision yet.

SEATTLE - I-90 TRANS-LAKE WASHINGTON LINE
- Capital Cost
Busway BRT: $3.1 - $4.2 Billion 
Rail Convertible BRT: $3.7 - $5.0 Billion
Light Rail: $4.6 - $6.2 Billion
- Operations & Maintenance Cost (Net change relative to common baseline)
Busway BRT: -$5.5 million/year
Rail Convertible BRT: -$17.2 Million/Year
Light Rail: +$29.0 Million/Year
- Selected Mode:
Light Rail

SEATTLE - CAPITOL HILL STREETCAR STUDY
- Capital Cost
Streetcar: $129.7 - $149.2 million
Electric Trolley Bus: $13.4 - $15.4 million
- Annual Operating Cost:
Streetcar: $5.2 million
Electric Trolley Bus: $3.5 million
- Selected Mode
Streetcar

The thing to note from the above is that the decision of which transit mode to use seldom seems to hinge on cost.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> The thing to note from the above is that the decision of which transit mode to use seldom seems to hinge on cost.


It usually does - it's just that the agencies sit down and say "Okay, where are these costs going to trend?" Vegas is an anomaly - a system in which LRT would have become more cost effective in only 28 years is a no-brainer, they're just scared because of how the monorail turned out.

I'm sorry I can't fix the transit agencies to make them defend themselves - you saw that Sound Transit did basically nothing during the election cycle. The agencies are terrified of interacting with the public.

Just for a few of these:
- For Evergreen Line, LRT cost per boarding will drop because ridership will increase faster over time than BRT, and BRT cost per boarding will increase with fuel prices. I think that comparison is based on much cheaper oil than we have today, as well.
- For the First Hill Streetcar, the capital cost for the maintenance base is a lot of the streetcar cost, compared to adding a few buses to Atlantic Base in south Seattle. Ridership for a streetcar will be higher immediately *and* increase faster.
- For I-90 (East Link), light rail would interline with Central Link, adding otherwise unfeasible capacity to the highest ridership corridor from downtown to Northgate. BRT would necessitate a transfer and cut ridership dramatically, plus it wouldn't scale, and the opportunity cost of having to repave the corridor in the future is staggering.

It's the same for most of these.


----------



## Daguy

For Evergreen Line, LRT cost per boarding will drop because ridership will increase faster over time than BRT, and BRT cost per boarding will increase with fuel prices. I think that comparison is based on much cheaper oil than we have today, as well.


Not to mention that the government has said it will cost more like 900 million to build now thanks to increased construction costs. Seriously I do not oppose LRT, but for this corridor Skytrain is a much better idea. LRT if used should be for Surrey and Langely.


----------



## Daguy

> For Evergreen Line, LRT cost per boarding will drop because ridership will increase faster over time than BRT, and BRT cost per boarding will increase with fuel prices. I think that comparison is based on much cheaper oil than we have today, as well.



Not to mention that the government has said it will cost more like 900 million to build now thanks to increased construction costs. Seriously I do not oppose LRT, but for this corridor Skytrain is a much better idea. LRT if used should be for Surrey and Langely.


----------



## citruspastels

greg_christine said:


> The Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles being supplied to Sound Transit are sleek and attractive; however, the paint scheme does little for their appearance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure if the pattern is supposed to represent mountains or waves. Perhaps it is supposed to suggest both.
> 
> The paint scheme for the new light rail system being built in Norfolk was recently revealed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Norfolk wave paint scheme is much more attractive.


are you serious? the central composion and symmetry is no good on the norfolk design. the waves look like they are forcefully trying to go in opposite directions totally taking away from the whole point of a wave design. seattle's is way more subtle. i mean looking at the two pictures juxtaposed, the norfolk design looks almost outdated. i'd say the only saving grace is the black windows which look sleek, but damn, they took that wave thing way too seriously.


----------



## mr.x

The Tide??? That's a terrible name.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Actually, I agree about the name. I can't believe that Hampton Roads Transit actually paid a consultant $75,000 to come up with that. My guess is that people will refer to it as the Tidewater Trolley just as the light rail system in San Diego is known as the Tijuana Trolley.

Regarding the paint scheme, the thing that probably makes the most sense for a light rail line is to paint at least the ends of the trains in a high visibility such as red or yellow. The following are a few of examples where this has been done:

Minneapolis









San Diego









Dallas


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Even though Link's trains are pretty good-looking, i'd still prefer Portland MAX's old and new trains.


----------



## UrbanBen

Daguy said:


> Not to mention that the government has said it will cost more like 900 million to build now thanks to increased construction costs. Seriously I do not oppose LRT, but for this corridor Skytrain is a much better idea. LRT if used should be for Surrey and Langely.


Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.


----------



## citruspastels

Hey, if you guys want help give our elected officials a kick in the pants about light rail, send a letter!

From Carless in Seattle-

Elected official's contact info:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007/11/letters-to-your.html

If you wish, a letter template:
http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007/11/letters-on-tran.html

We have got to keep the pressure on if we want to see results from these people.


----------



## Daguy

UrbanBen said:


> Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.


Oh sorry my comment came off that way. It was supposed to be more additive than anything, and yes I would agree LRT is better than BRT. Too bad it is crappy LRT that they are looking at building. The time saving seems pretty minimal for a $900 million dollar investment.

If they decide to go for the Southern Route I'm pretty sure they will switch to Skytrain because the wider Lougheed Highway has more space, and the route could be mostly, if not all elevated for cheaper than the Northern route, and no tunnels should be required. Of course they will need a lot of rezoning for higher density developments which should be initiated during the construction so we arn't left with route that has 90% of its bordings at Coquitlam Centre.


----------



## sequoias

UrbanBen said:


> Oh, I agree with you that SkyTrain was a better choice than LRT. LRT is just a better choice than BRT.


Skytrain IS light rail with 3rd rail. They are both the same technology and the only difference is the power runs on the 3rd rail.


----------



## sequoias

the waves represents that we live in waterey metro area aka puget sound. That's why there are waves graphics on the train.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> Skytrain IS light rail with 3rd rail. They are both the same technology and the only difference is the power runs on the 3rd rail.


By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.


----------



## UrbanBen

Daguy said:


> Oh sorry my comment came off that way. It was supposed to be more additive than anything, and yes I would agree LRT is better than BRT. Too bad it is crappy LRT that they are looking at building. The time saving seems pretty minimal for a $900 million dollar investment.
> 
> If they decide to go for the Southern Route I'm pretty sure they will switch to Skytrain because the wider Lougheed Highway has more space, and the route could be mostly, if not all elevated for cheaper than the Northern route, and no tunnels should be required. Of course they will need a lot of rezoning for higher density developments which should be initiated during the construction so we arn't left with route that has 90% of its bordings at Coquitlam Centre.


Oh, don't worry, you didn't come off badly! I think that the zoning will come naturally with LRT, and you'll eventually see the corridor in SkyTrain in a few decades when it's built out. The boardings when the route opens don't matter much in 20-30 years.


----------



## UrbanBen

citruspastels said:


> Hey, if you guys want help give our elected officials a kick in the pants about light rail, send a letter!
> 
> From Carless in Seattle-
> 
> Elected official's contact info:
> http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007/11/letters-to-your.html
> 
> If you wish, a letter template:
> http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/2007/11/letters-on-tran.html
> 
> We have got to keep the pressure on if we want to see results from these people.


Too bad Carless in Seattle is such a douche. I've actually had discussions with the guy a couple of times on the way to work, and he's really an ideologue to the point where you don't want to put him in front of public officials at all, because he'll stick his foot in his mouth.


----------



## citruspastels

^^ that's too bad. doesn't change the fact that we need to get the fire lit beneath our politician's asses to get them to move on this issue now. 

damn yoooou ron sims!!! :bash::bash::bash: we want rail!


----------



## Jaxom92

UrbanBen said:


> By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.


Yeah. They're all just trains. The real distinction should just be in the level of service provided, rather than how they're powered, etc. Trains. Just trains.


----------



## Daguy

^^

Yeah I see where you guys are going. It's just a little hard for me to see Skytrain as light rail compared to when I rode the C-train in Calgary and the LRT in Edmonton. Most systems seen as "light rail" arn't fully grade separated and automated.


----------



## spongeg

there is heavy rail and there is light rail though

i couldn't tell you the difference other than having ridden on some Heavy rail trains they are much wider and bigger than the LRT train cars


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

And faster (comparing Taipei's metro and Portland's light rail, probably inaccurate though).


----------



## Plumber73

UrbanBen said:


> By that, you could say that the NYC subway is light rail too. There's no clear distinction. Skytrain is high-floor, which isn't common to light rail systems.


High-floor???


----------



## citruspastels

from my understanding light rail refers to a system that is-
A) Passenger rail
B) Can run on non-grade seperated track


----------



## Tcmetro

Subways and Heavy Rail are different in the fact that they usually almost exclusively use tunnels and elevated sections, while LRT tends to have street running sections. Also LRT doesn't have turnstyles, and most subways do.


----------



## HAWC1506

Ah back to the distinction argument:

From what I have experienced and read:

Light Rail and Heavy Rail. Compare it to a metro bus and a long-rage greyhound bus. 

Light Rail is _generally_ used as an urban commuter, which _generally_ travels at grade or above grade, with the ability and FLEXIBILITY to travel through streets. They typically do NOT have the ability to continually add train cars like heavy rail. They _generally_ have a lower cost. The American Public Transportation Authority defines it as "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." The electric railway part has a few exceptions because many light rail systems are powered by diesel. To me, it is a step lower than subway systems such as the ones in L.A.

Heavy Rail 

With a few exceptions, most have higher capacities and they are able to increase the number of cars that each train can take. With a few exceptions, heavy rail trains are _generally_ designed to go faster, but they are less flexible in terms of right of way. How did Japan and France figure out how to lay out their rail system? I don't know, but whatever they did, it's working very well. Heavy rail is built to serve areas with high density. 

To sum it up, light rail has the flexibility in right of way, while heavy rail has the flexibility of capacity. Every rail system is designed differently with different needs and demands to be met, so the generalizations will not always apply. But the clearest distinction for me is their differences in flexibility.

Light Rail: Anywhere between 1 to approximately 4 train cars.
Heavy Rail: As much as the infrastructure can handle.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Ah back to the distinction argument:
> 
> From what I have experienced and read:
> 
> Light Rail and Heavy Rail. Compare it to a metro bus and a long-rage greyhound bus.
> 
> Light Rail is _generally_ used as an urban commuter, which _generally_ travels at grade or above grade, with the ability and FLEXIBILITY to travel through streets. They typically do NOT have the ability to continually add train cars like heavy rail. They _generally_ have a lower cost. The American Public Transportation Authority defines it as "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars." The electric railway part has a few exceptions because many light rail systems are powered by diesel. To me, it is a step lower than subway systems such as the ones in L.A.
> 
> Heavy Rail
> 
> With a few exceptions, most have higher capacities and they are able to increase the number of cars that each train can take. With a few exceptions, heavy rail trains are _generally_ designed to go faster, but they are less flexible in terms of right of way. How did Japan and France figure out how to lay out their rail system? I don't know, but whatever they did, it's working very well. Heavy rail is built to serve areas with high density.
> 
> To sum it up, light rail has the flexibility in right of way, while heavy rail has the flexibility of capacity. Every rail system is designed differently with different needs and demands to be met, so the generalizations will not always apply. But the clearest distinction for me is their differences in flexibility.
> 
> Light Rail: Anywhere between 1 to approximately 6 train cars.
> Heavy Rail: As much as the infrastructure can handle.


And skytrain is third rail, which should end this debate right here.


----------



## greg_christine

HAWC1506 said:


> The monorail wasn't built as a true city commuter, was it?


Which monorail? There is the Seattle Center Monorail (A.K.A. Seattle World's Fair Monorail) that was built as a local area people mover system to carry people about 1 mile between downtown Seattle and the World's Fair site:










There was a plan to build the 14-mile Green Line Monorail from Ballard through downtown to West Seattle. The project was terminated by the voters in 2005 following much controversy over the route, the configuration of the guideway, and funding problems:


----------



## citruspastels

^^ awwww, i miss it!


----------



## Tcmetro

Any other renderings?

Is the Light Rail still scheduled to open in June 2009? It seems like a bit of a long time for testing, considering the line will be completely built in the spring. Are all the platform/stations done?


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> The monorail wasn't built as a true city commuter, was it?


I am talking about the recent proposal, not the world's fair toy.


----------



## UrbanBen

Tcmetro said:


> Any other renderings?
> 
> Is the Light Rail still scheduled to open in June 2009? It seems like a bit of a long time for testing, considering the line will be completely built in the spring. Are all the platform/stations done?


Spring 2009, maybe - construction still has a year to go. Major concrete construction is nearly done, sure, but signals and communication systems won't be done for some time. End to end testing is also a lot more involved for a system that can eventually support over 100 vehicles per base than something like the streetcar - and even the streetcar had a month of testing.


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> Green Line Monorail
> - Original Budget and Schedule
> $1.75 billion for a 14-mile line to open between 2007 and 2009
> - Total Cost and Schedule based on Pending Contract with Cascadia Monorail
> $2.016 billion for a 14-mile line to open in 2009
> 
> The project was only about 15% over budget and was arguably on schedule. The situation on the finance side was worse due to a 30% shortfall in revenue from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was to fund the project.


Actually, that 1.75 billion was at least .25 billion over the bonding capacity of the agency (it was a huge overrun from the ~1.2 billion they estimated before Citizen Petition No. 1 in 2002) - and the station locations were never even finalized, much less engineered. Construction cost inflation would have hit the monorail just as hard as it's hit Link, except that the SMP never, ever admitted that they needed better padding and emergency funds. That's why they had a junk bond rating...


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> I am talking about the recent proposal, not the world's fair toy.


Haha toy. I can't believe I forgot about that monorail proposal! But I remember that they had some issues with right of way didn't they?


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Actually, that 1.75 billion was at least .25 billion over the bonding capacity of the agency (it was a huge overrun from the ~1.2 billion they estimated before Citizen Petition No. 1 in 2002) - and the station locations were never even finalized, much less engineered. Construction cost inflation would have hit the monorail just as hard as it's hit Link, except that the SMP never, ever admitted that they needed better padding and emergency funds. That's why they had a junk bond rating...


The text of Citizen Petition No. 1 can be found here:

http://www.elevated.org/_downloads/board/petition1.pdf

The measures states only a debt limit of $1.5 billion in 2002 dollars.

A description of the pending Cascadia Monorail contract can be found here:

http://www.elevated.org/project/reports/contract/overview_4.asp

It was a fixed-price design/build contract for $1.615 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars or $1.35 billion in 2005 dollars. The financial plans included reserves of $285 million for contingencies. 

Regarding deferred stations in the pending contract with Cascadia Monorail, there were three: Avalon, Elliott/Mercer, and Blaine. A fourth station was in question because it was the site of the Federal Reserve Bank, which was slated for closure but was not yet available. Not only were station sites defined but most of the land had already been procured or was in the process of being procured when the project was terminated.

The Central Link light rail line has had a similar history with deferred stations. The Stadium/Royal Brougham Station was deferred until 2005 when it was determined that there were sufficient funds to build it. The Boeing Access Road Station remains deferred. The First Hill Station has been deleted from the plan due to it not being biuldable due to a combination of its depth underground and poor soil conditions.

Returning to the original point, the monorail authority was wrong in its cost estimates and made other mistakes in its planning; however, the similar problems occurred in the Central Link light rail project. Cost estimates for light rail can be just as wrong as cost estimates for any other technology.


----------



## greg_christine

Without passing judgment on what constitutes a toy, the following are some specifications for various transit vehicles used or considered for Seattle:

======================================================================================

Ansaldobreda Articulated Dual Power Bus








Length: 61.2 ft.
Width: 8.5 ft.
Maximum Speed in Diesel Mode: 55 mph
Maximum Speed in Electric Mode: 40 mph
Number of Seats: 63

======================================================================================

Skoda-Inekon Astra (South Lake Union Streetcar)








Length: 66 ft.
Width: 8 ft.
Maximum Speed: 47 mph
Operating Speed: 31 mph
Number of Seats: 41 (Double-ended cars have fewer seats.)

======================================================================================

Kinkisharyo Light Rail Vehicle (Central Link)








Length: 95 ft.
Width: 8.7 ft.
Maximum Speed: 65 mph
Operating Speed: 55 mph
Number of Seats: 74
Can operate in trains of up to four vehicles.

======================================================================================

Alweg Monorail (1962 World’s Fair/Seattle Center Monorail)








Length: 122 ft.
Width: 10.25 ft.
Maximum Speed: 70 mph
Operating Speed: 50 mph
Number of Seats: 124

======================================================================================

Hitachi Standard Type Monorail (Proposed for Green Line)








Length: 107 ft.
Width: 9.5 ft.
Maximum Operating Speed: 50 mph
Number of Seats: 70

======================================================================================


----------



## citruspastels

i didn't realize the streetcars went that fast. i thought the operations speeds were going to be more in the range of 20 mph but i am also in the middle of finals week so i may be losing my mind... ;-)


----------



## citruspastels

Also, everyone here should take this survey about what to do post-prop 1 from Sound Transit. Help to define the next ballot measure! Give them a piece of your mind!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=9Q392gyHpkJVUhuFMMs9zCkuhMaq2SQ6n8BHnc8cW2k=


----------



## citruspastels

for some reason i cant make a direct link-

there is a link here under "news & issues"
http://www.downtownseattle.com/


----------



## UrbanBen

greg_christine said:


> The text of Citizen Petition No. 1 can be found here:
> 
> http://www.elevated.org/_downloads/board/petition1.pdf
> 
> The measures states only a debt limit of $1.5 billion in 2002 dollars.
> 
> A description of the pending Cascadia Monorail contract can be found here:
> 
> http://www.elevated.org/project/reports/contract/overview_4.asp
> 
> It was a fixed-price design/build contract for $1.615 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars or $1.35 billion in 2005 dollars. The financial plans included reserves of $285 million for contingencies.
> 
> Regarding deferred stations in the pending contract with Cascadia Monorail, there were three: Avalon, Elliott/Mercer, and Blaine. A fourth station was in question because it was the site of the Federal Reserve Bank, which was slated for closure but was not yet available. Not only were station sites defined but most of the land had already been procured or was in the process of being procured when the project was terminated.
> 
> The Central Link light rail line has had a similar history with deferred stations. The Stadium/Royal Brougham Station was deferred until 2005 when it was determined that there were sufficient funds to build it. The Boeing Access Road Station remains deferred. The First Hill Station has been deleted from the plan due to it not being biuldable due to a combination of its depth underground and poor soil conditions.
> 
> Returning to the original point, the monorail authority was wrong in its cost estimates and made other mistakes in its planning; however, the similar problems occurred in the Central Link light rail project. Cost estimates for light rail can be just as wrong as cost estimates for any other technology.


 You're right that both were fairly similar. The thing is, light rail is happening, in part due to the fact that 2001 planning *was* able to plan for cost overruns, and the SMP did not. I think that has a lot to do with the overall practical nature of light rail versus the wide-eyed, ideological support for "_MONORAIL_". Seriously, the moment they started talking about all the things that monorail could do that light rail "couldn't" (like be elevated), it was over.


----------



## webeagle12

their monorail looks great but I never got a chance ride it last year because it was down multiple times for god knows how long because of the problems :bash:


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Hmmm, I just realized: the monorail hasn't been screwing up in a while...


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> You're right that both were fairly similar. The thing is, light rail is happening, in part due to the fact that 2001 planning *was* able to plan for cost overruns, and the SMP did not. I think that has a lot to do with the overall practical nature of light rail versus the wide-eyed, ideological support for "_MONORAIL_". Seriously, the moment they started talking about all the things that monorail could do that light rail "couldn't" (like be elevated), it was over.


Yes, Central Link and the Green Line monorail had similar problems. My opinion is that the major difference that saved Central Link was the support from key politicians. The mayor of Seattle sits on the Sound Transit board and has been a strong supporter of Central Link. The mayor forced the fifth vote on the Green Line monorail, which terminated the project.

When the Green Line monorail was terminated, many thought it would be quickly supplanted by a plan to bring branches of the Central Link light rail system to Ballard and West Seattle. This has not happened. Following the termination of the Green Line monorail project, I joined a small group that lobbied the Sound Transit board and the Seattle city council to pursue building a branch of Central Link from Lander Station to West Seattle. Given the plans to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the idea of building a branch of Central Link to West Seattle seemed like a sure winner. The only official pronouncement that I ever heard regarding the idea was a statement by the deputy mayor that the West Seattle bridge is not suitable for light rail.

Regarding the route north from downtown to Ballard, the city of Seattle performed a study in 2001 that concluded that "elevated" is the best option and that an at-grade system would be too slow < http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/ppmp_ict_stage2.htm >. The recent proposal for multiple streetcar lines in the city of Seattle includes a map that shows the waterfront streetcar line terminating in a northward pointing arrow suggesting that it could be extended to Ballard. This is an interesting proposal given that it is exactly what the city didn't recommend in the 2001 study. It is interesting to note that there is no similar suggestion that a streetcar line could be extended to West Seattle.

One idea that has been proposed for extending light rail to Ballard is to branch off of the main trunk of Central Link in the University District and reach Ballard via Fremont. This gets around the problem that there is no natural at-grade route for light rail through the northern part of the downtown area and across the ship canal. It would be the least expensive option; however, it would result in a much longer travel time and lower ridership. 

The Green Line monorail's route through downtown went through Seattle Center:










All the permanent tenants of Seattle Center supported the route; however, the organizers of the annual festivals opposed it due to noise concerns. It is hard to imagine an elevated light rail line taking a similar route, especially given the noise concerns.  I don't think we will be seeing light rail trains running through the slot in the EMP.


----------



## TheHeadMaster

A West Link Line definitly needs to be built along a similar line as the proposed monorail route. I think what they need to do is a cut and cover tunnel along 5th Ave from Westlake Center to Seattle Center and simply remove the old monorail line. Then have the line come out somewhere after Seattle Center and have the rest of the line a mix of surface and aerial routes up to at least Market Street, but preferably up to Crown Hill. 

As for going south on the West link line, they could just do an aerial route parallel to the West Seattle bridge if the bridge itself will not support such a line. Then run the line down California or Fountleroy all the way to the Vashon ferry terminal.

It makes WAY more sense to build a line like this then to extend the central link line south to Tacoma. Other than the North Link extension, I would think a west line would get a better ridership than anyother proposed route. This line could be built in 10 years (assuming we don't have to vote on it 5 times).


----------



## UrbanBen

TheHeadMaster said:


> A West Link Line definitly needs to be built along a similar line as the proposed monorail route. I think what they need to do is a cut and cover tunnel along 5th Ave from Westlake Center to Seattle Center and simply remove the old monorail line. Then have the line come out somewhere after Seattle Center and have the rest of the line a mix of surface and aerial routes up to at least Market Street, but preferably up to Crown Hill.
> 
> As for going south on the West link line, they could just do an aerial route parallel to the West Seattle bridge if the bridge itself will not support such a line. Then run the line down California or Fountleroy all the way to the Vashon ferry terminal.
> 
> It makes WAY more sense to build a line like this then to extend the central link line south to Tacoma. Other than the North Link extension, I would think a west line would get a better ridership than anyother proposed route. This line could be built in 10 years (assuming we don't have to vote on it 5 times).


5th avenue might not be a great idea - would you go under the bus tunnel? How would you cut across to serve Belltown?

Remember, Sound Transit is a regional agency with subarea equity. If they taxed the North King subarea for such a system, they'd have to tax equally for each other subarea. In my opinion, that's the best possible change that could be made to Sound Transit - allowing them to propose packages by subarea, so they could have a .5% ST2 package for North and East King alone.

What "makes sense" and what's legal are often different.


----------



## TheHeadMaster

This would connect to the bus/light rail tunnel at the Westlake station and use the downtown tunnel and stations already in place. For Belltown you would just have a station at 5th and Bell. Not a perfect location, but this would be the same location as the belltown stop on the monorail green line. Another option would be to send the tunnel down third since thats the road most of the bus tunnel is already traveling under with a stop at third and bell and a stop between key arena and the pacific science center before dropping down to elliot ave and around to interbay and onto Ballard. If the line continued on to West Seattle, then it would not stop at Westlake if it traveled under third ave, but would stop at the rest of the downtown stations. 

I have no idea of such a route is possible (legally, economically, or engineering wise), but a line serving Ballard and West Seattle would be desirable.


----------



## UrbanBen

TheHeadMaster said:


> This would connect to the bus/light rail tunnel at the Westlake station and use the downtown tunnel and stations already in place. For Belltown you would just have a station at 5th and Bell. Not a perfect location, but this would be the same location as the belltown stop on the monorail green line. Another option would be to send the tunnel down third since thats the road most of the bus tunnel is already traveling under with a stop at third and bell and a stop between key arena and the pacific science center before dropping down to elliot ave and around to interbay and onto Ballard. If the line continued on to West Seattle, then it would not stop at Westlake if it traveled under third ave, but would stop at the rest of the downtown stations.
> 
> I have no idea of such a route is possible (legally, economically, or engineering wise), but a line serving Ballard and West Seattle would be desirable.


A line serving Ballard and West Seattle is indeed desirable - but we have a lot more need for lines serving Northgate and Bellevue.

The transit tunnel turns east just before Westlake - a line under 3rd breaking off of the tunnel would miss that stop (although this could be handled with a platform a block north and an underground connection).

Adding more service to that line is likely a non-starter, though. Once East Link and North Link get built (which could be a while), you're already going to be interlining two heavy use lines for those stations. The Sound Transit long range plan shows that just with the Everett-Tacoma light rail spine, East Link, and the Issaquah spur - all of which will just keep coming back until we say yes - we'll have 2.4 minute headways downtown, and that's too low to add another heavy use line to the same tracks.


----------



## HAWC1506

BoulderGrad said:


> • Possible short diesel trains on the Eastside, from Woodinville to north Renton.


How is that going to work? I JUST came up with this question, do the rails from North Bend (the ones that start from Snoqualmie Falls) connect to Issaquah and Bellevue?


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> The big congestion is south of Northgate, where there's no longer an HOV lane. A rail transfer is a LOT better than direct service.


It would be better if they extended to Jackson Park/NE 145th, cause that's where the actual congestion starts. It is because of the loss of the HOV lane and the additional loss of the right-most general-purpose lane that causes the congestion at Northgate (sometimes around noon) and about average extends to south of NE 145th. Another factor is that between the main chokepoint and the start of the congestion (NE 145th) there are few SB exits for drivers to escape from I-5, plus congestion at the Northgate exits. 

Well, if you get what i'm saying, ST should try to find a way to extend light rail to Jackson Park so buses can actually avoid all the congestion (assuming passengers make a rail transfer at Jackson Park).


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> It would be better if they extended to Jackson Park/NE 145th, cause that's where the actual congestion starts. It is because of the loss of the HOV lane and the additional loss of the right-most general-purpose lane that causes the congestion at Northgate (sometimes around noon) and about average extends to south of NE 145th. Another factor is that between the main chokepoint and the start of the congestion (NE 145th) there are few SB exits for drivers to escape from I-5, plus congestion at the Northgate exits.
> 
> Well, if you get what i'm saying, ST should try to find a way to extend light rail to Jackson Park so buses can actually avoid all the congestion (assuming passengers make a rail transfer at Jackson Park).


Northgate is all we can really count on. Remember, if they spend more in that subarea, they'll have to spend more in the others.

Anyway, look at the congestion. This is last Tuesday, 9 am. I looked around on the WSDOT traffic map archive to find this, and I think that's representative of the worst traffic we commonly get. The express lanes end at Northgate. You can have much more consistent commute times just transferring there. (note - I live near the a in 'Seattle', just north of 520 and east of 5, and bus across 520 every day).


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> How is that going to work? I JUST came up with this question, do the rails from North Bend (the ones that start from Snoqualmie Falls) connect to Issaquah and Bellevue?


It's not. The state is discussing a quick study of the corridor in committee right now, but the point of the study is to put this idea to bed at least until we solve our more major problems.

Transit demand in the eastside n/s corridor is an order of magnitude lower than it is in the westside n/s corridor OR in the cross-lake corridor. That's not about to change in the next 10 years, either - unless the eastside suddenly has a 100% annual growth rate I was unaware of. Demand growth in the primary corridors is happening just as fast anyway.

Most of those 405 trips are coming from very low density that we can't support, and a 35mph commuter train isn't going to make those people choose a mode transfer in the middle of their trip. The best we can do is make density growth easier in the big corridors.


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> It would be better if they extended to Jackson Park/NE 145th, cause that's where the actual congestion starts. It is because of the loss of the HOV lane and the additional loss of the right-most general-purpose lane that causes the congestion at Northgate (sometimes around noon) and about average extends to south of NE 145th. Another factor is that between the main chokepoint and the start of the congestion (NE 145th) there are few SB exits for drivers to escape from I-5, plus congestion at the Northgate exits.
> .


Well a lot of people at Northgate get on I-5 and have to merge through four lanes to get off at an exit on the left side of the freeway, so how the freeway configurations are a major factor in the congestion, and I think it's something WSDOT has to address quickly. 

The way we build our freeways now is just going to be a problem in the future. The way I-90 is built east of Bellevue is really nice, and rarely is there major congestion or problems in that area. Yes there is less people traveling on that stretch of I-90, but lane markers are clear, the pavement is smooth, visibility is great without sharp turns, and the spacing of exits and configuration of lanes are nicely done. I could only wish that I-5 is done the same way.


----------



## BoulderGrad

I-5 has so many problems that need fixing, I'm surprised it doesn't get more mention along with Seattle's other transportation Woes. 

Yes, we need light rail, light rail, and more light rail. But traffic still isn't going to go away until we do something about all the bottlenecks that litter I-5. (The first major one being the express lanes at northgate, second, the express lanes themselves, and third, the jumble of exits downtown.). Getting I-5 moving better means any freeway based bus system (like the BRT mentioned in the workshop plan) will also move that much better. We need something like we saw in Denver with T-rex. Not a region wide plan like prop 1, but just a central Seattle combined freeway and transit improvement project. The only expansion to the freeway needs to be bus lanes or HOV lanes, cut the express lanes out all together, or turn them into a dedicated bus route, remove an exit or two down town, and fix up the interchanges on the rest. That, along with light rail up and running from Northgate to Kent, we'll be seeing a lot more Green on that traffic map.

edit:
Almost forgot the debacle of the southern end of the northbound express lanes. If the express lanes aren't open, the freeway basically goes from 4 lanes to 2 in a matter of about 200 feet... And even if they are open, the traffic merging back and forth and people exiting at Seneca in the middle of all of it turns the southern end of downtown into a parking lot... what the eff? (God I hate driving in this city).


----------



## UrbanBen

BoulderGrad said:


> I-5 has so many problems that need fixing, I'm surprised it doesn't get more mention along with Seattle's other transportation Woes.
> 
> Yes, we need light rail, light rail, and more light rail. But traffic still isn't going to go away until we do something about all the bottlenecks that litter I-5. (The first major one being the express lanes at northgate, second, the express lanes themselves, and third, the jumble of exits downtown.). Getting I-5 moving better means any freeway based bus system (like the BRT mentioned in the workshop plan) will also move that much better. We need something like we saw in Denver with T-rex. Not a region wide plan like prop 1, but just a central Seattle combined freeway and transit improvement project. The only expansion to the freeway needs to be bus lanes or HOV lanes, cut the express lanes out all together, or turn them into a dedicated bus route, remove an exit or two down town, and fix up the interchanges on the rest. That, along with light rail up and running from Northgate to Kent, we'll be seeing a lot more Green on that traffic map.
> 
> edit:
> Almost forgot the debacle of the southern end of the northbound express lanes. If the express lanes aren't open, the freeway basically goes from 4 lanes to 2 in a matter of about 200 feet... And even if they are open, the traffic merging back and forth and people exiting at Seneca in the middle of all of it turns the southern end of downtown into a parking lot... what the eff? (God I hate driving in this city).


We can't make our highways move better until we have a comprehensive rail system. We sprawled, and until we infill, we can't decrease highway congestion.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Well a lot of people at Northgate get on I-5 and have to merge through four lanes to get off at an exit on the left side of the freeway, so how the freeway configurations are a major factor in the congestion, and I think it's something WSDOT has to address quickly.
> 
> The way we build our freeways now is just going to be a problem in the future. The way I-90 is built east of Bellevue is really nice, and rarely is there major congestion or problems in that area. Yes there is less people traveling on that stretch of I-90, but lane markers are clear, the pavement is smooth, visibility is great without sharp turns, and the spacing of exits and configuration of lanes are nicely done. I could only wish that I-5 is done the same way.


Okay, then vote to pay for it... (not you personally, but us in general).
We won't. We feel like expansion needs to come first, and "fixing" later.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Okay, then vote to pay for it... (not you personally, but us in general).
> We won't. We feel like expansion needs to come first, and "fixing" later.


Exactly, and expansion's only a temporary solution and the public doesn't understand that. But I agree with an above post, I-5 doesn't seem to be getting the attention it needs, and when it does, it almost always gets poorly done (e.g. the bridge between West Seattle Bridge and I-90, the pavement could have been paved better). Yes people were under stress, yes there was a time crunch, but the way WSDOT offered 100,000 dollars to the contractor for every day that it was completed early translates into unnecessary time crunches and worker fatigue/unnecessarily long shifts. I think it would be more feasible to take a couple extra days to get things done right than offering money for every day it is completed early, when what happens is corners are cut and quality goes down. What I see in our public and management is all short-term thinking, and very little long-term plans in terms of transportation.

A California super-highway 6 lanes wide have higher accident ratings and congestion than a 3-lane German autobahn. It's also the way we drive, the way driving laws are enforced, and the configuration of the highways themselves.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

Just to summarize (I think): build light rail first to take pressure off I-5 when it does get rebuilt. The stretch in question (based on info from WSDOT) is between the King/Snohomish county line and Tukwila. We need a light rail segment (plus buses and Sounder) to serve that stretch, so commuters who drive can park at park-and-rides in the suburbs and take transit into Seattle. Once we have that stretch built (and well-established), WSDOT can effectively rebuild I-5 without making hell for everyone. But, it all depends on the commuters themselves, whether they still love their cars or do they want to take the "cool" way.

Everyone got the picture?


----------



## UrbanBen

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Just to summarize (I think): build light rail first to take pressure off I-5 when it does get rebuilt. The stretch in question (based on info from WSDOT) is between the King/Snohomish county line and Tukwila. We need a light rail segment (plus buses and Sounder) to serve that stretch, so commuters who drive can park at park-and-rides in the suburbs and take transit into Seattle. Once we have that stretch built (and well-established), WSDOT can effectively rebuild I-5 without making hell for everyone. But, it all depends on the commuters themselves, whether they still love their cars or do they want to take the "cool" way.
> 
> Everyone got the picture?


No, we will never have the money for an I-5 rebuild. WSDOT estimated that even adding one lane each direction (in 1997) from end to end of the city limits would be $25 billion - and given inflation, that'd be $40 billion today. Sure, we'll re-pave 5, maybe we'll replace a ramp here or there, but it's unlikely any large-scale work or widening will ever occur until the physical structure needs replacement.

We'll build light rail to Northgate, and then we'll build rail to Ballard and West Seattle, and when those are dramatic successes, we'll build rail to Renton and Bothell, and maybe Issaquah.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

UrbanBen said:


> No, we will never have the money for an I-5 rebuild. WSDOT estimated that even adding one lane each direction (in 1997) from end to end of the city limits would be $25 billion - and given inflation, that'd be $40 billion today. Sure, we'll re-pave 5, maybe we'll replace a ramp here or there, but it's unlikely any large-scale work or widening will ever occur until the physical structure needs replacement.
> 
> We'll build light rail to Northgate, and then we'll build rail to Ballard and West Seattle, and when those are dramatic successes, we'll build rail to Renton and Bothell, and maybe Issaquah.


Are you talking about in the near future or the unforseeable future? I'm just trying to remember what WSDOT said on their website. Sure, I understand that I-5 cannot even be repaved with the current funds available; I was just stating the idea that light rail needs to "take over" for I-5 (or other routes) whenever there is construction work (whether repaving or rebuild) so commuters aren't stuck in a jam, kind of like the August I-5 construction.

All i'm saying is MORE LIGHT RAIL!


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> Are you talking about in the near future or the unforseeable future? I'm just trying to remember what WSDOT said on their website. Sure, I understand that I-5 cannot even be repaved with the current funds available; I was just stating the idea that light rail needs to "take over" for I-5 (or other routes) whenever there is construction work (whether repaving or rebuild) so commuters aren't stuck in a jam, kind of like the August I-5 construction.
> 
> All i'm saying is MORE LIGHT RAIL!


Further expansion would be a waste of time/money/resources and unreasonable. IMHO.


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

HAWC1506 said:


> Further expansion would be a waste of time/money/resources and unreasonable. IMHO.


I wasn't talking about widening I-5 (if that's what you're talking about). Who the **** would want to widen I-5 any bigger than it is now? 

Again, more light rail, period.


----------



## HAWC1506

taiwanesedrummer36 said:


> I wasn't talking about widening I-5 (if that's what you're talking about). Who the **** would want to widen I-5 any bigger than it is now?
> 
> Again, more light rail, period.


The dingbats at WSDOT, who can't seem to understand why European highways can function so smoothly with half the lanes that we do. They claim adding lanes increase capacity, if you look at their website it's all, "Adding this lane will increase the freeway capacity by 50 percent." Yeah they mean increasing the number of cars able to be parked on the highway by 50 percent. We "increase" safety (note quotes) by adding lanes and lowering speed limits. Europeans increase (notice no quotes) safety by enforcing traffic laws and keeping their roads in good shape. Prime example: The German Autobahn. No speed limit, lots of trucks, yet accident rates are one of the lowest in the world. 

BTW I read somewhere that there was a bill that addressed the passing law and fought to enforce it, but it was turned down by lawmakers.


----------



## sequoias

I don't get it that European highways have less lanes and don't get much congestion like here in the US. What you described doesn't make sense to me. 

How can cars going at high speed have less congestion, if lot of cars pour in during rush hours on a 6 lane freeway. You would need to find the AADT numbers of a 6 lane freeway in Europe during rush hour in a major metro area and compare it to a 6 lane freeway in a major metro area in the US to see if it makes any difference. If it has similar numbers and doesn't get congested in Europe and it gets congested here, would that be strange? Yes, it would. I noticed on I-405 going north which is 5-6 lanes then narrows to 3 lanes at the junction of SR 522 and it gets congested. It doesn't happen everyday, though. Congestion can happen all the way from Bellevue to Bothell area.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> I don't get it that European highways have less lanes and don't get much congestion like here in the US. What you described doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> How can cars going at high speed have less congestion, if lot of cars pour in during rush hours on a 6 lane freeway. You would need to find the AADT numbers of a 6 lane freeway in Europe during rush hour in a major metro area and compare it to a 6 lane freeway in a major metro area in the US to see if it makes any difference. If it has similar numbers and doesn't get congested in Europe and it gets congested here, would that be strange? Yes, it would. I noticed on I-405 going north which is 5-6 lanes then narrows to 3 lanes at the junction of SR 522 and it gets congested. It doesn't happen everyday, though. Congestion can happen all the way from Bellevue to Bothell area.


The reason Europe has less congestion is that they load-balance onto trains. A region like ours in Europe would have half a dozen mainline rail stations and a dozen tram routes, plus likely a couple of subway lines. Strasbourg (the European city I'm most familiar with) has five tramway lines and several SNCF stations, and they're a city of 275k in an urban area of 700k. Seattle's 600k, plus the Sound Transit district (which is a good approximation of 'urban area') has about 2.7 million.


----------



## RawLee

sequoias said:


> You would need to find the AADT numbers of a 6 lane freeway in Europe during rush hour in a major metro area


Got from here


----------



## sequoias

That sounds like they never get congestion due the numbers for a 12 lane highway (6 lane each way). That's similar number of lanes to Seattle's I-5 which gets almost 300,000 per day on the ship canal bridge. 

So more cars use the highways here in the US than in Europe. That explains why it almost never get congested.

We seriously need to look more into transit and focus less on highways. Less cars use the highways will equal less wear on the infrastructure and spend more on the highway improvements.


----------



## Jaxom92

I think Prop 1 had the right idea about a comprehensive focus. A lot needs to happen simultaneously:

*Transportation*
- Alternative transportation method expanson (preferably rail along most traveled corridors and destinations)
- Freeway capacity expansion (405 is the epitome of this problem)
- Freeway connectivity (167 anybody?)
- High-Capacity roadways (BRT and HOV - they're proven to help)

*Development*
- Infill/brownfield development (Tacoma is a good example of the need here)
- Increased density (Yes, funnily enough, density can solve some problems)
- High-Capacity corridor focus (like along rail lines)

*Enforcement*
- I don't have any really good examples off the top of my head for this, so if anybody wants to fill in this section, go a head and I'll edit later.

Anyhow, there's a lot of different issues that need to be looked at within and beyond transportation that need to happen in in conjunction with each other in order for our urban environments to be more livable - and for the purposes of this discussion that means less congestion.


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.soundtransit.org/x4825.xml










Guided Tour of Light Rail Construction

Ride the Lunch Bus

Sound Transit Link light rail would like to invite you to tour the entire initial segment construction. The Community Outreach Division will be hosting the Lunch Bus tour twice this month, on Saturday, February 23rd and Friday, February 29th. The tour is part of Link light rail’s on-going effort to mitigate construction impacts on local businesses. This is a guided bus tour that will take you to and along the current construction sites. At any time during the tour, please feel free to ask questions. The tour is then followed by lunch at a local eating establishment. You are responsible for buying your own lunch. 










Tours depart and return at the southwest corner of 5th Avenue & South King Street in the International District. A Sound Transit bus marked “SPECIAL” will be waiting. Tours depart at 11:30 a.m. and return by 3 p.m.

Cost of lunch is $10 (cash only) which includes a meal, drink, and tax.

We are sorry, but due to restrictions in our insurance policies, children under 18 are not permitted on the lunch bus tour.

RSVP

To RSVP or for more information please contact Wilbert Santos at 206-398-5300 or via e-mail: [email protected] . In your e-mail, please include your name, organization, telephone number, and any request for accomodations.










Tour Details for February, 2008

SODO, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Tukwila and Airport 

Saturday, February 23, 2008
RSVP by February 22

Lunch location:
Thai Recipe

Cost of lunch is $10 (cash only) which includes a meal, drink, and tax.

SODO, Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley, Tukwila and Airport 

Friday, February 29, 2008
RSVP by February 28

Lunch location:
Jones BBQ

Cost of lunch is $10 (cash only) which includes a meal, drink, and tax.

View the newly completed SODO and Stadium light rail stations and the Operations and Maintenance facility – you may even see the first light rail vehicle! Catch a glimpse of the Beacon Hill Station area where miners are excavating the underground station. See the elevated Mount Baker Station and guideway. Come see Martin Luther King Jr. Way S. get a facelift with new light rail, street improvements, sidewalks, lighting and landscaping. In Tukwila, see the huge overhead gantry that is being used to build nearly ﬁve miles of elevated trackway. Finally at Sea-Tac Airport take a look at the 1.7 miles of elevated and surface trackway that will connect the Tukwila International Blvd Station to the airport.


----------



## HAWC1506

greg_christine said:


> We are sorry, but due to restrictions in our insurance policies, children under 18 are not permitted on the lunch bus tour.


Oh those dirt bags...


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> I don't get it that European highways have less lanes and don't get much congestion like here in the US. What you described doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> How can cars going at high speed have less congestion, if lot of cars pour in during rush hours on a 6 lane freeway. You would need to find the AADT numbers of a 6 lane freeway in Europe during rush hour in a major metro area and compare it to a 6 lane freeway in a major metro area in the US to see if it makes any difference. If it has similar numbers and doesn't get congested in Europe and it gets congested here, would that be strange? Yes, it would. I noticed on I-405 going north which is 5-6 lanes then narrows to 3 lanes at the junction of SR 522 and it gets congested. It doesn't happen everyday, though. Congestion can happen all the way from Bellevue to Bothell area.


Obviously, there is much better public transportation, and that allows for funds to maintain their existing infrastructure instead of expanding it. Then also, traffic laws/infrastructure that reduces merging and passing (yes passing law again, and to my knowledge, little or no exits on the left side of the road.)


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Do not forget this, European countries has more than double gas prices than we have right now. Not everyone in Europe can afford expensive gas so they have another choices... Public Transportation. Here in USA, we don't have much choices but continue drive no matter how expensive gas is.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> That sounds like they never get congestion due the numbers for a 12 lane highway (6 lane each way). That's similar number of lanes to Seattle's I-5 which gets almost 300,000 per day on the ship canal bridge.
> 
> So more cars use the highways here in the US than in Europe. That explains why it almost never get congested.
> 
> We seriously need to look more into transit and focus less on highways. Less cars use the highways will equal less wear on the infrastructure and spend more on the highway improvements.


Hear, hear. Load balancing!


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> Do not forget this, European countries has more than double gas prices than we have right now. Not everyone in Europe can afford expensive gas so they have another choices... Public Transportation. Here in USA, we don't have much choices but continue drive no matter how expensive gas is.


The public transport came before the gas prices - you need that public transport before you can make it so expensive to drive. It requires investment.


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> The public transport came before the gas prices - you need that public transport before you can make it so expensive to drive. It requires investment.


That's it! I guess we just had our priorities screwed up, and they're still screwed up...


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

UrbanBen said:


> The public transport came before the gas prices - you need that public transport before you can make it so expensive to drive. It requires investment.


I know that. In the beginning when automobile were invented, millions of Americans thought it was the best thing even invented. It turned out as the biggest mistake even Americans made! Now we have to fix the mistakes by invest in public transit system. 



HAWC1506 said:


> That's it! I guess we just had our priorities screwed up, and they're still screwed up...


That is true. hno:


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> I know that. In the beginning when automobile were invented, millions of Americans thought it was the best thing even invented. It turned out as the biggest mistake even Americans made! Now we have to fix the mistakes by invest in public transit system.
> 
> 
> 
> That is true. hno:


Aren't there things like citizen request forms that you can send to the government? I think our transportation network and regulations/laws should be managed more by the federal government and state DOTs should just be responsible for the workforce/funding and maintenance. The 520 bridge will probably be a lot higher on the priority list if things were managed by the Federal Government, and we'd probably get more funding too from the Federal Government. Then the DOT/ST can focus more about LR and leave the highways to the Federal Gvmt.


----------



## greg_christine

*Sound Transit Photo of the Week for February 8 through 14, 2008*










_*Welcome to Stadium Station*

For the first time ever, a four-car Link light rail train this week ran under its own power from the Link light rail Operations & Maintenance Facility to Stadium Station in the SODO area of Seattle. The test went very well. Testing of light rail trains will continue throughout this year in anticipation of service startup next year._

=========================================================

This may be a record for the longest light rail train in the United States. The Central Link vehicles are each 95' in length. A four-car train is 380'. Buffalo and Sacramento both have four-car light rail trains; however, Buffalo has non-articulated vehicles that are only 64' in length and most of the vehicles in Sacramento are older articulated models that are 80' in length.


----------



## UrbanBen

That's why I prefer talking about Link as a light metro - at 3 people per square meter standing (which is much lighter load than we have on buses today), that 4-car train carries 800. Japanese metros can get up to 10 people per square meter standing, but I'd expect a realistic maximum of 5-6 people per square meter standing. Note that the largest passengers typically sit, so the average girth of a standing passenger is lower than the city's average (which is already far below the national average).

Oh, the other pictures of the four-car train are on the seattle transit blog's photostream, if you want higher quality.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Aren't there things like citizen request forms that you can send to the government? I think our transportation network and regulations/laws should be managed more by the federal government and state DOTs should just be responsible for the workforce/funding and maintenance. The 520 bridge will probably be a lot higher on the priority list if things were managed by the Federal Government, and we'd probably get more funding too from the Federal Government. Then the DOT/ST can focus more about LR and leave the highways to the Federal Gvmt.


So when our infrastructure *was* managed by the federal government, they managed to kill the railways. Let's get lobbyists out of government, THEN consider our options.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> Aren't there things like citizen request forms that you can send to the government? I think our transportation network and regulations/laws should be managed more by the federal government and state DOTs should just be responsible for the workforce/funding and maintenance. The 520 bridge will probably be a lot higher on the priority list if things were managed by the Federal Government, and we'd probably get more funding too from the Federal Government. Then the DOT/ST can focus more about LR and leave the highways to the Federal Gvmt.


I believe that the government is more concerned about the safety than any projects. For example, look at Minneapolis' collapsed bridge that caught so many people's attentions. The Washington Government looks at 520 Bridge and Alaskan Viaduct as their top priorities to do instead focus on public transportation projects for safety reasons. They wants to get it fixed before it collapse and hurt/kill anyone.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> That's why I prefer talking about Link as a light metro - at 3 people per square meter standing (which is much lighter load than we have on buses today), that 4-car train carries 800. ...


The term "Llght Metro" is generally reserved for systems such as Vancouver's Skytrain or the various VAL systems in Europe and Asia:



















The features that distinguish a Light Metro system are that they are fully grade-separated, are usually fully automated, and acheive the desired capacity by operating relatively short trains at high frequency.


----------



## UrbanBen

Ours are actually fairly automated. The operators do very little of the work.
As for grade separation - University of Washington to International District will be, as soon as they kick buses out. SODO streets will eventually be closed. Sure, the Rainier Valley isn't, but any new north or east sections likely will be.


----------



## guinessbeer55

The Rainier Valley portion still has its own right of way... its not like a typical light rail line where it mixes with traffic... it will only cross the intersections.


----------



## SteveM

One of the details I envy about SkyTrain is that it breaks even on operations. It seems like there are three key factors making this possible:

1) High fares
2) Density built along the lines, even in the suburbs
3) Automated trains = no labor costs for operators

It would be interesting to know the relative contributions of each of those factors; transit that could break even on operations could be a much easier sell here in the states *if* it were feasible.


----------



## HAWC1506

SteveM said:


> One of the details I envy about SkyTrain is that it breaks even on operations. It seems like there are three key factors making this possible:
> 
> 1) High fares
> 2) Density built along the lines, even in the suburbs
> 3) Automated trains = no labor costs for operators
> 
> It would be interesting to know the relative contributions of each of those factors; transit that could break even on operations could be a much easier sell here in the states *if* it were feasible.


A lot of automated trains have standby operators though don't they?


----------



## spongeg

has no way a driver could take over

theres no controls or anything


----------



## mr.x

HAWC1506 said:


> A lot of automated trains have standby operators though don't they?


With SkyTrain, there are no cabs: the public can to sit at the front window. Though the trains are automated, each train tail still has a driver's control panel...it is hidden beneath a cupboard. This is what it looks like, for Vancouver's Canada Line:










The trains are driven manually only when there is a major snowstorm.


I believe Hong Kong's MTR trains are driven automatically, but they do have drivers as well just to make sure things don't go wrong. The drivers are also responsible for opening and closing the doors, rather than the automation program.


----------



## deasine

I think there are controls on the SkyTrain aren't they? I've seen SkyTrain attendants operating the train during snowstorms. But I don't think they have 100% control of it.

Anyway it's great to see that Seattle is already testing their system with four linked trains.


----------



## mr.x

deasine said:


> I think there are controls on the SkyTrain aren't they? I've seen SkyTrain attendants operating the train during snowstorms. But I don't think they have 100% control of it.
> 
> Anyway it's great to see that Seattle is already testing their system with four linked trains.


Yes, there are controls on SkyTrain...exactly like the posted Canada Line train controls picture above.


----------



## greg_christine

UrbanBen said:


> Ours are actually fairly automated. The operators do very little of the work.
> As for grade separation - University of Washington to International District will be, as soon as they kick buses out. SODO streets will eventually be closed. Sure, the Rainier Valley isn't, but any new north or east sections likely will be.


Many of the systems that are described as "Light Metros" are automated to the extent that they don't have driver's cabs. Some have onboard human monitors. Vancouver's Skytrain and the various VAL system have no onboard staff during normal operations.

There are a few light rail lines that might plausibly be considered metros. The Green Line in Los Angeles has all high-level platforms and is fully grade-separated. It was even set up for automation though it has never operated that way. The light rail system in St. Louis also has all high-level platforms. It has grade crossings but they are protected by crossing gates.


----------



## HAWC1506

According to WSDOT, BNSF has abandoned the rail line into Bellevue. I found out when I was checking on construction projects on I-405. Rail tracks run right over the Wilburton tunnel on Southbound 405, which will be removed (along with the tracks that run over it) by WSDOT this August to pave way for freeway expansion. I wonder if there are plans to remove that rail bridge over I-90 as well. Looking at that graffitied up bridge has always been an eye-sore. 

But yeah, that sums it up for ya, no BNSF heavy-rail transport will be used in that corridor anymore. (Don't start the light/heavy-rail argument again. I'm just using it for distinguishing purposes.)


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> According to WSDOT, BNSF has abandoned the rail line into Bellevue. I found out when I was checking on construction projects on I-405. Rail tracks run right over the Wilburton tunnel on Southbound 405, which will be removed (along with the tracks that run over it) by WSDOT this August to pave way for freeway expansion. I wonder if there are plans to remove that rail bridge over I-90 as well. Looking at that graffitied up bridge has always been an eye-sore.
> 
> But yeah, that sums it up for ya, no BNSF heavy-rail transport will be used in that corridor anymore. (Don't start the light/heavy-rail argument again. I'm just using it for distinguishing purposes.)


It is not abandoned yet. I think they still use the rail for some freight operations once in a while. I already posted in the Eastside rail thread saying that I saw a locomotive pulling 2 fuselage of planes in Bellevue.


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> It is not abandoned yet. I think they still use the rail for some freight operations once in a while. I already posted in the Eastside rail thread saying that I saw a locomotive pulling 2 fuselage of planes in Bellevue.


Hmm maybe not yet, but the tunnel's coming down August of 2008. I sort of wish they would rebuild the rail line, but I guess it's not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> Hmm maybe not yet, but the tunnel's coming down August of 2008. I sort of wish they would rebuild the rail line, but I guess it's not going to happen anytime soon.


We will see what happens, Sound Transit proposal for the next ballot has the eastside rail with DMU trains. It's hard to tell if they will actually take down the bridge across I-405 or something...WSDOT and Sound Transit might have to work together with that.


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> We will see what happens, Sound Transit proposal for the next ballot has the eastside rail with DMU trains. It's hard to tell if they will actually take down the bridge across I-405 or something...WSDOT and Sound Transit might have to work together with that.


What are DMU trains?


----------



## HAWC1506

Oh yeah Diesel Multiple Units. I just looked it up. Are they the same ones as the one Sound Transit currently uses? If it was a new higher-speed system, that would be awesome *drools* I'm surprised ST isn't considering electric trains.


----------



## deasine

This is the one in Ottawa OC Transpo. In fact, DMUs are relatively inexpensive and can help the transit system A LOT.


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> Oh yeah Diesel Multiple Units. I just looked it up. Are they the same ones as the one Sound Transit currently uses? If it was a new higher-speed system, that would be awesome *drools* I'm surprised ST isn't considering electric trains.


Probably cheaper to build because no need for overhead wires. They said they won't go fast. They will go around 40 mph or so due to the area it is in. There are low and high speed DMU trains. Some DMU have top speed of 55-60 mph while others can go up to 125 mph in other parts of the countries.


----------



## HAWC1506

deasine said:


> This is the one in Ottawa OC Transpo. In fact, DMUs are relatively inexpensive and can help the transit system A LOT.


Ahhh the one pictured above doesn't seem to have a completely flat floor (forgot the term for that). It looks great though. It would be awesome for Bellevue.

Are there any details on the DMUs around Bellevue? The stops, routes, manufacturer/contractor, etc?


----------



## HAWC1506

Hey I did some research and found a transcript of a 710 KIRO interview of Cascadia Center Director Bruce Agnew on the proposed Eastside DMU:

Here's an excerpt:

DAVE ROSS: So, what's the timeline here? When would you actually get a test train running?

BRUCE AGNEW: Well, we need to remind your listeners that the Port (of Seattle) has to complete the deal with BNSF, which is pending. All indications are that its going forward and then the feds have to approve it, and then the Port of Seattle - and I think they deserve a pat on the back, it's been a little rough for them lately - they'll move forward with a public process on this in '08. We're proposing that '08-'09 is when the track is improved and the trail is developed. And we're looking at a pilot project between Snohomish and Bellevue initially, maybe in a year or two, and then of course after the Wilburton work is done on 405, looking at the Renton-Bellevue sector, and working closely with King County on that, and the trail folks. So it could first initially be Snohomish-Bellevue and then south of Bellevue after that.

DAVE ROSS: Now, are you pretty sure you're going to be able to preserve the tracks, because that was the big issue here. The county seemed to be intent on ripping up the tracks as quickly as possible.

BRUCE AGNEW: That was the initial proposal by Ron Sims. But I've got to give Ron Sims a lot of credit. He's been very open to alternative ideas, and he just thought he could get the trail done quickly with county money, but since, with the failure of Prop. I, there's just so much more interest in doing something on the Eastside. So I think the technical work we paid for by BNSF's retired folks, in terms of looking at what it would cost to rehab the tracks, specifically, about $37 million for those 42 miles of track, is doable. And, you know, we could do that in '08, after the public process, and then look at who might operate the train (in) '09, or maybe 2010.

Link is here: http://www.discovery.org/a/4416

There are no plans to reconnect the rail line above the Wilburton Tunnel after it's removed. I have no clue what they intend on doing.


----------



## UrbanBen

sequoias said:


> We will see what happens, Sound Transit proposal for the next ballot has the eastside rail with DMU trains. It's hard to tell if they will actually take down the bridge across I-405 or something...WSDOT and Sound Transit might have to work together with that.


No, their proposal is a study. That study will likely show that you'll see max 2000 people a day with $500m-$1b of investment.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Oh yeah Diesel Multiple Units. I just looked it up. Are they the same ones as the one Sound Transit currently uses? If it was a new higher-speed system, that would be awesome *drools* I'm surprised ST isn't considering electric trains.


Speed limits are federal regulations and track condition. Sound Transit isn't in any position to make their trains go any faster than 79mph.

The eastside corridor would require hundreds of millions just to get up to 35mph.

Haven't we had this discussion before? Do I need to restate the half dozen or so reasons that each individually make BNSF eastside rail absolutely impossible?


----------



## HAWC1506

UrbanBen said:


> Speed limits are federal regulations and track condition. Sound Transit isn't in any position to make their trains go any faster than 79mph.
> 
> The eastside corridor would require hundreds of millions just to get up to 35mph.
> 
> Haven't we had this discussion before? Do I need to restate the half dozen or so reasons that each individually make BNSF eastside rail absolutely impossible?


I don't think I was here when you guys had that discussion. But, I'm curious, if you could send me to the page where you guys had the discussion, that'll be swell.


----------



## HAWC1506

The proposed EMU is a double decker.


----------



## HAWC1506

I see that ST has been leaving the light rail cars out in the open now. I go by I-5 and I see some single and two-car trains sitting out there.


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> I don't think I was here when you guys had that discussion. But, I'm curious, if you could send me to the page where you guys had the discussion, that'll be swell.


Sure, I'll just give you the basic points, actually:

- The track doesn't hit any of the urban cores, so ridership would be abysmal.
- Even with a lot of work, the track would be limited to 35mph, contributing to that abysmal ridership.
- Some of the track goes through people's back yards. There are a ton of at-grade crossings. NIMBYism would drag out permitting for years, and potentially stop the project. It's very high-risk.
- That work takes money away from building light rail. We're talking about likely half a billion in work for a couple thousand riders a day, versus four billion for forty thousand riders a day. It doesn't even pencil.

The people pushing this are anti-transit. They want to prevent light rail from getting across I-90. People picking up on it are generally just underinformed.


----------



## SteveM

UrbanBen said:


> Sure, I'll just give you the basic points, actually:
> 
> - The track doesn't hit any of the urban cores, so ridership would be abysmal.
> - Even with a lot of work, the track would be limited to 35mph, contributing to that abysmal ridership.
> - Some of the track goes through people's back yards. There are a ton of at-grade crossings. NIMBYism would drag out permitting for years, and potentially stop the project. It's very high-risk.
> - That work takes money away from building light rail. We're talking about likely half a billion in work for a couple thousand riders a day, versus four billion for forty thousand riders a day. It doesn't even pencil.
> 
> The people pushing this are anti-transit. They want to prevent light rail from getting across I-90. People picking up on it are generally just underinformed.


Interesting. I'm starting to become convinced. This does remind me a little of the pro-pseudo-BRT crowd who attempt to convince people that faster buses to irrelevant places are as valuable as urban rail (see Houston's HOV-based bus system -- looks decent on a map but has terrible ridership)

Ben, do you think the corridor is worth preserving for rail? Or would it be better to start from scratch on an Eastside North-South line?


----------



## UrbanBen

SteveM said:


> Interesting. I'm starting to become convinced. This does remind me a little of the pro-pseudo-BRT crowd who attempt to convince people that faster buses to irrelevant places are as valuable as urban rail (see Houston's HOV-based bus system -- looks decent on a map but has terrible ridership)
> 
> Ben, do you think the corridor is worth preserving for rail? Or would it be better to start from scratch on an Eastside North-South line?


I don't think rail is a good reason to preserve the corridor, but I do think that the big hole it would fill in our cycling trail network is plenty of reason on its own - there are few choices today for cyclists doing the lake washington loop. There are _parts_ that could be useful later (for light rail), and putting a trail in won't create any barrier to that.

Any Eastside north-south line will be mostly from scratch anyway. I'll bet 90% of the cost of land acquisitions/easements will be in the downtowns, where this line doesn't go. I'd say worry about it in 20 years, rather than adding complexity to the already difficult fight just to keep the state legislature from cutting Sound Transit off at the knees, and to get extensions to the core line passed at the ballot.


----------



## greg_christine

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/353161_sound29.html

Last updated February 28, 2008 9:34 p.m. PT

Sound Transit saves and pays extra $20 million

$72 million price more than agency expected, but less than first bid
P-I STAFF

Mowat Construction will build a station at Sea-Tac Airport for Sound Transit's light rail system, but for $72 million, $20 million more than the agency initially thought.

Sound Transit board members Thursday approved a contract for Mowat to build the station at a cost that's $23.3 million cheaper than Mowat originally bid.

Despite a year's delay in the contract process, Sound Transit will complete the station in time to open light rail service between downtown Seattle and the airport, said Ron Lewis, the agency's deputy light-rail director.

The station is part of a $2.6 billion, 15.7-mile light rail system linking downtown Seattle to the airport. Sound Transit plans to open the system in December 2009.

Mowat was the lone bidder in March 2007 to build the station, a multilevel structure with a mezzanine that connects to the airport garage and the terminal, and a pedestrian overpass above International Boulevard that will connect to a pedestrian plaza on the east side of that street.

The company bid $95.3 million to build a station Sound Transit engineers estimated would cost $51.8 million. 

Officials blamed the high bid on lack of competition and a booming construction environment that kept many contractors busy erecting buildings elsewhere.

Lewis said calling for new bids risked the possibility that no new ones would be submitted, and that the work would be delayed past the startup date.

So the agency went ahead with another contract for Mowat to build the concrete floors of the structure and the supports for the rails leading to it. The agency negotiated with Mowat to trim $23 million from the price of the building, and Sound Transit also set aside $2 million to cover unforeseen contingencies.

The building still will look basically the same as planned, Lewis said, but cost savings were made by reducing the size of the building's internal structural supports, narrowing the roof width, reducing the amount of glass and eliminating an enclosure for an emergency-access stairway.

Lewis said Sound Transit engineers advanced the original design thinking they could build the station for the amount they originally estimated. 

He said "having a contractor in a room with the designer helped" when the agency negotiated the lower-cost design with Mowat.

He said some Sound Transit staffers who worked on the original airport station design also are developing the design for a station planned near Husky Stadium on the University of Washington for service to the campus. Lessons learned at the airport will be applied at the UW, he said.


----------



## TheHeadMaster

Any word on when the second tunnel through beacon hill will finally be complete?


----------



## HAWC1506

TheHeadMaster said:


> Any word on when the second tunnel through beacon hill will finally be complete?


Not a clue, there have been so little news on LR and ST these days this thread is dying.

Anyone interested in talking about some road development around the area to pass the time?


----------



## Seattlist

The TBM is breaking through the second Beacon hill tunnel today!


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=526434

Sound Move
Sound Transit Heading Toward 2008 Light Rail Measure
by Erica C. Barnett

1.

A majority of the Sound Transit board now appears to be leaning toward a vote on a transit-only ballot measure in 2008.

Sound Transit's 18-member board has until March 29 to decide if it wants to put a transit package on the ballot this year, and which projects to put in front of voters. On March 6, staff will present board members with a proposal to raise sales taxes in the Sound Transit area 0.4 percent—an increase that would raise about $6 billion, in 2007 dollars, over 20 years. For that amount, voters would get light rail from Husky Stadium to Northgate and from Seattle to Bellevue across I-90. The proposal would also pay for a streetcar connecting Capitol Hill to First Hill, where a planned light-rail station was eliminated; and it would include bus or commuter rail expansions in the areas that would no longer be served by light rail, including Lynnwood, Redmond, and Tacoma.

The new proposal, which would complete construction in just 12 years, is cheaper, shorter, and, board members hope, more politically palatable than the "Roads and Transit" ballot measure voters rejected last year, which would have raised $10.8 billion for transit projects, including light-rail expansion in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. The board also contemplated a smaller plan, which would have raised taxes three-tenths of 1 percent; but at that level, Sound Transit spokesman Ric Ilgenfritz says, "we'd just be putting it all into light rail to Northgate and Bellevue. You'd have two good segments, but no connections."

The biggest difference between last year's ballot measure and the new scaled-back transit package is that while previous plans called for continuous light rail from Lynnwood to Tacoma, the new proposal relies heavily on bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter rail. "What you see here is a different vision [than Roads and Transit]," Ilgenfritz says. "Obviously, it's not what we proposed in the last plan. But with this level of revenue and the time horizon [of 12 years], we can't afford to extend light rail that far south."

Even Sound Transit supporters acknowledge that the BRT in the plan wouldn't be true "rapid transit," because it would run in HOV lanes along with carpools and other buses. Additionally, because the plan includes more buses and less light rail, any new proposal will probably include substantially more parking than Roads and Transit. The total number of new parking spots being contemplated, according to planning documents, is greater than 10,000, although it's unlikely that much parking will be built.

"It's unfortunate that we can't go to a bigger system, but we're digging our way out of a 35-year hole," says King County Council Member Larry Phillips, a supporter of the 2008 proposal. "The public told us, 'give us fewer projects to consider that give us a bigger bang for the buck.' So that's what we did."

2.

Coming out of 2007, board members and legislators were understandably skittish about moving forward with a large new transit proposal this year, with many leaders leaning toward a vote in 2010. Initially, it appeared that neither the governor nor the legislature would get behind 2008. Governor Christine Gregoire, it was generally believed, would not support a tax increase this year, when she's up for reelection. Sound Transit supporters also worried that the state legislature would take steps to dissolve or reorganize the agency.

Luckily for Sound Transit, none of its worst fears were borne out. Legislation by senate transportation chair Mary Margaret Haugen to dissolve Sound Transit failed to make it past the cutoff date for legislation to move out of committee; subsequent efforts to prevent Sound Transit from going forward in 2008 failed as well. Subsequently, Governor Gregoire said she would support a light-rail plan that went "north before south," ["Grading the Governor," Josh Feit, Feb 20], as this plan does. The state secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond, sits on the Sound Transit board and is expected to follow the governor's lead.

3.

Board support for the tentative proposal breaks down, for the most part, along fairly predictable geographic lines. Currently, all members of the King County Sound Transit delegation, including Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin, and Phillips, support going to the ballot in 2008. "I've been keeping it alive," Phillips says, with characteristic modesty. But "the more we analyze '08, the more we realize we'd be nuts not to put something out there to the presidential year electorate"—Democratic voters who Phillips believes are likely to support transit. Conlin, who just joined the Sound Transit board this year, is less adamant; he says that although right now, "I'm for it," it's "possible that in the end, I may vote with the majority if the majority is against it."

The only outliers among the King County delegation are reportedly King County Council Member Julia Patterson (who did not return a call for comment) and King County Executive Ron Sims, who has not been attending Sound Transit meetings. "He's waiting for the perfect plan," Phillips says derisively. Sims did not return a call for comment.

Opinion on the Eastside is reportedly more divided, with several representatives waiting to make up their minds. Redmond Mayor John Marchione, who took his seat on the Sound Transit board just two weeks ago, says he's been busy "talking to other board members and constituents" about their concerns with the proposal. "I'm very cognizant of the economy and what it might do this year—bad economies don't produce positive votes on tax increases." Marchione says he's "disappointed that light rail doesn't reach all the way to Microsoft," but adds, "it might be a political necessity. People want to build this system in smaller bites and they want to see some success" before moving forward. Fred Butler, the deputy council president of Issaquah, meanwhile, says he's "not really prepared to say one way or another," although if pressured, "I'd probably say I lean just a little bit more toward 2008. But I have certainly not made up my mind and probably will not do so until I have to, in late March."

None of the Pierce County representatives contacted for this story, including County Executive John Ladenburg, returned calls; however, numerous sources report that Pierce County board members are leaning toward a vote in 2008. Meanwhile, Snohomish County board members, including County Executive Aaron Reardon, want to wait until 2010 so that they can come up with a plan that better serves their county. "In Snohomish County, we don't have the taxing capacity [of Seattle], so whatever we do has to be very strategic," Reardon says, adding that the current plan "really would not pass the straight face test with north-end voters." If the board decides to move forward in March, it will have until late June or early July to come up with a final plan to put on the ballot in November. 

[email protected]


----------



## TheHeadMaster

Great news! I'd personally like to see a much more extensive network, but I realize it likely wouldn't pass. If we can get this approved, it will add the most important extensions to the system and at a later date we can run another vote extending it further. In another 8-10 years we can vote to approve further expansion. Expanding piece by piece is the only way we will get a system built and the sooner we can get something voted on and approved the better. I can't wait until the system opens next year, but the proposed extensions really improve the usefulness of the system.


----------



## greg_christine

Sound Transit Photo of the Week

March 7 - 13, 2008










Breaking through Beacon Hill

Sound Transit Boardmembers, along with members of the Beacon Hill tunnel construction crew, line up to celebrate right after the tunnel boring machine broke through the east side of Beacon Hill this week. Obayashi Corporation’s 300-foot-long tunnel boring machine emerged within five millimeters of its target.


----------



## HAWC1506

Another article on transit today: 

Amtrak Cascades ridership sets all-time record in 2007

Date: Friday, March 07, 2008

Contact: Ken Uznanski, WSDOT Rail Passenger Manager, (360) 705-7905 (Olympia)
Vickie Sheehan, WSDOT Communications, (360) 705-7904 (Olympia)

OLYMPIA – Amtrak Cascades ridership in 2007 increased to 676,670–a 7.4 percent increase over 2006 and the highest annual ridership total since the inception of Amtrak Cascades service.

More convenient schedules and better connections, along with rising fuel prices for motorists influenced ridership growth. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) expects ridership to continue to increase with the extension of the current Portland-Seattle-Bellingham service to Vancouver, B.C in mid-2008.

“We are very pleased with the growth of the Amtrak Cascades service and the significant milestone that we have reached,” said Ken Uznanaski, WSDOT Rail Passenger Manager. “The trend is continuing into 2008 with both January and February ridership up over 13 percent compared to 2007 - the highest ridership totals for these months in the history of the service.”

Additionally, Amtrak and WSDOT have partnered to complete a major interior renovation on all coach and business class cars used on Amtrak Cascades. The $10 million project began summer 2007 and the first completed cars will go into service spring 2008.

Amtrak Cascades consists of four daily round-trips between Portland and Seattle, with service between Bellingham and Portland, via Seattle; between Eugene and Seattle, via Portland; and between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. Amtrak Cascades is operated by Amtrak under contracts with the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation. For Amtrak Cascades fares and schedules, visit http://www.amtrakcascades.com/.


----------



## Vancouverite

greg_christine said:


> Sound Transit Photo of the Week
> 
> March 7 - 13, 2008
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking through Beacon Hill
> 
> Sound Transit Boardmembers, along with members of the Beacon Hill tunnel construction crew, line up to celebrate right after the tunnel boring machine broke through the east side of Beacon Hill this week. Obayashi Corporation’s 300-foot-long tunnel boring machine emerged within five millimeters of its target.


Congratulations! It is great to see the Link LRT project going full speed ahead. I cannot wait for it to be done and to take a trip down to Seattle to ride it.

It is rather serendipitous timing that you guys had your TBM breakthrough this week since we had our TBM breakthrough this past Sunday.









 (My photo, taken March 3rd, 2008)









 (My photo, taken March 3rd, 2008)


----------



## UrbanBen

HAWC1506 said:


> Another article on transit today:
> 
> Amtrak Cascades ridership sets all-time record in 2007
> 
> Date: Friday, March 07, 2008
> 
> Contact: Ken Uznanski, WSDOT Rail Passenger Manager, (360) 705-7905 (Olympia)
> Vickie Sheehan, WSDOT Communications, (360) 705-7904 (Olympia)
> 
> OLYMPIA – Amtrak Cascades ridership in 2007 increased to 676,670–a 7.4 percent increase over 2006 and the highest annual ridership total since the inception of Amtrak Cascades service.
> 
> More convenient schedules and better connections, along with rising fuel prices for motorists influenced ridership growth. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) expects ridership to continue to increase with the extension of the current Portland-Seattle-Bellingham service to Vancouver, B.C in mid-2008.
> 
> “We are very pleased with the growth of the Amtrak Cascades service and the significant milestone that we have reached,” said Ken Uznanaski, WSDOT Rail Passenger Manager. “The trend is continuing into 2008 with both January and February ridership up over 13 percent compared to 2007 - the highest ridership totals for these months in the history of the service.”
> 
> Additionally, Amtrak and WSDOT have partnered to complete a major interior renovation on all coach and business class cars used on Amtrak Cascades. The $10 million project began summer 2007 and the first completed cars will go into service spring 2008.
> 
> Amtrak Cascades consists of four daily round-trips between Portland and Seattle, with service between Bellingham and Portland, via Seattle; between Eugene and Seattle, via Portland; and between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. Amtrak Cascades is operated by Amtrak under contracts with the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation. For Amtrak Cascades fares and schedules, visit http://www.amtrakcascades.com/.


I've been watching this for years, and it's pretty interesting to look at the ridership comparison between Sounder service (south, Seattle-Tacoma) and Amtrak Cascades. When Sounder had four trains a day, like Cascades from Seattle-Portland, they had about the same ridership. As Sounder increased their service levels, their ridership went up at a higher rate.

WSDOT knows they need more money for more round trips - it seems insane to me that they don't even point that out in their press releases - like "WSDOT Urban Rail division has asked for additional funding to reduce overcrowding by adding more trains".

You hear that? Any WSDOT employees here? You guys need to ASK.


----------



## HAWC1506

Light rail cut from the plan for 520 Bridge
Focus is on 6-lane design over lake and bus rapid transit

By DEBERA CARLTON HARRELL AND LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTERS

When Seattle Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis told a group grappling with the Evergreen Point Bridge design not to count on light rail, jaws dropped.

"Don't get your hopes up on light rail across 520, folks," Ceis told the 34-member mediation group recently. "It's probably not going to happen."

You could hear the transit balloon pop. No light rail? In a hyper-congested yet critical corridor that links growing population and job centers? But Sound Transit told the group that for mostly technical reasons, the bridge section of state Route 520 is not a light rail candidate for the foreseeable future.

The revelation, while busting previous assumptions, has freed the mediation team to focus on neighborhood impacts and feasible six-lane designs, rather than on more controversial eight-lane versions for light rail.

The designs, which are being refined this week, call for pontoons strong enough for future light rail. But designs now focus on separate lanes or tunnels to allow hybrid buses to move more rapidly between Interstate 5 and Interstate 405.

"We won't see 520 light rail in our lifetime, but I don't think that's a bad thing," said Virginia Gunby, a mediation team member and former state transportation commissioner.

"You don't need light rail across 520 if you have dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit, in combination with light rail across I-90," Gunby said. "The ideal is to have both."

Rob Johnson, regional policy director for the nonprofit Transportation Choices and a mediation team member, said that while "the environmental community feels really strongly about high capacity across the 520 Bridge ... it doesn't necessarily have to be light rail. ... 520 works pretty well with a bus configuration."

The decision to focus on bus rapid transit on 520 has led to a new buzz for bus rapid transit in the Interstate 90 corridor, particularly as a short-term substitute for more-expensive light rail.

Sound Transit, the agency that has worked for years developing light rail in a north-south corridor, last week delayed until April 10 a board vote on a revised transportation package to possibly be sent to voters this fall. The board is mulling its response to the November defeat of a comprehensive roads and transit package. The measure included funding for light rail across I-90 and an "Eastlink" at least to growing Bellevue, one of the region's biggest employers.

"The decision has been made on 520: four general-purpose lanes and two high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and it's going to have bus rapid transit, not light rail," said King County Executive Ron Sims.

"So now the decision is, how are you going to relieve congestion and get across the lake in the I-90 corridor?" Sims said. "That is a question that the region will have to decide."

Rep. Fred Jarrett, D-Mercer Island, who like Gunby has been involved with regional transportation planning for more than 30 years, said bus rapid transit is the way to go until transit markets, and voters' willingness to tax themselves, are more clear.

"If you build light rail across I-90, it will be 2012, optimistically, before the first part of the line is open from downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue," Jarrett said. "In the long run, trains would be better, but how long do you want to wait?"

Some transportation experts say I-90's middle lanes could be converted to "hot lanes" or "zip lanes" for single-occupancy drivers willing to pay tolls, as well as toll-exempt buses. This could provide an interim approach to light rail and provide a better picture of transit demand, plus help pay for transit improvements on both trans-lake corridors, said Bruce Agnew, director of the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a Seattle think tank.

Ultimately, light rail would be built on I-90's outside lanes, planners say.

King County, helped by federal transportation policies and funding, is bullish on buses. While Sims supports light rail as a needed "spine," he considers buses the "rib cage" of a transportation system. With gas and parking costs climbing, bus ridership already exceeds demand, Sims said.

As part of the expansion plan for its hybrid-bus fleet (part diesel, part electric), the county has ordered 45 buses that are expected to be delivered by the end of 2009. The buses, built by General Motors, are funded by a federal Urban Partnership Grant awarded last year.

Long before planners knew 520 needed to be replaced, I-90 was identified as the priority corridor; compatible infrastructure already exists. An eight-lane 520 corridor for light rail is unacceptable to Seattleites on the west side of the bridge -- even for those who would ride it. Connections to the University of Washington, to much of Seattle, and to Bellevue pose hurdles, as do some technical and engineering problems.

Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit's chief communications officer, said light rail across 520 would overload the rail system as it is currently designed south of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

"It's feasible conceptually, but we would not propose it as the first crossing," Ilgenfritz said.

The university link of the system, for which the agency hopes to break ground this year, was not designed to handle cross-lake traffic to downtown Seattle, but the system could handle the needed number of trains approaching downtown from I-90 from the south, he said. The agency hopes to connect the university to its light rail system by 2016.

The initial segment, between downtown and Sea-Tac Airport, is scheduled to open in late 2009.

A 2006 Sound Transit study estimated the cost of Seattle-Redmond light rail service at up to $3.9 billion, compared with up to $3.4 billion for buses that would run in exclusive lanes with doors on both sides of the vehicles, basing figures on 2005 dollars. The study estimated that the rail system would carry an average of 35,000 passengers each weekday, while the bus system would carry 24,500, with light rail travel times three minutes shorter between the two cities.

With growing population and jobs in Bellevue, Mayor Grant Degginger said the city has long hoped to be served by light rail via I-90. A citizens committee has visited cities already using light rail and will provide input to the Bellevue City Council.

Ilgenfritz said his agency has heeded the recommendations of a trans-lake study concluding that the I-90 bridge was the first place light rail should extend from Seattle to the Eastside.

If light rail is ever put on a new bridge, it would likely come after Sound Transit had built out the rest of its light rail system, said Larry Phillips, a King County councilman and a Sound Transit board member.

"It would be awhile given the limitations we have with our taxing authority," Phillips said.
P-I reporter Debera Carlton Harrell can be reached at 206-448-8326 or [email protected].


----------



## deasine

I still think they should allow future light rail on 520 regardless if it's not for the near future. A little disappointing...

~~~~

Hate to bring comparisons, but here in Vancouver, the Alex-Fraser bridge is built for future light rail, although you would not see LRT running there for at least another 50 years.


----------



## Plumber73

^^I think all our new bridges are built for that.


----------



## HAWC1506

Yeah we poor seattlites kind of don't...have the money?


----------



## UrbanBen

520 should NOT be built for light rail right now, because we aren't going to build rail over that bridge during the pontoons' lifetimes.

We can only afford one transit corridor cross-lake right now. In the next phase of Sound Transit, we'll need to continue on to Redmond from Bellevue/Overlake. In the phase after that (which we likely won't even be voting on for 25 years), we'll likely build to Issaquah and/or start a line running in the 405 corridor. In the phase after _that_, we'll finish that line, which will largely still be with East King money. In 50 years, we'll be back at 520 being the next best project - and at that point, the pontoons will need overhaul or replacement.

Spending money on bigger pontoons now that we aren't going to use is simply a waste of money - widen them during an overhaul.

As it stands, there will be no good way to build an interchange for rail at 520, nor would we want one. Passengers originating at Northgate are already going to be packing trains by the time they get to Husky Stadium - inbound passengers from 520 would have to transfer to already packed trains, creating unpleasant crush loads. Running that rail over 90 balances inbound load very near equally north/south - Sea-Tac + Bellevue ~= Northgate. This makes train operation much more efficient as well - a train from Bellevue disgorges passengers downtown and picks up passengers to go north. Lower frequencies to Sea-Tac and Bellevue result in necessary higher frequencies to Northgate and beyond.

Most eastside passengers are coming from Bellevue or points south. Building over 520 would force us to turn *south* to go to Bellevue, then likely turn north again to go to Overlake. Both Overlake/Redmond and Bellevue are too large of destinations to split into spur lines.

It makes sense to serve the most passengers with the least cost, right? 90 right-of-way already exists - the R8A project to add HOV to the 90 outer roadway is already under way. Direct access to the downtown tunnel is already in place. Try building an underground, _underwater_ connector in the Arboretum! Fat chance, and there's no way you're asking people to transfer between downtown Bellevue and downtown Seattle. The 90 routing offers about double the passengers for much lower cost - an interline at Montlake would be a $500m-$1b proposition alone.

This isn't even an issue. Two years ago, we were so far past the routing issue that we were already identifying a technology. Nothing's changed. None of the projects armchair planners want are going to get added to the Sound Transit package until they've built what's already been identified as what we need. Nothing about where we need rail has changed in 50 years - the original 1957 planning map looks about the same as it does today, because our urban centers are in the same places! 520 doesn't meet the bar, and won't until well after we've done a lot of other work.


----------



## greg_christine

The Sound Transit ridership report for the fourth quarter of 2007 is now available:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q4_2007.pdf

The relative performance of the ST Express bus and Sounder commuter rail services has been an ongoing topic of discussion on this thread. The latest numbers are as follows:

Cost per Boarding (2007 Year-to-Date Actuals)
ST Express Bus: $6.45
Sounder Commuter Rail: $11.47

Average Weekday Boardings (4th Quarter) 
ST Express Bus: 37,334
Sounder Commuter Rail: 8,820


----------



## UrbanBen

Greg_christine, we were talking about Link light rail. I don't think anyone's suggesting building Sounder over I-90.

As for cost per boarding, the marginal cost of adding trains to existing maintenance facilities will bring down Sounder costs, and the continued increase in ridership has been doing so already. In 2004, cost per boarding on Sounder was $19.40. That trend should be pretty clear.


----------



## SteveM

UrbanBen said:


> Greg_christine, we were talking about Link light rail. I don't think anyone's suggesting building Sounder over I-90.
> 
> As for cost per boarding, the marginal cost of adding trains to existing maintenance facilities will bring down Sounder costs, and the continued increase in ridership has been doing so already. In 2004, cost per boarding on Sounder was $19.40. That trend should be pretty clear.


So let me say up front that it's obvious the Sounder costs are dropping and that I'd support adding Sounder service on the basis of the growing ridership and the community support that expanding service has.

That said, I'm confused why the costs are so high. It would seem like operating costs come down to three things:

1) Cost of moving the train (fuel, an engineer, trackage rights, etc.). This is proportional to the number of trains run.
2) Cost of servicing passengers (conductors, janitors, etc.). This is proportional to number of riders and probably pretty small.
3) Depreciation on equipment. This is proportional to equipment owned, obviously.

It's intuitive to me that #2 (and probably #3) should be lower for trains than for buses. And when I think about it, it seems like #1 should be lower, too, or at least comparable. (I'd expect the train to require less fuel on a per-passenger basis, and clearly the labor costs of engineers are lower. So #1 depends all on the cost of the trackage rights.) 

And so I'm confused -- I'm glad that Sounder's costs are coming down so fast, but I don't understand why they aren't lower to start with. Can someone who knows the economics better explain it? Does cost per boarding include some other costs I'm not seeing, too? (Do they factor the capital costs of park and rides differently for the trains than for the buses?)


----------



## greg_christine

^^ For a start in understanding the economics, look at the Sounder schedule:

http://www.soundtransit.org/x71.xml

Most of the trains make one run into Seattle in the morning and then sit there all day before making one run out of Seattle in the evening.


----------



## deasine

HAWC1506 said:


> If soil conditions were good for both, I would probably say boring. Cut and cover will be too much hassle. There are enough projects going on around DT. boring was used in the Seattle Bus Tunnel, and also the section of LR under I-5 so cut and cover would probably be uneconomical. But which one's cheaper?


Cut and cover is the chaper option but don't try it. It just creates a huge mess, especially since the LRT extension goes through some arterials of Bellevue.

Just look north to the border and see our mistakes.









_Canada Line Construction @ Broadway/City Hall ~ Source: Tafyrn_


----------



## officedweller

The stub tunnel in Downtown Seattle was excavated using cut & cover.


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.soundtransit.org/x78.xml

Sound Transit Photo of the Week










Zap Gridlock joins the party

Sound Transit’s Zap Gridlock welcomed families to the Totem Lake Community Celebration at the Kingsgate Park-and-Ride on Saturday, April 26. About 250 people, including several families, came out for the event that celebrated the end of major construction on the freeway station project.


----------



## sequoias

I didn't know Sound Transit had a mascot, looks like some kind of odd superhero.


----------



## deasine

sequoias said:


> I didn't know Sound Transit had a mascot, looks like some kind of odd superhero.


A really scary one... look at his eyes hno:


----------



## sequoias

Yeah, big beady eyes....


----------



## taiwanesedrummer36

I see that the little girl in the picture looks like she's about to cry.......Zap Gridlock too scary?


----------



## trainrover

greg_christine said:


>


Funny -- it made me think it was Canada's PM from 20 years ago today . . .

I'd have thought the network's having more stations than that shown in the thread author's map (back at the beginning) -- it used to take just as long to drive across that city as it did crossing Toronto, hours 'n hours....


----------



## Daguy

^^

For the Americans, look up Brian Mulroney if you're interested. Zap does bare a striking resemblance to the former Prime Minister for sure.


----------



## SteveM

UrbanBen said:


> First, locomotives idle most of the time. It's very hard (and fuel-expensive) to stop and then restart an engine, so they use a considerable amount of fuel idling all day. Granted, it's just a few percent of running full time, but that knocks a bit off the cost.
> 
> Second, most of the crews are salaried, as I understand it. They have a minimum shift length, so increasing the length of time they work in a shift wouldn't increase labor costs.
> 
> Third, when there are only a few trips, people are less likely to use a service. They worry that they might get stuck at work late, or they want the option to go home at midday if they aren't feeling well - there are myriad reasons that people look for flexibility in timing. The more trains that run, the more people will ride *all* trips - not just the new trips. Only two round trips are packed to the gills so far - of nine total (six Tacoma, three Everett). This is the reason Sounder per-trip expenses are so high right now are that the Everett service is fledgling. We've run two round trips a day with service to only two non-Seattle stations. That's not high enough for people to want to use the Everett service - we've just implemented trip three, and haven't even started running trip four. When the fourth trip starts running, and the second Everett parking facility, Mukilteo station and ferry terminal, and Edmonds multimodal terminal are complete, you'll likely see Sounder North ridership go up. I'm betting it'll quadruple or more.
> 
> There's also the efficiency factor for maintaining each facility. Spreading O&M costs across more riders decreases overall cost per rider for these fixed costs.


Giving credence to UrbanBen's arguments here, Sound Transit's latest quarterly ridership numbers came out and though the boardings per trip on Sounder South are down (because they added two round trips since last year -- overall, ridership is way up), the cost per boarding also came down. In other words, an awful lot of the costs are fixed -- running an extra train, even with fewer riders than the packed ones, actually increases efficiency (at least in this case -- presumably totally empty trains would not increase efficiency).


----------



## UrbanBen

SteveM said:


> Giving credence to UrbanBen's arguments here, Sound Transit's latest quarterly ridership numbers came out and though the boardings per trip on Sounder South are down (because they added two round trips since last year -- overall, ridership is way up), the cost per boarding also came down. In other words, an awful lot of the costs are fixed -- running an extra train, even with fewer riders than the packed ones, actually increases efficiency (at least in this case -- presumably totally empty trains would not increase efficiency).


Thanks.  Also, you just wait. Late this year we should be adding a couple more runs to Sounder South, and Mukilteo is opening at the end of May. By this time next year, we'll see cost per boarding drop by another 20%.

The vote this year will likely offer major service increases to Sounder South, as well as longer trains to handle the load as it increases.


----------



## sequoias

They just laid the final track earlier that week. It's a continous 14 miles of track and on budget and on schedule to open in 2009. 










You can notice 2 golden bolts on the track.


----------



## seawastate

sequoias said:


> They just laid the final track earlier that week. It's a continous 14 miles of track and on budget and on schedule to open in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can notice 2 golden bolts on the track.


Real gold? or just paint?

I read somewhere that central link is 90% done. is it possible that light rail might open earlier than expected?


----------



## sequoias

seawastate said:


> Real gold? or just paint?
> 
> I read somewhere that central link is 90% done. is it possible that light rail might open earlier than expected?


It's at least 90 percent done.  Who knows if it opens earlier than it was scheduled, but otherwise it'll probably open on June 2009. The bolts aren't real gold, lol. Real gold is too soft.


----------



## Jaxom92

Paint for sure on those bolts. It doesn't look to be the right color, not to mention the malleability mentioned above.

Everything talking about light rail coming out of ST has always mentioned on schedule for June 2009 for Downtown to Tukwilla, and Dec 2009 for the Airport extension.


----------



## UrbanBen

Jaxom92 said:


> Paint for sure on those bolts. It doesn't look to be the right color, not to mention the malleability mentioned above.
> 
> Everything talking about light rail coming out of ST has always mentioned on schedule for June 2009 for Downtown to Tukwilla, and Dec 2009 for the Airport extension.


Sound Transit says "summer": http://www.soundtransit.org/x1171.xml

They slipped from June to July due to the tunneling contractor, who ate all of their float time (six months) and any chance of opening early.

Airport will be December - but probably December 31st!


----------



## SteveM

UrbanBen said:


> Sound Transit says "summer": http://www.soundtransit.org/x1171.xml
> 
> They slipped from June to July due to the tunneling contractor, who ate all of their float time (six months) and any chance of opening early.
> 
> Airport will be December - but probably December 31st!


Is there any chance they could get the system open earlier but defer opening Beacon Hill station? Or are we really waiting for the tunnel itself to be done?


----------



## UrbanBen

SteveM said:


> Is there any chance they could get the system open earlier but defer opening Beacon Hill station? Or are we really waiting for the tunnel itself to be done?


The tunnel is actually done now - it's the systems and communication work that was delayed by the late opening of the tunnel. There's not really anything we can do.


----------



## Seattle B.

Sound Transit actually pushed its first train through the tunnel, all the way to the Tukwila International station on June 14th. They will begin testing the trains to run on their own power later this summer on that segment. 

http://www.soundtransit.org/x78.xml


----------



## greg_christine

Photo of the Week

June 27 - July 4, 2008










Light rail in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel

This Link light rail train recently joined buses in a successful test of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel’s signal system. It was the first time ever that trains and buses ran together in the tunnel. The test took place in the evening, when the tunnel was closed. When light rail begins service next summer, trains and buses will both run in the downtown tunnel.

Photo of the Week

June 20 - 27, 2008










In the Beacon Hill Tunnel

For the first time on Saturday, June 14, a Link light rail car rolled down the tracks through the Beacon Hill Tunnel. The light rail car was pushed by a special truck through the Beacon Hill Tunnel, the Rainier Valley, over bridges spanning I-5 and the Duwamish River and then all the way to the Tukwila International Blvd Station, a distance of about 11 miles. The test of the light rail car, tracks and light rail stations went very well.


----------



## UrbanBen

I was visiting a friend who lives in Rainier Vista today, and a light rail vehicle was being pushed along the trackway. It looked like they were adjusting the overhead wires, perhaps for tension.


----------



## seawastate

I also found some vids on youtube of the light rail. One is a tour of the cars being used and another is a tour of the Tukwila station.

Light Rail Train Tour

Tukwila Light Rail Station


----------



## sequoias

I went past by the light rail line on MLK way from near Boeing Field to the intersection of Rainier Ave. The overhead power line looks like they are energized, but the power line hasn't been put up near Mt. Baker station on way to Beacon hill tunnel, I think that's the only section that hasn't complete. They are still doing a bit of work around the stations in Rainier Valley. They also have those people driving the trucks on the tracks with special wheels to keep them on the tracks, probably doing some inspection on the tracks, I guess. 

I don't know why they have cement filled all over the tracks almost all of the corridor in Rainier valley. Many cities in the US have bare tracks even at the median of the streets, wouldn't that cost a lot of money? It looks sort of an eyesore with all that cement.


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> I went past by the light rail line on MLK way from near Boeing Field to the intersection of Rainier Ave. The overhead power line looks like they are energized, but the power line hasn't been put up near Mt. Baker station on way to Beacon hill tunnel, I think that's the only section that hasn't complete. They are still doing a bit of work around the stations in Rainier Valley. They also have those people driving the trucks on the tracks with special wheels to keep them on the tracks, probably doing some inspection on the tracks, I guess.
> 
> I don't know why they have cement filled all over the tracks almost all of the corridor in Rainier valley. Many cities in the US have bare tracks even at the median of the streets, wouldn't that cost a lot of money? It looks sort of an eyesore with all that cement.


I wish Seattle would do something like this:


----------



## kub86

^ Yeah, I guess ST loves concrete more than grass. Or maybe they did think of it, but justified against it by thinking "kids will think of it as a park and play on the grassy tracks".


----------



## spongeg

lawns are a real waste and now said to be bad enviornmentally because of the amount of water they use up and chemicals and such used to make them weed free and the maintenance and upkeep...

it looks nice though


----------



## sequoias

kub86 said:


> ^ Yeah, I guess ST loves concrete more than grass. Or maybe they did think of it, but justified against it by thinking "kids will think of it as a park and play on the grassy tracks".


Why not just bare tracks instead of concentre, that's less of an eyesore.


----------



## HAWC1506

sequoias said:


> Why not just bare tracks instead of concentre, that's less of an eyesore.


yeah either the grass or the bare tracks. Concrete gets dirty and cracks after a while.


----------



## sequoias

HAWC1506 said:


> yeah either the grass or the bare tracks. Concrete gets dirty and cracks after a while.


Yeah, it'll be horrible looking after a decade or two of usage for sure.


----------



## PDXPaul

New 15-year mass transit expansion package offers further rail extensions and faster completion dates

July 10, 2008

The Sound Transit Board today discussed a new 15-year option for expanding mass transit. The new option heeds the call for further light rail extensions while delivering a series of significant Sounder commuter rail and ST Express regional bus service expansions between 2009 and 2023.

“This package would achieve a 53-mile regional light rail system by 2023 while focusing on moving quickly to launch major commuter rail and regional express bus expansions,” said Sound Transit Board Chair and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. “It responds to the loud and clear call we’ve heard for major mass transit expansions, while maintaining faster completion dates and a lower price tag than last year’s package.”

The 15-year plan represents a new alternative for a mass transit ballot measure, alongside 12- and 20-year options identified in April. The new plan responds to public input received in May and June that included strong desire to see light rail extended further north and south than was proposed in the 12-year options. Details include:

* Northward expansion of light rail from the University of Washington to Northgate by 2020, with a further extension to Lynnwood by 2023, five years earlier than last year’s Proposition 1 measure.
* Eastward expansion of light rail to Bellevue and onward to Overlake Transit Center in Redmond by 2021, seven years earlier than Proposition 1.
* Southward expansion of light rail to Highline Community College by 2020 and Federal Way’s South 272nd Street area by 2023, five years earlier than Proposition 1.
* Major ST Express bus service improvements, including a first phase delivered prior to completion of a new maintenance base and a second phase afterward. The plan provides service increases of 10 to 20 percent in key corridors and bus rapid transit service on State Route 520.
* Sounder Commuter Rail service expansions remain unchanged from the 12-year options, including longer trains and more trips on the line between Lakewood and Seattle.
* Improved station access: Funding to increase access to transit facilities in Auburn, Edmonds, Everett, Kent, Lakewood, Mukilteo, Puyallup, South Tacoma, Sumner, Tacoma and Tukwila. Projects will be tailored to the needs of each location and may include expanded parking; pedestrian improvements at or near stations; additional bus/transfer facilities for improved feeder service to stations; bicycle access and storage; and new and expanded drop-off areas to encourage ride-sharing.
* Partnerships for expanded transit: Partnership funding for Eastside passenger rail on existing freight tracks; as well as for potential extensions of Tacoma Link light rail and projects in Bothell and Burien.

The 15-year transit-only package would carry capital costs that are 50 percent lower than last year’s Proposition 1 package that included both roads and transit projects. Those costs are 22 percent lower than the 20-year transit package that was part of Proposition 1. Funding would come from a 0.5 percent increase of the local sales tax, or 5 cents on a $10 purchase. The approximately $69 annual cost of the increase for each adult is around the cost of a single tank of gas. More information on the 15-year and other options is available at www.future.soundtransit.org.

The Sound Transit Board will decide later this month whether to proceed with a ballot measure in 2008 or wait until 2010.

In May and June the Sound Transit Board received an outpouring of public comment reflecting a strong sense of urgency for expanding regional transit service, including 6,077 responses to a Website and telephone questionnaire and 4,015 written responses. Among citizens who took the non-scientific questionnaire:

*
91 percent say it’s extremely or somewhat urgent to expand mass transit
*
81 percent say it's extremely or somewhat urgent to add more light rail
*
81 percent say it's extremely or somewhat urgent to add more commuter rail
*
81 percent say it's extremely or somewhat urgent to add more express bus

The highest level of support among people who took the non-scientific questionnaire was for the largest transit package option: a 20-year plan funded by a sales tax increase of 0.5 percent, or about $69 per year per adult. The 20-year option was favored by 43 percent of respondents, while 31 percent favored a 12-year plan, and 14 percent did not support either. Respondents also expressed urgency around when to move forward with a new transit ballot measure: 76 percent favor a 2008 vote, 10 percent favor a 2010 vote, 3 percent favor voting after 2010 and 5 percent said never.

Sound Transit’s system of regional express buses, commuter rail and light rail currently carries about 55,000 riders each day, a number that will more than double following the 2009 opening of light rail service between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac International Airport. Construction of that light rail line is moving forward on schedule and is more than 90 percent complete.

Expansion of Link light rail between downtown and the University of Washington is slated to begin this year and be completed in 2016. University Link is projected to increase the regional light rail system’s ridership to more than 114,000 a day by 2030.


----------



## citruspastels

Beautiful no?


----------



## Songoten2554

yes it is beautiful and well wow thats awesome Seattle is going mass Transit which is good yes.


----------



## jchernin

^ some of those dates look depressing tho - 2023? thats kinda far off

a good beginning


----------



## kub86

!!! This is EXACTLY (or close enough) what I was hoping for. The last package took waaay too long for full build out. Thank God Sound Transit finally listened to the people and will offer a quicker package!! Though I still think 2020 is still too long of a wait (2 yrs planning + 5 yrs construction = 2016) - especially if there's very little tunnels to bore out.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle Times Editorial*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008060090_taxed20.html

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Editorial

Light rail can wait

Sound Transit's board is on the verge of putting a measure on the November ballot to increase the general sales tax by half a point, to 9.5 percent, and at restaurants to 10 percent. 

Sound Transit's board is on the verge of putting a measure on the November ballot to increase the general sales tax by half a point, to 9.5 percent, and at restaurants to 10 percent. Such a big increase in this already-high tax is not advisable now.

The economy is faltering. State government faces a budget deficit. King County faces a budget deficit. The region has big transportation projects on the table, starting with replacing the Highway 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Voters already spoke about a big tax package. Last fall, they turned down a measure to sharply raise taxes for light rail and roads. Sound Transit's directors are apparently under the delusion that with $4 gas, if they take the roads out, voters will say yes. Perhaps, though they might say yes for a mix of transit less-biased toward rail.

Compare rail with buses. The bus agencies in Sound Transit's taxing district — King County Metro, Pierce Transit, Community Transit and Everett Transit — together have 477,000 boardings a day. The section of light-rail line being built by Sound Transit is supposed to have 45,000 boardings a day. That is less than one-tenth the bus figure.

For actual bus service, Metro charges an 0.9 percent sales tax. For promised light-rail service, Sound Transit has been charging 0.4 percent. You can move many, many more people for the money on buses than on rail.

Yet the proposal is to raise local taxes largely for rail, so that Sound Transit will have the same rate of sales tax as King County Metro's rate.

Think of all the places buses go — in all three counties — and look at the map of where light rail will go, twenty years from now. Light rail is two strands, in the shape of a T. Bus service is a spider web.

Maybe the voters of central Puget Sound will decide to pony up for light rail simply because they like it. If that is the hope, then let's wait until they have a chance to try it.

Let them off the hook this November.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle Post-Intelligencer Guest Columnist*

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/371206_transit18.html

Last updated July 17, 2008 3:58 p.m. PT

Make investment in transit now
By MIKE O'BRIEN AND TIM GOULD
GUEST COLUMNISTS

Last year voters turned down Proposition 1, a package that included 50 miles of light rail and 182 miles of highways. The Sierra Club opposed that package because the additional highway lanes would swamp all benefits of increased transit and worsen global warming. Today, the Sierra Club supports Sound Transit presenting the best possible transit-only plan to voters in November. 

Transit alternatives will help reduce global warming pollution, half of which comes from vehicles in this region. Scientists say we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming. James Hansen of NASA says carbon in the atmosphere has passed the critical level of 350 parts per million and we must act immediately to reduce it.

With gas prices soaring, demand for alternatives to driving is surging. Around Seattle, the average household spends 53 percent of its income on housing and transportation costs. Transportation costs alone account for more of our income than food and health care combined. And it is getting worse; this data is from 2000 when gas cost $1.59 per gallon compared with Washington's recent average of $4.37. 

In the past six months, Americans drove 30 billion fewer miles than they did the previous year. Simultaneously, transit ridership is up significantly. King County Metro, Community Transit, Pierce Transit and Sound Transit Sounder commuter rail and express buses are struggling to accommodate more riders. 

Our region needs to invest heavily in better pedestrian and bike infrastructure, more frequent local bus service and regional high-capacity transit, including light rail and bus rapid transit. We will not see a single ballot measure addressing all those city, county and regional needs. That must not stop us from supporting light rail, a critical piece of the puzzle.

Critics point to the Sound Transit proposals and say we need more bus service delivered sooner. It's a valid point. The crisis of global warming demands we make immediate changes in the way we get around, and the rising cost of fuel is creating immediate demand for more transit. We cannot, however, be so shortsighted that we neglect our longer-term needs. Much like balancing the need to pay the mortgage and save for retirement, we need to make smart investments in transit for today and tomorrow.

To meet statutory pollution reduction goals, we will need many options: light rail, buses, bike lanes and tolled roadways. Sound Transit Phase 2 (ST2) is a critical piece of our transportation future that needs to begin now. While its reliance on a sales tax is far from ideal, we can later look to funding sources such as tolling major highways, which can also reduce pollution and manage congestion. 

In neighborhoods where there is significant and growing demand for transit, local bus routes simply cannot meet demand. We need light rail or BRT in such corridors. Improvements already are under way, but more are needed.

Snohomish County will soon see the Swift BRT on state Route 99, and King County Metro will have Rapid Ride bus rapid transit running in five places. Where there is higher ridership throughout the day, light rail is necessary. ST2's line from Northgate to downtown Seattle is rated as the best place in the nation to invest in light rail. Additionally, ST2 will nearly double capacity of Sounder commuter trains from Lakewood and Tacoma to Seattle. It improves connections at transit hubs and service levels of express bus service along I-5 between Everett and Seattle.

The station areas also have the potential to transform the way we live by creating sustainable living centers around transit hubs where people can walk, bike or take transit to meet most of their daily needs. This will require Sound Transit to work with local government, neighborhoods and developers to create a future where we reduce our reliance on cars and expensive gas.

We are tired of sitting in our cars burning fuel and dollars, while watching our time evaporate. The Sierra Club strongly urges Sound Transit to let the voters decide on investing in more transit this year.

Mike O'Brien is Cascade Chapter chairman of Sierra Club. Tim Gould is transportation chairman of Sierra Club.


----------



## greg_christine

*Seattle Mayor's Editorial in Seattle Times*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008066476_nickelsop23.html

Guest columnist

10 lame reasons to delay mass transit | Greg Nickels

As Sound Transit prepares to move forward with a proposal for the November ballot, there are those who favor more investments in mass transit...

By Greg Nickels

Special to The Times

As Sound Transit prepares to move forward with a proposal for the November ballot, there are those who favor more investments in mass transit, just not this year. We have helpfully compiled a "top 10" list of the reasons to wait:

10) Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. A two-year delay will enable us to hear from those who are still mustering up the courage to make up their minds.

9) True, the 15-year Sound Transit plan would add light rail, commuter rail and regional buses. If we wait two years, though, it might include hydrogen-powered, personal hovercrafts. That'd be cool.

8) Local media need an infusion of advertising cash from a certain Eastside shopping center developer who wants another two years to tell you that freeways are still the best transportation for the region. No matter what.

7) More debate will give us more information. There's so much more to discuss, it just seems premature to have a vibrant light-rail system after only 40 years of talking about it.

6) There is so much room for new highways, it just makes sense to build new lanes. Interstate 5 through downtown Seattle seems like it is ripe for a little widening. And the Eastside and Montlake are united in wanting a bigger Highway 520, right? Right? Oh, wrong.

5) Mass transit is popular. So popular, you may not have a seat on the bus. But standing all the way home improves your calf muscles and physical stamina. This strength-building exercise works even better in high heels.

4) You can worry more about climate change. Need an extra two years to get your head around species collapse and widespread global drought? Waiting for mass transit will give you time to bone up on the latest news about how our indecision and bad habits are torching the planet. Books on tape are great for the car!

3) By waiting two years, we can do the same project but spend about $1 billion more. With the price of everything going up — steel, concrete, gas — a delay will cost big bucks. But indecision is worth it. Isn't it?

2) Congestion will only get worse. That leaves more time in the car to listen to talk-radio hosts jawbone about the lack of transportation alternatives.

And the No. 1 reason why we should wait for mass transit ...

1) Pumping the car with $70 of gasoline feels more special when there isn't an alternative. Let's face it — gas prices aren't coming down. Why ruin gas-station heartburn by giving people a way out of their cars and into light rail?

(If you have your own reasons, share them at seattletransitblog.com.)

In all seriousness, Sound Transit has a plan. It is reasonable, well-conceived and has regional support. When it comes to adding more mass transit, the people are way ahead of the politicians and pundits. Folks are tired of paying $4.30 for a gallon of gas and seeing no relief at the pump. This 15-year mass transit package would extend light rail to Northgate, Shoreline and Lynnwood. On the Eastside, light rail would run across Mercer Island to Bellevue and Redmond. To the south, it would reach Federal Way.

The investment would also expand and improve regional buses, increasing service in key corridors by about 12 percent overall, and up to 30 percent in some areas. New daily trips would be added to the Tacoma-Seatttle Sounder commuter-rail service. The cost: $69 a year for an adult, about the cost of a single tank of gas (see No. 1 above).

We can't continue to build more freeways to solve our transportation mess. We need options: bus, commuter rail, light rail. This plan is faster, cheaper and smarter than previous measures. It is our best shot at relieving the gridlock that continues to sap our economy and burden our lives.

The debate before us this November is simple: inaction versus action, stalemate versus solutions. We have the backing of business, the environmental community and, according to polls, the majority of residents. Let us no longer delay, but roll up our sleeves and start building the best regional transit network in the nation.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is chair of the Sound Transit Board.


----------



## greg_christine

*King County Executive's Editorial in the Seattle Times*

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008066479_simsoped23.html

Guest columnist

The wrong investment at the wrong time | Ron Sims

Thursday, the Sound Transit Board may vote to place a 15-year, 0. 5 percent sales-tax increase on November's ballot. The cost of this plan...

By Ron Sims

Special to The Times

Thursday, the Sound Transit Board may vote to place a 15-year, 0.5 percent sales-tax increase on November's ballot. The cost of this plan is $17.8 billion, plus the cost of interest over 30 years.

I am opposed to this approach and remain a strong advocate for a reconfigured plan in 2010. Let me be clear. I support light rail. As board chair earlier in the decade, I worked with Sound Transit to secure federal funding, allowing us to begin construction on the light-rail segment from downtown to the airport, which opens next year.

The current plan, long on future light rail and short on immediate congestion relief, is the wrong investment at the wrong time. Although the plan's projects may come online in 15 years, to finance it, we will continue to pay the increased sales tax until 2039, tying up all of the money this region has to invest in transit until then. We need to get it right. We can do better.

Supporters of this plan say we need "more transit now!" And they're right; more transit now is exactly what we need. As gas prices approach $4.50 per gallon, our buses are bursting at the seams. Unfortunately, the proposed plan is not more transit now; it is mostly light rail later.

Sound Transit's bus capital program is only 2 percent of the total expenditure plan for Sound Transit, Phase 2 (ST2). The estimated $17.8 billion dollars for this plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years.

The proposed light-rail extensions will not open to Bellevue or Northgate until 2020 and to Lynnwood or Des Moines until 2023. Meanwhile, the region's buses operate with standing-room only. People can't wait that long for more transit service. As government, we need to be more responsive. We need relief in 15 months, not 15 years.

The Everett Herald recently urged the Sound Transit Board to "slam on the brakes, take recent ridership growth into account and come up with a plan that addresses today's urgent needs while still planning for the future." That is exactly what we should do. We need more service in the short term while extensions of light rail are under way.

Extending light rail is an important investment for the future, but it doesn't meet our immediate needs. Metro alone has added more than 50,000 new daily riders in the past three years. The region's bus systems are experiencing unprecedented growth, yet their current revenue sources are exhausted.

Rising gas prices already have had a profound effect on increased bus ridership. At the current pace, we will reach $8 per gallon by 2013. The landscape has shifted; we can't wait until 2023. We need more congestion relief and better transportation choices sooner.

Imagine the possibilities if a significant portion of the $17.8 billion were invested in immediate bus service. We could add hundreds of buses to alleviate overcrowding and provide more frequent bus service all over the region.

A plan that addresses our regional transportation needs of today and the future should include Sound Transit as a partner in a number of regional initiatives. Sound Transit could partner with the state and others to offer more transit service as part of the viaduct replacement project. It could partner with other agencies in the region to implement the Urban Partnership grant to establish tolling and improved transit service across Lake Washington. It could greatly build upon the work that King County Metro, Community Transit and Everett Transit are doing to implement bus-rapid-transit routes over the next few years in order to better respond to near-term demand.

Sound Transit has the potential to do all of these things and still extend the light-rail system. But we need the right plan at the right time. This year is not the time to impose a regressive 0.5 percent sales tax. Oil and food prices are up, unemployment is rising and the Dow Jones industrial average is falling. Government has an obligation to give taxpayers a break in hard economic times. This is one of those times.

Buses across our region are full. Now is not the time to ask voters for a big tax increase tying up 30 years of transit investments for little short-term congestion relief. We can do better. Proposing the wrong plan simply because new voters may flock to the November ballot is still wrong.

I believe it is possible for the Sound Transit Board to craft a plan for the 2010 ballot that dramatically increases our short-term transit capacity and invests in future light rail.

King County Executive Ron Sims is a Sound Transit Board member.


----------



## greg_christine

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/372210_soundtransit25.html

Last updated July 24, 2008 11:52 p.m. PT

Multibillion-dollar rail, bus plan is up to voters
Expansion would be funded with 0.5% higher sales tax
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

Now the next transit-expansion campaign debate can begin in earnest.

Sound Transit board members on Thursday voted to place another expansion measure on November's ballot, a measure now estimated to cost $22.8 billion when the debt is repaid.

Residents in the urban areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties last November rejected a 20-year, $30.8 billion proposal that was part of a larger roads and transit improvement measure. Polled voters later told officials they thought that package was too expensive and took too long.

Now Sound Transit is betting that taxpayers will go for a shorter version, financed with a 0.5 percent increase in sales taxes.

This time, several things are different: Gas prices have risen to more than $4 per gallon, transit ridership is rising in response and another big environmental group is supporting the new package. 

However, a former top state transportation official opposes it. And previous opponents are back, arguing this package, too, isn't a good deal.

"It'll be a great debate," said King County Councilman Larry Phillips, one of the 16 board members who voted for the new plan.

Two board members, King County Executive Ron Sims and King County Councilman Pete von Reichbauer, voted against the plan but agreed to have it put to a vote once it passed the board.

It would extend light-rail service north to Northgate by 2020 and to the Lynnwood Transit Center in Snohomish County and south to Highline Community College by 2020 and to Federal Way by 2023, costing a typical household $125 per year and a typical adult $69 per year, according to agency staff estimates. 

The plan also would extend rail across Lake Washington to the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond by 2021.

The measure would increase existing Sounder heavy rail train service to Pierce County by lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains. A streetcar would link light rail in downtown Seattle to another segment planned under Capitol Hill to the University of Washington.

Bus service would be expanded south of Seattle to Des Moines, Kent and Auburn and east to Woodinville. Frequent "bus-rapid transit" service would be added to the Eastside from Seattle on the Evergreen Point Bridge. 

The package rejected in November would have extended light rail north of Lynnwood, south to Tacoma and east to Overlake.

The adopted proposal was a compromise forged after board members from Snohomish and South King counties objected that the 12-year plans wouldn't have provided enough improvements for their constituents, extending only as far as Highline Community College south and north almost to Mill Creek.

Snohomish County board members pushed for and got a 30 percent increase in express-bus hours to their county added to the new plan. It was paid for partly by shifting $40 million from a proposed streetcar-connector project into bus hours and providing $120 million for the work, with Seattle to pay any additional costs.

Pierce County didn't get light rail but is to get a 65 percent increase in bus service between Seattle and Lakewood. Hours before the vote the agency reached a tentative agreement with BNSF Railway to increase Sounder commuter train service to Tacoma. "It was a no vote (for me) until we got that," said Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg.

Overall, board members expanded express bus service by 100,000 hours annually regionwide. They said they were responding to demands from commuters who are crowding into transit buses now that gas prices have risen as high as they have. Sims said during peak hours some routes are standing room only and some full buses aren't picking commuters up.

Sims and state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond tried to get bus service hours nearly tripled in the first three years of the plan but other board members rejected the idea, saying it could delay other projects and eat into needed cash reserves.

Sims and von Reichbauer said later the plan doesn't offer enough immediate relief for commuters. But board members supporting the adopted plan said it responded to voters' concerns over last year's proposal and offered more commuting choices. Phillips said there would be some improvements to bus and Sounder service next year if voters OK the proposal.

"People need more options to keep their cars parked at the curb," said board chairman and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. As part of the plan, Sound Transit would install and operate the light rail segment on the Interstate 90 Bridge to the Eastside.

The light rail expansion would add 34 miles to the 13.9-mile segment the agency is building now between Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport, expected to open next year, and to a planned 3-mile, $1.9 billion segment to the University of Washington, planned to open in 2016.

Initially Sound Transit staffers estimated the cost of the plan at $17.8 billion, including construction costs and short-term financing. Thursday they said the total will rise to $22.8 billion over 30 years after adding the 30-year financing cost of construction bonds.

The campaigning for and against the new ballot measure had begun weeks before Thursday's board vote. 

The Sierra Club is supporting the new measure, which doesn't include highway improvements like those it opposed in last year's proposal. Higher gas prices have "increased people's awareness of the need for alternatives," said James Irwin, conservation chairman for the club's Cascade Chapter. 

Opponents also have been heard from. The NoToProp1.org group, which campaigned against last year's measure, began running radio ads early this month against a measure they sensed was coming. The Eastside Transportation Association, a private group advocating expansion of highways, car pools and bus service, has run a series of radio commercials designed to promote its views. 

Former state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald weighed in with opponents in a recent series of online articles arguing that frequent bus service is a better transit-expansion investment than light rail and noting that a study of the plan's environmental effects won't be ready until late this year, well after Thursday's board vote.

The stance by MacDonald, a former Sound Transit board member, didn't surprise everyone but it adds a prominent personality to the mix. 

"You prepare for those comments," said Rob Johnson of the Transportation Choices Coalition, a pro-transit advocacy group supporting the new measure. "Those guys are going to have their arguments and we're going to have our arguments, and the voters decide."

P-I reporter Larry Lange can be reached at 206-448-8313 or [email protected]. Read his Traffic Watch blog at blog.seattlepi.com/seattletraffic.


----------



## HAWC1506

This thread is aliveeee! But you all beat me to the articles...


----------



## trainrover

BoulderGrad said:


>


^^ How come choppy texan HSR? Why link the state's largest city to N.O. but not with its capital or even the state's second city?

Barely any traffic worth tapping into Portland-ME market, either...


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ Yes. My only concern that we have existing railroads in downtown Seattle area that still having traffic across the railroads. It would be dangerous for high speed rail to use that railroads since it could hit people, animals, and vehicles and even existing trains. I think it is only better solution for this issue... Build a new high speed rail tunnel under downtown Seattle for safety reason. I know it would be very expensive but still.


That would be an absolute dream come true if that happened. Unfortunately...it's not going to happen anytime soon haha. Prop 1 will add additional sounder trains though, so once people begin to use the sounder trains (and hopefully like it), they might demand even faster connections.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> That would be an absolute dream come true if that happened. Unfortunately...it's not going to happen anytime soon haha. Prop 1 will add additional sounder trains though, so once people begin to use the sounder trains (and hopefully like it), they might demand even faster connections.


Yeah... Commuter trains are good just for now until entire light rail system across Puget Sound get built. We will see about that.


----------



## mhays

city_thing said:


> ^^ Would it be too mountainous to build an HSR line from Vancouver down to San Diego? I always thought that Washington state and Oregon had very extreme topographies. But then again, I've never been to North America so I could be completely wrong.


Mountains tend to run north-south due to how the tectonic plates have interacted. So valleys tend to run north-south too. Most of the route would be lowlands. 

Our bigger problem is a lack of rail corridors in our cities. HSR only works in sections with exclusive use, and that isn't likely anytime soon. In Seattle you'd probably need a tunnel through much of the city. You could make the whole thing cheaper by running around the fringes of town, but that would still have physical hurdles, and you'd be reducing demand.


----------



## HAWC1506

mhays said:


> Mountains tend to run north-south due to how the tectonic plates have interacted. So valleys tend to run north-south too. Most of the route would be lowlands.
> 
> Our bigger problem is a lack of rail corridors in our cities. HSR only works in sections with exclusive use, and that isn't likely anytime soon. In Seattle you'd probably need a tunnel through much of the city. You could make the whole thing cheaper by running around the fringes of town, but that would still have physical hurdles, and you'd be reducing demand.


Does Seattle have much of a fringe though? I mean either it's the waterfront or the I-5 corridor. If you're talking Bellevue or some other parts of the eastside, I guess there's some room. If light rail has to use a tunnel in Seattle, I don't see how HSR could be built without one haha


----------



## urbanfan89

^^ The current line through the downtown can easily be sunk. Parts of it have already been sunk and have created beautiful parkland. Freight traffic should be rerouted around the I405 instead.


----------



## HAWC1506

urbanfan89 said:


> ^^ The current line through the downtown can easily be sunk. Parts of it have already been sunk and have created beautiful parkland. Freight traffic should be rerouted around the I405 instead.


WSDOT just demolished the Wilburton tunnel though, so new tracks will have to be built to reroute it around I-405.

How about underground Bellevue rail in addition to light rail? haha it'd be nice to have Sounder serve Bellevue as well.


----------



## UrbanBen

jarbury said:


> For $17 billion surely you could build a proper metro?


It's not $17 billion. A lot of that is debt repayment - financing costs. The light rail is more like $11 billion of the total.

And this is much higher capacity than most light rail. Define 'proper', and we'll talk about how much more it would have cost.


----------



## HAWC1506

Eastside passenger railway would cost $1billion

By Keith Ervin

Seattle Times staff reporter

An old Eastside freight rail line could be converted into a commuter-passenger railway linking six cities, but the proposal would not come cheap — an estimated $1 billion to $1.2 billion, according to a preliminary report released Wednesday.

The Port of Seattle is buying the 42-mile corridor from BNSF Railway for $107 million. The Port and other agencies are studying whether the corridor linking Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, Woodinville, Redmond and Snohomish should become a passenger-rail corridor, biking and walking trail or both.

Wednesday's report answered some question but won't end the debate over the rail line. Port commissioners last year resisted King County Executive Ron Sims' proposal to pull up the tracks south of Woodinville in order to build a biking and hiking trail.

Upgrading the line for commuter rail would cost about $21 million to $27 million per mile, nearly double the price of Sound Transit's Sounder train service which links Seattle with Tacoma and Everett.

But it would be far cheaper than the higher-capacity light-rail system now under construction between Seattle and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which residents of three counties voted Nov. 4 to expand by 36 miles for $11.8 billion.

Sound Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff presented the draft feasibility study ordered by the Legislature to an ad hoc regional committee.

The new cost estimate for commuter-rail service was higher than some commuter-rail advocates claim, but one of those advocates, Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute representative Tom Jones, said the billion-dollar price tag would still be "quite literally a bargain."

"This corridor can be developed for about one-third to one-half of the estimated $1.23 billion," Jones said. "Cascadia continues to believe that the corridor can be built for millions and (in) years, rather than billions and decades."

Elected officials on the committee on Wednesday peppered the consultants with questions about their cost assumptions and conclusions, but didn't offer any opinions on whether the projected ridership would justify the cost.

Metropolitan King County Council Chair Julia Patterson said officials are "in the infant stages" of deciding how to develop the Renton-to-Snohomish rail line with a spur from Woodinville to Redmond.

"The vision is at some point in the future you would be able to get on a train in Tacoma and when you get to the south part of Lake Washington you would have a choice to go to the left to Seattle or to the right all the way up from Bellevue and Kirkland to Snohomish County," Patterson said.

PSRC staff estimated 5,015 passengers would ride a commuter train daily between Renton's Gene Coulon Park and Snohomish. In order for the train to connect with the Tacoma-to-Seattle Sounder train, the new route would have to be extended to Tukwila on BNSF rails. The study didn't estimate the cost of that extension.

The draft report said building a biking and hiking trail beside the tracks north of Interstate 90 would be costly. Parsons pegged that cost at $245 million to $359 million.

Trail costs south of I-90 weren't estimated because parts of the corridor are very narrow and it isn't known if some neighbors have easements to use parts of it, Parsons project manager Allison Dobbins said.


----------



## UrbanBen

"Cascadia" is basically nuts.

Did anyone notice that the first U Link contract came in 34% under engineering estimates? It's a drop in the bucket - but the cost savings was $10 million.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ That is good. That will give Sound Transit some extra money to work on other projects like light rail extension for Overlake to Redmond.


----------



## UrbanBen

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ That is good. That will give Sound Transit some extra money to work on other projects like light rail extension for Overlake to Redmond.


Don't expect anything. Sales tax revenues are going to drop just as quickly as construction costs - and there's also the $3-3.5m repayment to people just outside the district edge who the department of revenue (state) mistakenly assessed MVET to. There are plenty of little things to eat money like this.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Opening Day*

*I heard for the first time last evening about an actual opening day--July 3. It may be unofficial, but super exciting nonetheless. We have been waiting for 2009 for a long time! If it does open on [Friday] July 3, I'll be riding the rails the whole holiday weekend--back and forth, again and again.*


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ Really? That is little early than expected but awesome!!! Can't wait to ride it!


----------



## Ginkgo

*University Link*

*More information on the Sound Transit University Link, due to start construction this year between downtown Seattle and the University of Washington (UW). From Thursday's Seattle Post-Intelligencer.*


----------



## HAWC1506

What about East Link?


----------



## mhays

Gotta study it, design it, permit it, hire builders... A few years off.


----------



## guinessbeer55

^^
I can assure you that we will get quite a bit of money from the feds for east link as well... especially with Obama as the president


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

^^ I hope so! It would be much nicer if entire light rail project could be completed few years earlier than planned.


----------



## HAWC1506

CrazyAboutCities said:


> ^^ I hope so! It would be much nicer if entire light rail project could be completed few years earlier than planned.


As much as I hate saying this, I can't wait for gas prices to rise again.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

HAWC1506 said:


> As much as I hate saying this, I can't wait for gas prices to rise again.


Gas price already rising again.


----------



## Seasun

I was just reading a Seattle Times story about a ST Citizen Oversight Panel report and I thought it was a bit depressing to read


> The "smart-card" fare system, known as ORCA (One Regional Card for All), is at risk of not being ready by July, when Link light rail opens from Seattle to Tukwila.


This has taken a while! Go back to Dec. 2006 posting #3:



> Anyway, Seattle is moving on up by introducing the ORCA Card (FINALLY!) in early 2008. (One Regional Card for All) Testing of the system began in August. It will be used for busses, light rail, commuter rail, and ferries.


----------



## Seattlist

University Link Groundbreaking
March 06, 2009
2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Husky Stadium
Building toward a stronger economy...
station renderings

Join us as we break ground on the light rail extension to the University of Washington.

University Link light rail is coming to Seattle. With service between downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and the UW, this extension will make traveling to the UW three times faster than taking the freeway. By 2030, the University Link line will be a key component of the regional light rail system moving more than 285,000 people a day. The first turn of dirt on this three-mile extension kicks off our progress toward a better economy and a more sustainable future.
Expanding Link 

University Link was not part of the successful Proposition 1 ballot measure that will fund the Sound Transit 2 package.

Sound Transit 2 will extend the University Link light rail line 12.5 miles farther north to Northgate, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood by 2023 as part of a 36-mile light rail expansion plan. The Sound Transit 2 light rail system will also reach Mercer Island, Bellevue, Redmond/Overlake, Highline and the Star Lake/Redondo area north of Federal Way.


Project Page>>>

Sound Transit plans, builds, and operates regional transit systems and services to improve mobility for Central Puget Sound.

To request accommodations for persons with disabilities, call (800) 201-4900 / TTY Relay 711 or e-mail [email protected]


----------



## spongeg

2023! i wonder if some of us will be alive by than


----------



## Daguy

spongeg said:


> 2023! i wonder if some of us will be alive by than


Lol I hope so cause I'll only be 41.


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

spongeg said:


> 2023! i wonder if some of us will be alive by than


We will see. I will be around 38 years old that time when they completed.


----------



## sequoias

I will be 47 in 2023.


----------



## kub86

Well every city has to start somewhere. Future generations will thank us forever. If only our prior ancestors had gotten on board sooner.. *grumble*


----------



## Ginkgo

*ST University Link*

*Ant this article from today's Seattle Times which contains a small map. As usual, please disregard the negative comments, as Seattleites love to whine.*


----------



## guinessbeer55

some cool videos... almost ready!!:banana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxX0NPnARBo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOnidQ6WQ48


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/404029_rail19ww.html

Thursday, March 19, 2009
Last updated 5:38 p.m. PT

Sound Transit has $2.1 billion budget hole
By AUBREY COHEN
SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

The recession has blown a $2.1 billion hole in projected revenues through 2023 for Sound Transit's $17.8 billion rail and express bus plan.

"We've had a direct hit with the deepest recession since World War II," Brian McCartan, Sound Transit's chief financial officer, told the agency's Finance Committee on Thursday afternoon.

An independent forecast that local economist Dick Conway prepared last month projected sales and motor-vehicle tax revenues would be 15 percent lower than the $15.8 billion forecast just last July, McCartan said.

The forecast is conservative in that it projects average increases of just over 4 percent a year for sales and motor-vehicle taxes, lower than the area's long-term trend of 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively, McCartan said. But it also assumes that the area's economy will start recovering in the third quarter of this year and hit growth rates above 8 percent in 2012, thanks to a customary post-recession bounce, he said.

In this unusual recession, neither the turnaround this year nor the post-recession bounce is assured, he said. "This is by no means a worst-case forecast."

Another factor that could increase the funding hole is that Sound Transit projects 13 percent of the ST2 budget will come from leftover Sound Move plan money. Because the downturn is also affecting Sound Move revenues, there probably will be less leftover money than expected, McCartan acknowledged.

Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County executive and chairman of Sound Transit's Finance Committee, said after the meeting that the budget hole didn't surprise him.

"Certainly the situation's not foreign to anyone who's working in government or paying attention to the economy at the juncture," he said. "It's sobering."

The committee will review the numbers and options, and start a conversation with the full board about what to do, Reardon said.

Aubrey Davis, a member of Sound Transit's Citizen Oversight Panel and former chairman of the state Transportation Commission, said the hole did not reflect problems with last summer's projections.

"They did quite a credible job of going to outside advisors and checking their numbers," he said. "The fact is, no one saw at the time how deep this (recession) was going to be."

An updated inflation forecast expected next month could blunt the impact on the plan, because the recession is also holding down price increases, particularly in construction, he said. Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said recent bids for parts of the light-rail line to the University of Washington and the Montlake Terrace Freeway Station were 34 percent and 19 percent, respectively, lower than earlier engineer estimates, although he acknowledged those estimates had some wiggle room built into them.

Costs are coming down, Davis said. "Both the (state) DOT and Sound Transit are getting pretty good bids right now. The contractors are hungry."

Sound Transit officials already are looking for ways to cut costs and sources of additional funding, particularly from the federal government, McCartan said. He said the agency also could use bonding for more of the cost, although he did not yet know if it had enough excess bonding capacity to fill the hole.

Finally, the agency could extend its timeline for completing the rail and express bus projects, McCartan said. "That's, for us, very much a last resort."

Sound Transit's board will start grappling with these options this summer, when it updates its 2010 financial plan.

The new forecast projects total revenue drops from July of 24 percent in Snohomish County, 17 percent in Pierce County, 13 percent in south and east King County and 11 percent in North King County.

"The economic downturn has so far been substantially more severe in Snohomish and Pierce (counties)," McCartan said.

Because each Sound Transit subarea must pay for its own projects, these areas will have to make up more revenue than those in King County. The good news is that they have more unused bonding capacity than King County areas, McCartan said.

P-I reporter Aubrey Cohen can be reached at 206-448-8362 or [email protected]. Read his Real Estate News blog at blog.seattlepi.com/realestatenews.


----------



## seawastate

*Seattle Light Rail Pics*

Seattle's light rail project is almost complete! It will open July 3rd, 2009, only three more months! Some new pics of train testing and stations I found on the web:


----------



## Svartmetall

My God that station is monstrous! Is it an interchange of many lines or something?


----------



## city_thing

More photos!

How much of the route is below ground? Any news on possible extensions?










Has the airport extension started?


----------



## hkskyline

*No building boom along Seattle light-rail tracks *
6 April 2009

SEATTLE (AP) - Less than a year ago, the blocks around three Sound Transit light-rail stations in Southeast Seattle were abuzz with real-estate deals and dreams.

Planners, politicians and developers anticipated the coming rail line would spark a redevelopment boom that would transform the long-neglected corridor along Martin Luther King Jr. Way South. For-profit developers proposed more than 1,500 condos and apartments within a 10-minute walk of a station.

Now, with the trains to carry their first paying passengers in three months, most of those deals are on hold.

Project after project has been delayed or derailed, victimized by tight credit and related economic woes.

Last year's big dreams for MLK haven't died. Developers still believe apartments or condos 15 or 20 minutes from downtown by train will appeal to commuters tired of traffic, rising gas prices and expensive parking.

But for now, with a handful of exceptions, "nobody's moving forward with anything," said Al Levine, deputy director of the Seattle Housing Authority, a major landowner in the MLK corridor.

His agency is a case in point. The housing authority last year agreed to sell Unico Properties two prominent corner properties just steps from the Columbia City rail station to build prefabricated apartments and shops.

Unico pulled out a few months ago. A Unico representative blamed "current economic conditions."

The housing authority still has a tentative deal to sell developer Opus Northwest a larger property near the Othello Street station for a 300-unit mixed-use project. But the sale is taking longer to close than either had anticipated.

"We're still in discussions," said Tom Parsons, Opus senior vice president. Considering the market, he added, "nobody's in a hurry to move it along right now."

The only project that seems reasonably likely to break ground this year is Othello Street Station, a six-story complex with 350 apartments and 20,000 square feet of ground-floor retail.

That project is moving forward because developer Othello Partners found a partner with deep pockets: Texas-based insurance and financial-services company USAA, which bought an equity stake in the project last year.

USAA also has an option to invest in a companion project across the street for which Othello Partners is seeking permits.

Mike Hlastala, Othello Partners' chief operating officer, said construction at Othello Street Station should start in June, once he lines up debt financing.

No other major project along MLK is nearly that far along:

--Safeway had a tentative deal last year to sell its aging supermarket near the Othello station, a first step toward redevelopment. But that fell through, said Gary Slabaugh, Safeway's vice president for real estate, and the property is no longer for sale.

--Sound Transit has long-range plans for transit-oriented development at three sites it owns near the Othello and Mount Baker stations, but doesn't expect to do anything soon. "Realistically, putting properties out on the market in the near term does not jibe with the financial situation for most builders," spokesman Geoff Patrick said in an e-mail.

--Harbor Properties still plans to build about 370 apartments with ground-floor retail on the former site of the St. Gobain plastics factory in Columbia City. But Denny Onslow, Harbor's chief development officer, acknowledged the economy has pushed back the timetable.

"We are looking at doing the project in phases and trying to put some of the existing buildings back into service as interim use," he said in an e-mail. "We are slowed down given the conditions of lenders and investors."

--Eagle Rock Ventures six months ago obtained permits to start building a 63-unit apartment or condo complex in Columbia City but hasn't broken ground. "We're just patiently waiting for the market to improve, which at some point it will," managing director Scott Shapiro said.

--The University of Washington last year hired a consultant to explore the redevelopment potential of its property near the Mount Baker station, until recently home to a discount grocer.

The upshot? "We're open to something in the future," said Jeanette Henderson, the UW's real-estate director, "but I don't see us going into something soon."

--The Web site of nonprofit developer SEED (Southeast Effective Development) still says it plans to start building a five-story residential/retail project a few blocks from the Mount Baker station in 2008.

Turns out that was wishful thinking: The vacant Chubby & Tubby store on the site hasn't been torn down. SEED Executive Director Earl Richardson said he's searching "aggressively" for financing.

"It's just not a good business to be in right now," he lamented.

Commercial real-estate professionals counsel patience. "The market isn't going to be down forever," said Jason Rosauer, a senior vice president with brokerage GVA Kidder Mathews. "When it does turn around, that area's going to take off."

The project delays may serve a purpose, said Nora Liu, senior policy adviser in the city's Office of Policy and Management.

"What the economic situation is allowing us to do is take a breath and do some serious planning," she said.

The City Council in September authorized updates of the decade-old neighborhood plans for blocks surrounding the Othello, Mount Baker and Beacon Hill stations.

Kickoff meetings in all three neighborhoods were held last month.

Density is likely to be a hot topic: Zoning now limits building heights to six stories. Some say rail warrants even requires more.

But a bill to establish minimum densities around rail stations died in the Legislature this year, partly because of opposition from some Southeast Seattle residents.

City officials, residents and developers all say they're excited about light rail's potential to revitalize neighborhoods. But they don't want the line to force out people who live there now many of them low income or diminish the corridor's rich ethnic and cultural diversity.

While most developers pause, a few nonprofit projects around the stations are nearing completion. Even they are feeling the recession's effects.

On South Othello Street, the first residents should move next month into Hope Place, the Union Gospel Mission's five-story complex for homeless women and their families.

But spokeswoman Sharon Thomas-Hearns said a fundraising shortfall has left 33 of the 98 rooms unfurnished. And none of the 8,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space has been leased.

A few blocks south, nonprofit developer InterIm expects to complete construction this summer, three or four months ahead of schedule, of Samaki Commons, a 40-unit complex for low-income Lao Highland immigrants.

With the economy so slow and little other work available, InterIm housing planner Leslie Morashita said, contractors have put all their employees to work on Samaki.

------

Information from: The Seattle Times


----------



## JustinB

Why didn't you use just use the existing Seattle Thread. Nice pics btw.


----------



## salaverryo

What is "preferred route & station options" supposed to mean? A projected extension?


----------



## aznichiro115

the airport expension has started

the section from westlake to chinatown is underground so is a section between SODO and Mt. Baker

there will be extensions south to des moines north to lynnwood and east to bellevue and redmond

http://future.soundtransit.org/

preferred route and station means thats where they want to built it.


----------



## greg_christine

Svartmetall said:


> My God that station is monstrous! Is it an interchange of many lines or something?


Seattle is basically building the infrastructure for a metro and operating light rail trains on it. It doesn't make much sense to me, but some in Seattle seem to like the idea. The initial line from downtown to the airport is grade-separated except for a segment in the Rainier Valley. All presently planned extensions are also grade-separated.


----------



## Nameless

impressive


----------



## Brice

When will it go to Bellevue?


----------



## PDXPaul

Bellevue in 2020



> In 2009, Sound Transit will launch light rail service between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac International Airport. This initial light rail segment is projected to carry more than 45,000 daily riders by 2020. *Sound Transit will begin construction of a light rail extension to Capitol Hill and the University of Washington in late 2008, with service starting in 2016*. Light rail travels predominantly along its own right-of-way - free of highway congestion, accidents or weather - so trains are on time every time. Light rail will integrate with local bus service, allowing bus riders to transfer to light rail and avoid the most congested roadways.
> *The extensions will open in phases, including University of Washington to Northgate, Seattle to Bellevue, and SeaTac to Highline Community College in 2020*; to Overlake Transit Center in 2021; and to Lynnwood and Redondo/Star Lake in 2023. Expanding light rail will enable Sound Transit and local transit agencies to redeploy buses to other routes for more transit service options overall.


From Sound Transit


----------



## Daguy

^^

Why is the extension to the University of Washington going to take so long to build? It's so much shorter than the initial segment of the line, even with tunneling I can't see why it would take til 2016 to complete it.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Daguy said:


> ^^
> 
> Why is the extension to the University of Washington going to take so long to build? It's so much shorter than the initial segment of the line, even with tunneling I can't see why it would take til 2016 to complete it.


two 3 mile long bored tunnels in crappy soil and complicated terrain, plus one water crossing.


----------



## Overground

It's great that Seattle and Vancouver will both have new rail options this summer. Vancouver has the Canada Line opening in late summer, which will be the 3rd line in our metro system.

What will be the travel time for the initial segment?


----------



## zaphod

> Seattle is basically building the infrastructure for a metro and operating light rail trains on it. It doesn't make much sense to me


There is more to it than that.

Don't forget it uses the existing bus tunnel under downtown and how expensive a new downtown subway might cost not just in tube but also digging out stations and weaving it all around the other tunnels(bus,freight rail, sewer). Also it is at grade more than you think, about 5 miles. Besides the Rainier Valley the southern portal of the bus tunnel to the Beacon Hill tunnel the tracks have some street crossings.

Unless you could prove a slightly narrower tunnel profile for tube trains rather than LRV's would be so much cheaper than the current plan, building a full metro would probably have a lot cost more for limited benefit.

Honestly I think this kind of light rail is awesome, because it basically is a metro but way more flexible.


----------



## spongeg

looks good - will have to get down there in july for a ride


----------



## Daguy

spongeg said:


> looks good - will have to get down there in july for a ride



Lol no kidding! I forgot that I can just go down and see this thing so easily, and it's really cool that Seattle's light rail is opening just over 2 months before the Canada Line in Vancouver.


----------



## city_thing

More photos please!


----------



## Northsider

3 more months?! I have to get back there and ride it when it's done.


----------



## guinessbeer55

More Pics


----------



## city_thing

Thanks for the extra photos Guinessbeer55. I didn't realise how much infrastructure had been built from scratch for this project.


----------



## mhays

That's the #1 problem with rail in Seattle...there are no rail corridors at all in much of our metro. The corridors we do have are concentrated in industrial districts and/or narrow shorelines, and either don't go to where the people are or have no room.


----------



## BarcaMan

Wow looks like a great system! How much to ride?


----------



## JustinB

Gotta build it where the people are. The cheapest option is almost always never the best option.


----------



## greg_christine

http://www.soundtransit.org/x78.xml

_*Photo of the Week*

April 17 - 23, 2009










*Introducing Steve the ORCA Whale*

Sound Transit is gearing up to launch its ORCA card campaign in late spring. In addition to introducing the region to a new easy-to-use way of paying for transit, we’ll also be introducing Steve the ORCA whale---ORCA card’s unofficial spokeswhale._

=========================================================

This makes me wonder whatever happened to Zap Gridlock.










Perhaps Steve the ORCA Whale ate him.


----------



## PDXPaul

Is it me or does Zap Gridlock have a much higher quality costume than ORCA the whale?

Production values- DOWN!


----------



## mhays

A mascot? How awkward it would be to run across that. Horrible idea.


----------



## hoosier

This is a great start for Seattle. It's a shame that Vancouver has (or will have) three metro lines by the end of this year despite having a smaller metro area.


----------



## zaphod

It could be a lot worse:

:weird:


----------



## tmaxxfreak11

Would it be possible to get some sort of a federal grant or something for the tunnel? It would seem like a pretty easy case to argue.


----------



## BoulderGrad

tmaxxfreak11 said:


> Would it be possible to get some sort of a federal grant or something for the tunnel? It would seem like a pretty easy case to argue.


It will happen when Bellevue forks over the money to pay for it.


----------



## guinessbeer55

Here are a few more pics 

Airport:



















still under construction... opening in December

Tukwila:




























Southern terminus of the line until Airport Link is done. This station opens in 3 weeks with the rest of the line!


----------



## tritown

Hey, great pictures Guiness. One question: How are they going to have the trains turn around at this temporary terminus? Will they just have the tracks cross over between stations or something?


----------



## JustinB

There'll most likely be a crossover before the station. Or the train will only use one track, even this might hamper service patterns.


----------



## Orfeo

good thing to have a map of the area around that station, they can come in very handy when your'e new to the system.


----------



## guinessbeer55




----------



## sequoias

I didn't take those pictures...I found it off flickr to share with you peeps.


----------



## BoulderGrad

guinessbeer55 said:


>


This is a nice juxtaposition. Every single person in these cars could easily fit into the light rail train passing them with plenty of room to stretch out and read the paper, or a book, or listen to their iPods, and with much less likelyhood of being in an accident.

And look how much less room the train tracks take up than the freeway.


----------



## lightrail

BoulderGrad said:


> This is a nice juxtaposition. Every single person in these cars could easily fit into the light rail train passing them with plenty of room to stretch out and read the paper, or a book, or listen to their iPods, and with much less likelyhood of being in an accident.
> 
> And look how much less room the train tracks take up than the freeway.


Yep. In Vancouver, we figure that the soon to open new Skytrain line (Canada Line) will carry the same number of people as a 10 lane freeway (estimates indicate the line will carry 100,000 people per day).


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^I remember tabbing up the predicted ridership for Link, and once the line is built out from the airport to Northgate, it's expected to carry about 100,000 per day as well. Once we're built out from Lynnwood to Kent, and Seattle to Redmond, it was up to 250,000/day which would make us one of the busiest light rail system in the country.

Add in a West Seattle-Ballard-NE 45th street extension and I bet we start to compete with some heavy rail systems.


----------



## Allen2

When is this baby opening...July 3rd or July 9th?


----------



## tritown

Allen2 said:


> When is this baby opening...July 3rd or July 9th?


Neither. It is scheduled to open July 18th. Incidentally, that is the same day Sounders FC play Chelsea FC near one of the stops.


----------



## lightrail

tritown said:


> Neither. It is scheduled to open July 18th. Incidentally, that is the same day Sounders FC play Chelsea FC near one of the stops.


Oops. They want to rethink their opening day. It's never a good idea to open on a day you expect or could expect big crowds


----------



## tritown

lightrail said:


> Oops. They want to rethink their opening day. It's never a good idea to open on a day you expect or could expect big crowds


I think it should be all right. The airport station is not open yet, so visiting supporters won't be clogging the light rail system yet. A lot of people also won't have heard about it. Also, I think that most people coming in will be taking busses and cars, but that is just based off of what I know. However, there will be 67,000 at that match, so I may be wrong.

The opening day is already going to be quite an event from what I hear. There will be giveaways and stuff at all the stations; Zipcar tried to con me into doing it. 

It will be on a Saturday, though, so it should hopefully be managable.


----------



## adrimm

BoulderGrad said:


> This is a nice juxtaposition. Every single person in these cars could easily fit into the light rail train passing them with plenty of room to stretch out and read the paper, or a book, or listen to their iPods, and with much less likelyhood of being in an accident.
> 
> And look how much less room the train tracks take up than the freeway.


It's kind of too bad that they didn't make a point of removing one lane of freeway when they put the train in, or build the train on a lane that was removed. It is such a nice alternative with such high capacity that minus one lane could be easily accommodated.... I noticed that in Portland on the max, lovely nice train system, but giant freeways. I think people sometimes need a little extra incentive to get out of their cars, and with a rail option, maybe at least one lane could then be justifiably removed..? (part of me is screaming, "just build the train on the highway, and remove half the lanes").


----------



## greg_christine

There was a lot of criticism of the light ral line when it was proposed that it would be noisy and would result in a lot of accidents where it runs in the median of city streets. The system has proven not to be as bad as the critics had anticipated, but it has not been without problems.

=========================================================
http://www.komonews.com/news/49473577.html

Tukwila residents: Light rail gives us earache










By Denise Whitaker Watch the story TUKWILA, Wash. -- Some local homeowners are asking Sound Transit to hush up. 

The residents on East Marginal Way South say the noise the new light rail is forcing on their neighborhood far exceeds the minimal noise they were promised during the design and building phases. They claim the noise from the testing runs is so loud that their ears hurt. 

"The train is louder, a lot louder than we expected and a lot louder than Sound Transit said it would be," said David Shumate. 

"It's a higher-pitched squeaking," said Lynn Sires, who says the noise wakes her up. 

Shumate even bought a decibel meter to measure the noise reverberating out to his house and his neighbors. The noise registered as high as 88 decibels. An average vacuum cleaner runs at about 75 to 80 decibels.

Shumate and his neighbors took their complaint to Sound Transit, but didn't get very far. 

"They said the train adheres to federal standards and case closed," he said. 

KOMO News took the complaints to Sound Transit spokesman Bruce Gray.

"We can make predictions in final design for what the noise is going to be. When you're up and running sometimes that different, and we go out and we deal with it after the fact," he said. "Part of it is the newness of getting used to the system."

Gray said Sound Transit has already taken one set of sound readings and are in the process of taking another. 

But as far as the residents are concerned, there have been enough readings. They want a sound barrier installed along the rail, just like the one in another neighborhood about a mile south. 

Gray said a sound barrier is a possibility, but Sound Transit is still exploring all options. 

"We're going to look at the noise levels and see where we're at in this neighborhood. And based on that, walls may be one option and another option may be insulating -- soundproofing someone's house," he said. 

Sound Transit has already insulated a number of homes in the Rainier Valley. Air conditioning units were added to several homes where noise was likely to interfere with daily life during the open-window months. 

=========================================================
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009400030_traincrash30m.html

Sound Transit train and car collide in Seattle










A man was injured late this afternoon when a Sound Transit light-rail train and a car collided at Martin Luther King Jr. Way South and South Myrtle Street.

By Mike Lindblom and Phillip Lucas

Seattle Times staff reporters

A motorist received minor injuries Monday in a collision with a Sound Transit light-rail train in Rainier Valley, the third incident since frequent train testing began there this spring.

The crash happened just after 5 p.m. at Martin Luther King Jr. Way South and South Myrtle Street, next to the Othello light-rail station in Southeast Seattle.

Sound Transit spokesman Bruce Gray said the car was heading south and made a left turn, against a red light, from MLK Way onto Myrtle as the train traveled south alongside in the median of MLK.

The driver, a man in his 70s, was taken away by ambulance with minor injuries, said Seattle Fire Department spokeswoman Helen Fitzpatrick.

Emergency crews tore the roof off the car to remove the driver, said Fitzpatrick. He was the sole occupant, transit officials said.

At the time of the crash, the train was traveling at low speed because it was about to stop at the station, Gray said. The train T-boned the car.

The crash caused minor damage to a front panel on the train. It drove under its own power to the maintenance facility.

Sound Transit is testing its trains along the 14-mile route from downtown Seattle to Tukwila, in preparation for service to begin July 18.

After the wreck was cleared at 6:30 p.m. train tests resumed.

This is the third incident involving a test train in Rainier Valley, where tracks run in a median at street level. Two were crashes with cars, and in one case, a person walked into the side of a train, according to Sound Transit.

"We've been running 20 hours a day for over a month here. We think people are getting used to it, but incidents like this are a reminder for people to follow the rules," Gray said.

Sound Transit officials say their rail project has improved overall safety on MLK Way, by eliminating two-way left-turn lanes that used to play a major role in both motorist and pedestrian injuries.

Dana Echols, who said she witnessed the crash, and another bystander, Than Pham, said the rail intersections should have crossing gates.

Sound Transit didn't install crossing arms because trains are going at the normal traffic speed of 35 mph or less, Gray said, and because neighbors in public-comment sessions didn't want the area looking like a freight-train corridor.

A decade ago, an environmental-impact statement predicted 29 car-train collisions per year, and three with pedestrians, based on experience in other cities. Transit officials said actual numbers would be less in Seattle, because of improved warning signals and road designs, as well as relatively careful drivers here.

Critics of the project urged local politicians not to mix light rail with street traffic, before groundbreaking in 2003. Many U.S. cities, including Portland, run trains along arterial streets.

Sound Transit has visited many schools and groups to preach rail safety, while giving out water bottles, rulers and a board game with safety slogans. The agency and teenagers have made online videos, urging young people to keep off the tracks.

Jaywalking is still commonplace across MLK, while some motorists are noticeably enraged by longer wait times at traffic lights, where trains take priority.

"I just think that a lot of kids, Lord forbid, will be running across the train tracks thinking they can make it, and they're going to get hit," said Echols. "The train's not even open yet, and people are already getting in accidents."

Mike Lindblom: 206-515-5631 or [email protected]


----------



## EricIsHim

^^ Again, it's most likely the car drivers/the pedestrians going to violate the rules who causes the accidents.

there is no different from some one runs the red and hit by another car; but now you are just going to hit by a heavier rail, and got injured.


----------



## JustinB

One anti-rail group is actually calling for Sound Transit to be held "chargeable" for any collisons between the LRV, and a vehicle. Basically saying Sound Transit could have prevented it.

They never give up.


----------



## Allen2

Alright, I will definitely head down to Seattle to try it after July 18th...just in case


----------



## whoby

Daguy said:


> ^^
> 
> Why is the extension to the University of Washington going to take so long to build? It's so much shorter than the initial segment of the line, even with tunneling I can't see why it would take til 2016 to complete it.


It will take longer to collect the Tattoo and Piercings Tax on this line as the tax base is Vagrant


----------



## whoby

I don't feel so good abut the US bailing out GM
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060612/mintz
In 1949, three of our largest corporations--General Motors, Standard Oil of California (SoCal, now Chevron) and Firestone Tire and Rubber (now Japan's Bridgestone)--were convicted of having conspired for more than a decade to replace highly efficient urban electric transit systems with bus lines. The bus lines' operators contracted never to buy new equipment "using any fuel or means of propulsion other than" petroleum. GM, SoCal and Firestone were fined $5,000 each, the maximum the antitrust laws then allowed. GM's treasurer, also convicted, was fined $1.

GM's $5,001 punishment somehow failed to deter it from continuing for six years to acquire electric-powered rail and bus properties and convert them to gasoline and diesel. The conspiracy-to-monopolize convictions, upheld on appeal, never received attention commensurate with their impact. In 1974, however, they did become a subject of Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee hearings on the broad topic of auto industry reform.

Strikingly, the subcommittee chairman, Philip Hart, was the senior senator from Michigan, where the auto industry was dominant and where GM was the dominant corporation. An assistant subcommittee counsel, Bradford Snell, had researched the conspiracy for American Ground Transport, a study financed by the Stern Fund. GM, he testified, had led the destruction of more than 100 electric-rail transit systems in forty-five cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore and St. Louis.

The instruments of destruction were principally National City Lines (NCL) and other holding companies formed by GM, a manufacturer of gas and diesel buses; SoCal and Phillips Petroleum, providers of gasoline and diesel fuels; and Firestone, provider of bus tires. To finance the conversion of electric transit systems in sixteen states to gas or diesel buses, GM, SoCal, Firestone and Phillips (also convicted) gave NCL $9 million by 1950, Snell told the hearing. The conversion was virtually complete by the mid-1950s. In Los Angeles, Snell testified, GM and SoCal created NCL affiliates that bought up and scrapped rail lines, including those used by Pacific Electric, the world's largest electric railway operation. Its 3,000 trains had carried 80 million passengers through fifty-six Southern California incorporated communities annually. "Motorization drastically altered the way of life in Southern California," Snell wrote in a section of the study later endorsed by Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. "Today," he continued,

Los Angeles is an ecological wasteland. The palm trees are dying from petrochemical smog; the orange groves have been paved over by 300 miles of freeways; the air is a septic tank into which 4 million cars, half of them built by General Motors, pump 13,000 tons of pollutants daily.... As early as 1963, the city was already seeking ways of raising $500 million to rebuild a rail system "to supersede its present inadequate network of bus lines".... A decade later, the estimated cost of constructing a 116-mile rail system, less than one-sixth the size of the earlier Pacific Electric, had escalated to more than $6 billion.

"In every city and suburb, our rail and bus services are either dead or dying," Snell testified. "At the same time, American travelers returning from Europe, for example, say there is a 'bus gap.' Even in Moscow, they say, the buses and subways look better than anything made in the United States. Travelers back from Japan tell the same story. Having ridden the 150-mile-per-hour bullet trains, they ask, 'Whatever happened to America's railroads?' " What happened was that with the end of steam, railroads everywhere electrified. Everywhere but here, that is: GM, the railroads' biggest single customer, forced them to switch to much less efficient diesel locomotives.

In a sixty-seven-page reply to these and other Snell charges, GM said it "did not generate the winds of change which doomed the streetcar systems" but did, "through its buses, help to alleviate the disruption left in their wake." Recalling the 1930s, GM said: "Times were hard and public transportation systems were collapsing.... GM was able to help with technology, with enterprise, and in some cases, with capital.... The buses it sold helped give mass transportation a new lease on life, which lasted into the postwar years." After reviewing the trial record, the senior judge of the US Court of Appeals in Washington, George MacKinnon, dismissed GM's defense. The convictions of GM, SoCal and Firestone resulted from "their concerted effort to replace electric streetcars with buses in numerous large and small cities," he told the Legal Times in 1990.

Resurrecting the story of the illegal behavior that distorted our transportation system will do nothing to lower gas prices. But it is instructive. It warns of a Congress that instead of overseeing corporate power is overseen by it. It illuminates the hypocrisy of tough-on-crime politicians and pundits who remain silent about corporate crime that harms people and the environment and even kills. And it shines a light on the inspiring legacy of a lawmaker whose name graces a Senate office building but whose brand of moral courage has too seldom been visible on Capitol Hill in the three decades since his death.


----------



## whoby

whoby said:


> It will take longer to collect the Tattoo and Piercings Tax on this line as the tax base is Vagrant


Just Kidding LOL


----------



## whoby

Too bad they didn't bother to get rid of the scotch broom and other invasive weeds near the line ( I thought The county was responsible for removing invasive WEEDS)


----------



## whoby

Hey, this might have been another Drug Related Death


----------



## whoby

BUS DRIVERS? THAT's F'ING scary.


----------



## whoby

We call it the waterfall! Thats what it sounds like?


----------



## guinessbeer55

Beacon Hill Station

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJwQtg7ZKo


----------



## lightrail

guinessbeer55 said:


> Beacon Hill Station
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJwQtg7ZKo


Thanks - looks good.

Wouldn't the train's destination be more useful than "Sound Transit"?

Also, why so slow when entering the station? I'm used to trains rushing in and decelerating in the station


----------



## guinessbeer55

Brand new system lol so there are some things to work out... Hopefully theyll will deccelarate more rapidly in the coming months though

All trains usually do have the destination on the front.. not sure why this one didnt.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Seattle's Link Light Rail opens its airport station:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/12/19/say-goodbye-to-the-airport-connector-shuttle/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010550753_weblightrail19m.html


----------



## TheHeadMaster

Any new photos / videos of the new extension? When is the next extension planned to open? Thanks!


----------



## mhays

Next is probably the first northern extension of the same line, with just two stops, at Capitol Hill and the University of Washington, both promising high ridership. This is all subway. Completion is 2016.  Construction is underway with work bidding in several separate pieces at separate times...so far so good: the first estimated $400,000,000 of tunnel packages came in with bids of $300,000,000. 

Additional north and south extensions as well as a new east line are funded and planned for 2021-2023 completion. However there's a chance that at least one stop of the south extension (from Sea-Tac) could happen much sooner. 

Shorter term, we've voted on a 20% expansion of bus service in King County including some sort-of-BRT. Some of this requires new infrastructure and some just needs tax collections to recover before the promise is realized. A handful of sort-of-BRT lines should start in the 2011-2013 period.


----------



## stevevance

There are lots of photos here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomictaco/sets/72157623034605658/

And here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/tags/soundtransit/


----------



## greg_christine

Sound Transit Photo of the Week










Now arriving at the station

Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels, along with Boardmembers, media and the public, welcome the first Link light rail train to the new SeaTac/Airport Station on Saturday. Trains are now running nearly 16 miles between downtown Seattle and the airport.


----------



## G5man

I did use the light rail to get to SeaTac on the 21st. The only complaints I have.

1) No stairs at SeaTac station. For people like my mom who do not like to carry luggage on escalators and when elevators are out, it'd be nice to have an alternative.
2) Enclose the darn place! It was a freezing four minute walk in the cold.


----------



## JustinB

Do passengers have to walk through the parking garage?

Are there plans to add stations to the inital segment? The ridership numbers are a tad low for such a system.


----------



## Ginkgo

JustinB said:


> Do passengers have to walk through the parking garage?
> 
> Are there plans to add stations to the inital segment? The ridership numbers are a tad low for such a system.


Passengers walk along the edge of the parking garage, but are separated from it by a barrier (with one or two breaches which allow access to the parking area). It's relatively short walk (under five minutes) to the skybridges leading to the terminal, but it is open to the wind. The initial segment is currently expanding north the University of Washington (two new stations). The line will be extended south from the airport to Federal Way in the future. Some would like more stations added to the route between downtown and SeaTac, but none are planned.


----------



## spongeg

when does the university extension open?


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

I think it will open at around November 2016.


----------



## BoulderGrad

hmmwv said:


> Can't wait for this to start, too bad all infrastructure project in the States will suffer from years of delays and billions of dollars of budget overruns. I think once they start charging tolls on SR520 and I90 bridges people will start to favor a reliable mass transit option to cross the lake.


Hasn't had any actual delays or overruns yet... Just lots of hand wringing, posturing, arguing, etc. The first segment did 'go over budget' but that was more a product of an overly rosy cost estimation for the build package than project mismanagement or external challenges.


----------



## mhays

Sound Transit has been building under budget for years now. 

Likewise, most public projects lately have been way under budget due to low prices industrywide these days.


----------



## bayviews

mhays said:


> Sound Transit has been building under budget for years now.


And that is, without a doubt, sound transit!


----------



## Under The Clouds

sterlinglush said:


> Does anyone else think that Seattle's LRT system would benefit from clearer branding and less-clunky nomenclature? Referring to lines, and segments of lines, as _[direction] Link _is awkward. I think Sound Transit missed an opportunity by not branding it as a metro, or something similarly pronounceable. What do people actually call it now? The Link? The LRT? The light rail? What happens when the east line opens? Long-term, as the system inevitably expands, this naming system won't be sustainable.
> 
> "Doris, to get to the Space Needle, you just need to take the East-Northeast Link down to Such-and-Such Station on the East Link, and then take that to the International District on the Central Link, change trains there, and..."
> 
> Clunky. What Seattle now has is a light metro. Line 1, Line 2... much easier. Thoughts?


Not really. The terms "North Link" or "University Link" are used as shorthand terms for extensions of the same line. It's not as if someone is going to need to transfer from one train to another, as in your hypothetical, and I doubt those terms will be used after the extensions are completed. They're all part of Central Link and are used by Sound Transit when referring to phases of the project, not separate lines. The only new subway line that's not an expansion of the current line, East Link, is easily distinguishable from the current line because it's the only one going east.

In a brighter future, when additional new lines are added, a new naming scheme might have to be picked to avoid the type of confusion you allude to. Already, there's a problem with station names. One of the downtown stations is named "University Street" station, for the street the station emerges onto. That's easily confuse-able with the University of Washington, located several miles to the north and with 2 stations scheduled for development. Already there's been complaints about the confusion this could cause.


----------



## Under The Clouds

*First U-Link Tunnel Completed*

The first tunnel between Capitol Hill station and the downtown transit tunnel has been completed. The TBM "Brenda" completed the northbound tunnel about 10 days ago and has been disassembled. She'll be relaunched from the Capitol Hill station box in February 2012. Meanwhile, the two TBMs launched from the University of Washington station are making their ways toward Capitol Hill. One is just over half way to the station and the second one is just over a third.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## trainrover

Neat  I wonder how old's the new livery of the busses there now ...


----------



## gigilamoroso

very good video of the seattle area.

i was wondering : is it legal do break a solid white line to enter the HOV lane from a general purpose lane? Because lot's of cars do it : when traffic slows down on the general purpose lane they switch to the HOV lane despite the solid white line


----------



## trainrover

Yes, it's illegal ... there must be a lack of enforcement there.


----------



## aznichiro115

trainrover said:


> Yes, it's illegal ... there must be a lack of enforcement there.


no, it is illegal to cross double white lines. a solid white line always separates HOV from general traffic


----------



## hmmwv

Good to see that the Link Lighrail extension is making good progress.


----------



## trainrover

aznichiro115 said:


> a solid white line always separates HOV from general traffic


I know ... Montreal's own solid white lines preceded any I saw driving around Seattle (introduced to mitigate our *abominally* short exit and entrance expressway ramps :yes ... I answered him _Si_ as though I was answering "Yes" to a question posed in the 'negative' instead of No  I'm forever muddling positive with negative


----------



## seawastate

trainrover said:


> I know ... Montreal's own solid white lines preceded any I saw driving around Seattle (introduced to mitigate our *abominally* short exit and entrance expressway ramps :yes ... I answered him _Si_ as though I was answering "Yes" to a question posed in the 'negative' instead of No  I'm forever muddling positive with negative


Not every city in the US uses a solid white line to separate HOV traffic. I have seen yellow lines, yellow and white lines, segmented white lines, double white lines, and even just regular lines used for HOV lanes in different cities.

In this case, it is legal to cross the solid white line for HOV access.


----------



## seawastate

Some pictures of the different modes of public transportation in Seattle. 

*Trains*

Light Rail LRT:









Streetcar (Tram) with monorail:









Commuter Rail:









*Buses*

Double Decker:









Electric (Trolley Bus):









Diesel Buses:













































*Ferry*

Washington State Dept. Of Transportation:









Water Taxi:


----------



## tampasteve

Have to say that I love the monorail, but that SOB really rocks on the turns! LOL, when I rode it I saw strollers (the kids were not in them) falling and people that do not sit really have to hold on.

Contrast that to the LR and street car....those are smooth as butter.

Steve


----------



## trainrover

seawastate said:


> it is legal to cross the solid white line for HOV access.


That's queer, to be undermining a solid for reasons of traffic volume *over* safety hno: all while clear, inspiring HOV-lane signage ought to be the instructive way ...


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^I believe that is incorrect. You're allowed to cross the single white line. In a few areas, there are double white lines with signs explicitly saying that its illegal to cross the double lines. Otherwise, everyone getting on at each exit in the city limits wouldn't be able to get to the HOV lanes...


----------



## hmmwv

The highway 167 HOT lines have double white lines preventing people from crossing due to tolling requirements.


----------



## trainrover

BoulderGrad said:


> You're allowed to cross the single solid white line


That's the queerness.


----------



## seawastate

trainrover said:


> You're allowed to cross the single solid white line
> 
> That's the queerness.


The MUTCD for the US does not prohibit crossing a single solid white lane, only discourages it. Only a double solid white line expressively prohibits crossing. However, since the MUTCD does not provide explicit rules for this, each state has its own rules regarding whether it is legal to cross a solid white line.



> A single solid white line is used for a variety of lines that drivers should be discouraged from crossing in "normal" situations but which drivers do need to cross in some situations. An example is the "edge line"---the line that separates the rightmost travel lane from the shoulder. The single solid white line discourages crossing onto the shoulder but does not prohibit it because it is obviously desirable and/or necessary to cross it in some situations, such as an emergency stop.


See Quoted from MUTCD Faqs

I feel that we are straying a bit from the main topic on public transportation and this would probably be more appropriate in the highways section.


----------



## trainrover

The Montreal Urban Transit Commission Disbanded?

Anyhow, I can't understand why Montreal itself has never gone for doubledeckers, coz much of the city itself is one of the easiest ones on the eyes around the continent.


----------



## deasine

^seawastate provided a link detailing what the acronym MUTCD is.

Let's get back on topic.


----------



## trainrover

Retrying ...


trainrover said:


> Neat  I wonder how old's the new livery of the busses there now ...


:?


----------



## zargoman

trainrover said:


> Retrying ...
> 
> :?


The yellow and teal/"blurple"/green colors came with the 1996 Gillig Phantoms.


----------



## zargoman

Some random stuff from Seattle (King County Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit) 

Seattle gets scared when it snows...For good reason-too many hills.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/zheistand/6728265467/]

One of the new Orion VIIs 


2009 New Flyer DE60LFA on the King County Metro RapidRide B Line
There are 20 2009 DE60LFAs in the fleet. Currently, 18 of them are on RapidRide A Line and two are on B Line. There are 15 2011 DE60LFRs that are also on B Line. More are being delivered for the C and D Line, which are supposed to start in Fall of this year

DE60LFR 6032 on RapidRide B Line





King County Metro and Sound Transit have the last non-restyled DE60LFs made. The newest entered service in 2010 for Sound Transit


----------



## hmmwv

zargoman said:


> Seattle gets scared when it snows...For good reason-too many hills.


Yeah and half an inch of solid ice didn't help neither.


----------



## zargoman

On the other side of Puget Sound, there is Kitsap Transit. They operate in Kitsap County and have a fleet of 25'-45' coaches.
My favorite are the 1987 Orion 1s. They have seven of them that still run during weekday commuting hours. 


The ones that I get stuck riding most often are the 2010 Arboc Spirit of Mobility coaches. 






Kitsap Transit also operates a passenger only ferry between Port Orchard and Bremerton. Their main boat, the Carlisle II, was built in 1917 and continues to run today. She has had a number of rebuilds, but still has a very unique feel.


----------



## zargoman

hmmwv said:


> Yeah and half an inch of solid ice didn't help neither.


It was fun to watch though. I just left the car at home and went out for the afternoon..."Interesting" was the word that came to mind.


----------



## hmmwv

Well when I made the regrettable decision to go to work on that Thursday "interesting" wasn't the first thing in my mind. :S


----------



## ssiguy2

Looked up the Link University extension. 
If memory serves it's 4.1 km from downtown to UW but with only one station inbetween, Capitol Hill. Is that right? 
Considering it is going thru one of Seattles most densly populated area I think that's a bit ridiculous. Are they planning anymore stations in the future and building the line to make building a new station or two possible aka "roughing-in" stations?


----------



## geogregor

seawastate said:


> Double Decker:


Wow that is a seriously cool bus. On how many lines are they operating?
How many such buses do you have in Seattle?


----------



## hmmwv

That's a Community Transit express bus serving along the I-5 corridor, AFAIK there is only one line.


----------



## mhays

I think they bought 25 or so. This morning I saw three lined up on one block. No idea how many routes. 

Otherwise we have some double-decker tour buses but not many.


----------



## Woonsocket54

source: http://projects.soundtransit.org/x7374.xml

Brenda TBM close to breakthrough


----------



## Woonsocket54

In April, construction began on First Hill Streetcar:
2.5 miles
$134 million









http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/









source: *Lookin4TallGuys* flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6961643840/sizes/c/in/photostream/)









source: *Lookin4TallGuys* flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6979512716/)









source: *Lookin4TallGuys* flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7125599225/sizes/c/in/photostream/)


----------



## IanCleverly

TransportationIssuesDaily said:


> BoltBus to Compete with Amtrak, Horizon Air for Portland-Seattle Travelers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Original Photo linked from here)
> 
> BoltBus, an intercity express bus company that is very popular in the Northeast, comes to Cascadia with the launching of a Seattle-Portland route beginning May 17. BoltBus and its many competitors (like MegaBus) are popular because of their express service, cheap tickets (10%-30% of an Amtrak ticket and usually cheaper than driving), free wireless access and power outlets, and very comfortable leather seats. The service, commonly known as "curb-side buses" because they pick up and drop off passengers on city streets instead of at traditional terminals.
> 
> Portland Afoot has a good summary of the details:
> 
> In Portland, BoltBus will operate from 647 SW Salmon Street, two blocks south of Pioneer Courthouse Square. In Seattle, buses will operate from 5th Avenue South and King Street, adjacent to the International District Station.
> 
> Advance midday fares from Portland to Seattle will start at $7 including a $1 transaction fee. According to the BoltBus FAQ, “every schedule will sell at least one $1.00 ticket. The $1.00 ticket will be sold at random and generally within the first handful of seats sold. The earlier you book your ticket, the greater your odds are of grabbing a seat for a buck.
> 
> BoltBus plans to depart from each of its terminuses at 8:30am, 12:30pm, 2pm, and 6pm. Travel time between the points was estimated at 3 hours 15 minutes to 3½ hours


Story continues Here with a comparison between Intercity Coach, Air and Rail travel.


----------



## IanCleverly

Woonsocket54 said:


> source: http://projects.soundtransit.org/x7374.xml
> 
> Brenda TBM close to breakthrough


And we're done:-



Seattle Transit Blog said:


> Sound Transit held a media event underneath Pine Street, next to I-5, this morning, at the site of Brenda’s final breakthrough into the Pine Street Stub Tunnel, from where this photo was taken; local transit dignitaries also made some remarks. The face of the cutter head will be unmounted and rolled to the right (as we look at it) then hoisted up a shaft. The innards of the TBM will be similarly removed, but the shell will be entombed as part of the permanent tunnel wall.
> 
> Taken from the Seattle Sound Transit Blog


----------



## spongeg

cool stuff - crazy how seattle went without LRT or streetcar for decades and than suddenly everything is getting done at once or it so it seems


----------



## Ancient Ninja

I'm glad that the streetcar will stop at Pioneer Square. That may help clear congestion during sporting events as well as make it easier for people to travel by train.

Also, pleasantly surprised by the BoltBus news. A ride to Portland for $7? That's a nice offer


----------



## Woonsocket54

KIMA TV
http://www.kimatv.com/news/offbeat/...open-semi-hauling-Mountain-Dew-156373285.html



> *Seattle light rail train slices open semi hauling Mountain Dew*
> By KOMO Staff Published: Jun 1, 2012 at 12:33 PM PDT
> 
> SEATTLE - A mountain of Mountain Dew spilled Friday in South Seattle as a light rail train sliced through a semi trailer, cutting it in half.
> 
> Crews responded to the scene of the crash, at Martin Luther King Jr. Way and S. Holly Street, at about 9 a.m. after receiving a report of a collision.
> 
> There were no injuries.
> 
> Officials said the light rail train was southbound and had the green light when the truck driver attempted to turn in front of the train.
> 
> The train crashed through the truck's trailer, causing hundreds of cases of Mountain Dew to spill into the street .
> 
> Buses are being used to transport passengers between the Mt. Baker station and the Rainier Beach station, and crews expected the cleanup along the tracks to take several hours.
> 
> The train car that was damaged will be removed from service for repairs.


----------



## Sopomon

Nexis said:


>


Those ponderous Locomotive+double decker carriages consists really ought to be replaced with a bunch of shorter, quicker DMUs with a higher frequency, surely?


----------



## mhays

Unfortunately Seattle is almost comically lacking rail right of way. Those commuter trains and Amtrak trains share the only major route up-down the West Coast, which is used primarily for freight. Getting even what they have now required massive hoops to be jumped through, like new sidings, grade separations, etc. Adding more runs is extraordinarily expensive and would take a lot of time.


----------



## pakwaeanna

There are many different services are availalble in the world for the public transport. Train services, bus services, Airlines services, Taxy services and my more. It really very important service for the public to transport one place to another place.


----------



## tampasteve

mhays said:


> Unfortunately Seattle is almost comically lacking rail right of way. Those commuter trains and Amtrak trains share the only major route up-down the West Coast, which is used primarily for freight. Getting even what they have now required massive hoops to be jumped through, like new sidings, grade separations, etc. Adding more runs is extraordinarily expensive and would take a lot of time.


Unfortunately that is pretty much the case in most places in the USA. Seattle has/is building a great network in spite of this. At least that one main line was already running pretty much in the heart of the city, that way new ROW in the urban area did not need to be built overall. 

Steve


----------



## mhays

Aside from cities on peninsulas, I'd say we're behind the majority in terms of existing rail ROWs. Just guessing. But anything older east of the Miss Hippy generally has a lot of existing rail.


----------



## trainrover

You used to have electrified intercity service there, once upon a time...


----------



## tampasteve

mhays said:


> Aside from cities on peninsulas, I'd say we're behind the majority in terms of existing rail ROWs. Just guessing. But anything older east of the Miss Hippy generally has a lot of existing rail.


But remember that existing rail does not equate to a ready ROW if the rail company does not want to let you use it. For example, here in Tampa there is a CSX rail line that runs along an almost perfect corridor from the north of the city through the DT core. So, if Tampa could buy that 50 miles of ROW or rail then they culd have a great line....but CSX refuses to sell _part_ of the line - they will only sell the whole thing at an arm and a leg rate. The same goes for their E/W line through Tampa. This is in spite of these lines only having 1 freight a day, sometimes none. They will not let the transit agency use the line either, they must buy it or forget about it.

Because of this Tampa only has one option - build rail along the interstate corridors. Of course our referendum failed so that is not happening, but that was the only realistic option.

Steve


----------



## Woonsocket54

CSX has a duty to its shareholders. Now that you mention it, selling Tampa ROW for an arm and a leg would lead to a shareholder derivative action. They would need to sell it for two arms and two legs to meet their fiduciary duties.


----------



## tampasteve

Woonsocket54 said:


> CSX has a duty to its shareholders. Now that you mention it, selling Tampa ROW for an arm and a leg would lead to a shareholder derivative action. They would need to sell it for two arms and two legs to meet their fiduciary duties.


True to an extent. I am not on this thread to debate the merits for or against a public company selling ROW. 

All I meant is to point out that a rail line being present does not equate to a ready to use ROW.

Steve


----------



## trainrover

Decades after track removal, ROWs still appear on Montreal area maps, built over (redeveloped) or not.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Working on the streetcar by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Construction that began last April continues on the 2.5-mile First Hill Streetcar that will connect the vibrant neighborhoods and employment centers of Capitol Hill, the International District and Pioneer Square. The City of Seattle is building the First Hill Streetcar in partnership with Sound Transit. Service is expected to begin in spring 2014.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Walk this way by SoundTransit, on Flickr

The City of Lakewood’s pedestrian bridge at Lakewood Station will serve people in neighborhoods to the west of the station with safer, more direct access to Sounder, ST Express and Pierce Transit services. Sound Transit helped fund this project, designed by KPFF and being built by Pease Construction. The bridge will open in late spring.


----------



## zaphod

I'm assuming the old railroad that runs to the east through Redmond and Bellevue would be strongly NIMBY'd if it were reactivated?


----------



## Woonsocket54

Tunnel wash down by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Workers on the University Link light rail project take a breather in the final wash down of the northbound tunnel. Work on U-link is progressing well, with service scheduled to begin in 2016.


----------



## city_thing

How long is this extension going to be?


----------



## diablo234

About 3.15-miles (5.07 kilometers) long.


----------



## ssiguy2

I find it bizarre, as well as stupid, that it goes thru such a large urban area but doesn't have a stop in it. Are they "roughing in" any stations between Capitol Hill and U.Wash?


----------



## Experts_Only

ssiguy2 said:


> I find it bizarre, as well as stupid, that it goes thru such a large urban area but doesn't have a stop in it. Are they "roughing in" any stations between Capitol Hill and U.Wash?


By the time it has gotten far enough away from the Capitol Hill Station, as the route is laid out now, the tunnel is already in single family neighborhoods. The area east of Volunteer Park is not urban. And then it also is very far underground by the time it reaches Interlaken Park, around 300 feet if I remember correctly. There could be a station at Montlake, but by then, the University Station is too close. It makes more sense to locate the station near the Medical Center, the largest draw of employment in the area. The only other place that would make a bit of sense would be on 23rd, but then the alignment of the Capitol Hill Station would have to change. I'm sure economic and engineering considerations precluded this route. And the tunnels are already dug, so it doesn't make any sense to even consider an alternative.


----------



## mhays

Ideal would be a station around the bottom of the curve below Capitol Hill station, and another a couple blocks north, in lieu of the one station. But no, there's not much reason for another station before the UW. It's not just single family, but also, a large ravine system, a big park, etc. The freeway interchange, with it's large bus volume, would be the main reason.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Link Light Rail Capitol Hill Station construction site by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## diablo234

ode of bund said:


> I wonder if the trolley wires are deenergized or not?


They are not, otherwise the workers would have been electrocuted.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*SEATTLE | King Street Station*

On 24 April, Seattle's King Street Station waiting room reopened after a remodeling. The station serves Amtrak and Sounder commuter rail trains.


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 001 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 008 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 015 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 009 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 004 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 031 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


KingSt_GrandReopening_42313 045 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


IMG_0230 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


IMG_0229 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


IMG_0228 by SDOT Photos, on Flickr


----------



## Woonsocket54

King Street Station HDR by Pedalhead'71, on Flickr


----------



## greg_christine

Youngplanner said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The following video gives an idea of how small locomotives in other parts of the world are compared to North American locomotives. The examples in the video are for Indonesia, but the Australian locomotives probably aren't much larger.


----------



## Woonsocket54

On 26 April 2013, Sound Transit broke ground on a 1.6-mile extension of the light rail line from the airport to 200th Street in the SeaTac municipality. This will be an elevated station:










Story: http://www.soundtransit.org/About-S.../S-200th-Link-extension-groundbreaking-042613

Project page: http://www.soundtransit.org/x6728.xml


----------



## Sopomon

greg_christine said:


> The following video gives an idea of how small locomotives in other parts of the world are compared to North American locomotives. The examples in the video are for Indonesia, but the Australian locomotives probably aren't much larger.


You're comparing narrow-gauge passenger units with standard-gauge frieght trains.
The locomotives in Australia are, in fact, roughtly the same size, just not quite as tall.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ A GE C44aci heavy freight locomotive for Australia weighs about 138 tons. The GE Dash 9-44CW heavy freight locomotive from the same family built for US railroads weighs about 212 tons.


----------



## hmmwv

Woonsocket54 said:


> King Street Station HDR by Pedalhead'71, on Flickr


I remember going through the old dreadful waiting room more than ten years ago as a college student, what a difference!:cheers:


----------



## Sopomon

greg_christine said:


> ^^ A GE C44aci heavy freight locomotive for Australia weighs about 138 tons. The GE Dash 9-44CW heavy freight locomotive from the same family built for US railroads weighs about 212 tons.


Thanks to FRA regulations which force everything to be massively overweight

O/T, back to starbucksland PT


----------



## Woonsocket54

*SEATTLE | First Hill Streetcar*


First Hill Streetcar Pioneer Square terminus track concrete pour by Gordon Werner, on Flickr

The concrete pour for the First Hill Streetcar southern terminus has begun on Jackson St in Pioneer Square


Jackson St, looking east from 2nd Ave by Gordon Werner, on Flickr

Southbound First Hill Streetcar track construction between 2nd & 3rd ave on Jackson St.


----------



## Challingford

So it has been reported and confirmed that an I-5 bridge over the Skagit River has collapsed sending multiple vehicles into the water. No fatalities as of yet. 

In some of the pictures of the collapsed roadway bridge one is still able to see the perfectly intact rail bridge spanning the river in the background...

I wonder if WSDOT rail can throw some passenger consists together to pick up the slack by augmenting its normal Cascades service between Seattle and Bellingham or Vancouver B.C.


----------



## Woonsocket54

And that's what they did:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/News/2013/05/31_NewAmtrakCascadesTrainsSeattleToBellingham.htm


----------



## Woonsocket54

Colorful new trolleybuses for Seattle



















Source: http://seattletransitblog.com/2013/06/18/metro-chooses-new-flyer-for-new-trolleybuses/


----------



## ode of bund

Woonsocket54 said:


> Jackson St, looking east from 2nd Ave by Gordon Werner, on Flickr
> 
> Southbound First Hill Streetcar track construction between 2nd & 3rd ave on Jackson St.


Gee, all the pictures of the new Seattle streetcars that I've seen are on streets with existing trolley-bus, but I still have no clue where the streetcars are going.hno:


----------



## Woonsocket54

Completed First Hill Streetcar Pioneer Square terminus platform by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar Southbound station platform construction: Broadway & Pike St. by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar track construction: Jackson St. & Maynard Ave, looking west by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## mariaruth01

That's good i like it your information


----------



## greg_christine

Will the electric trolley bus service along the route be discontinued when the streetcars start operating?


----------



## zaphod

That bus livery is certainly unusual.

Reminds me of the Disney character "Darkwing Duck", with his bright purple cape/trenchcoat and orange beak...


----------



## Woonsocket54

Attack on Seattle bus driver









https://twitter.com/joshtrujillo/status/366965047882305536/photo/1

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Metro-bus-driver-shot-in-downtown-Seattle-4725721.php


----------



## mhays

The driver is supposedly not life-threatened. The shooter is however...thankfully. I tried to get my venti for lunch and Starbucks is closed with the intersection still closed too.


----------



## hmmwv

That's nuts, it's a very close call as the shoot could have taken all the passengers hostage on the second bus. OTOH SPD fired at the suspect from outside the bus knowing there are several passengers (kids?) in very close proximity with the suspect, they are lucky this time but procedures probably should be reviewed.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Outbound / northbound First Hill Streetcar track construction at 14th, Jackson, & Rainier/Boren by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## Falubaz

Some of my pics from Seattle transit rides.

screenshot green


print screen windows

The underground section of the LRT line is ridiculously slow.
The rest is ok, but the time that the train needs to pass few hundreds of feet
in the downtown AND in the tunnel is just absurd!


upload


----------



## Falubaz

free screenshot tool


image hosting no account

Unfortunately the weather didnt cooperate that day.


greenshot


----------



## Falubaz

screen shot tool


20mb image hosting


greenshot download


----------



## Falubaz

screenshot


free jpeg images


----------



## Falubaz

The monorail.


take a screenshot
Pity they didnt extend it. Now it's just a toy, you pay quite a lot 
and have a short ride. It's just a play not a real transportation in town. 
And it could be quite a nice mean of transportation. Especialy in city like Seattle
it could be very usefull.


screen capture tool


screenshot software for windows


----------



## Falubaz

image hosting 15mb


photo sharing


upload an image


----------



## Falubaz

Bus

screen grab

Trolleybus

screenshot software for windows


----------



## CrazyAboutCities

Falubaz said:


> The underground section of the LRT line is ridiculously slow.
> The rest is ok, but the time that the train needs to pass few hundreds of feet
> in the downtown AND in the tunnel is just absurd!


It will gets better after 2016 when University LINK opens and buses will out of downtown tunnel for good. It will help speed up afterward. 

Great pictures, by the way!


----------



## Falubaz

I hope, it better be like that when i'll come again to Seattle


----------



## Jim856796

So this means if the University extension opens, then the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel will be closed to buses permanently?


----------



## BoulderGrad

Jim856796 said:


> So this means if the University extension opens, then the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel will be closed to buses permanently?


It will be closed to buses permanently in 2019 when the switchback for East Link is built at the Intl. District station. Buses will still be in the tunnel when U-Link opens in 2016.


----------



## Under The Clouds

*East Link Given Ok to Proceed*

The Washington Supreme Court today issued a 7-2 ruling striking down a lawsuit by rail opponents seeking to block Sound Transit from building light rail across the I-90 bridge. This suit was Kemper Freeman's last-ditch attempt to stop the voter-approved East Link extension, which is scheduled to break ground in 2015. Great news for transit supporters.


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-Supreme-Court-Light-rail-OK-on-I-90-bridge-223504111.html


----------



## mhays

Good news on the failed appeal. 

As for buses in the tunnel, I hope they cut back significantly in 2016. The rail service addition will decrease demand on a few routes. Even otherwise, maybe they can switch a few routes to the street, which is a bus mall at rush hour after all. Just reducing the bus-related delays would be a big improvement. Give rail an extra minute separation after the last bus maybe.


----------



## Under The Clouds

The sooner Metro and Sound Transit get those buses out of the transit tunnel, the better. Third Avenue should be fully converted to what it is in effect during rush hour today: a bus plaza. It'd be great if they started the transition in 2016 by moving some of the buses to Third Avenue, but even if they don't all of the buses will have to be out permanently by 2019 for the IDS switch track construction.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Classic Seattle Transit ETB from the Metro Employee Historic Vehicle Association collection making the rounds in the International District http://www.mehva.org/index.php by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## desertpunk

KCM New Flyer DE60LFR #6029 by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr


KCM New Flyer DE60LFR #6080 by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr


KCM New Flyer DE60LFR #6075 by SolDuc Photography, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Construction update of University Link from Sound Transit Flickr page. UW Station canopy :



















Tracks from the same station:



















Station's headhouse:










And surroundings:


----------



## dimlys1994

Update on the Link's Northgate extension:


Prepping the Maple Leaf Portal site for construction by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Installing ground movement monitors along the tunnel alignment, here on NE 68th Street by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Measuring the diameter of a water main in 12th Ave NE near Roosevelt High School by SoundTransit, on Flickr


The big green wall goes up around the Roosevelt Station construction site by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Excavating the shallow guide wall to prepare for building the slurry diaphragm wall. by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Installation of TBM near Maple Leaf tunnel portal:


Delivering sections of a tunnel boring machine to the Maple Leaf Portal site by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Sections of a tunnel boring machine shield at the Maple Leaf Portal site by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Roosevelt station site:


Digging to find underground utilities (and relocate them) at Roosevelt Station construction site by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Decommissioning a monitoring well in NE 65th Street by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Drilling to install soldier piles at Maple Leaf Portal by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Installing new underground communications vault and duct bank for Seattle City Light at NE 92nd Street bridge by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Northgate extension update:


MLP JCM Deere 200D loads out stockpiled soil for export by SoundTransit, on Flickr


MLP KLB begins excavation 3' North of jet grout block by SoundTransit, on Flickr


MLP Contractor begins soil nails into jet grout block by SoundTransit, on Flickr


MLP drill set up for soil nails by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Two mechanics begin work on TBM by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Collect Core Sample by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Potholing On Brooklyn Ave by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Precast Manhole Structures by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Putting crane together by SoundTransit, on Flickr


moving JCM job trailer by SoundTransit, on Flickr


North guide wall forms in place by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Crews Pour Guide Wall at the North End by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Crews Work on Storm Crossing 12th at 66th by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station Site - Crews Pre-Drill at Jet Grouting Locations South End by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station Site - Electricians Work on Controlls for the Surface Water Treatment Facility by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site - Crews Install Forms for the Guide Wall by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site- Crews Install Curb Inlet NE Corner 65th and 12th by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Maple Leaf Portal site - Contractor adjusts pile by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## mhays

Great info!


----------



## dimlys1994

Construction update on Mukilteo Sounder station. Here the workers are building new second southbound platform. The works also include new bridge, shelters and public art:


Sound Transit Construction at Mukilteo Sounder Station: 18 foundation shafts will be drilled with a crane operated auger by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Sound Transit Construction at Mukilteo Sounder Station: A rebar cage is lowered into the shaft before concrete is poured. by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Sound Transit construction at Mukilteo Sounder Station: Concrete being pouring into the shaft after the rebar cage was inserted. by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Sound Transit construction at Mukilteo Sounder Station: Rebar cage being lowered into the shaft with grey plastic rollers helping to center the cage. by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## Gordon Werner

Final concrete pour for southbound (downhill) First Hill Streetcar track.

Pics here: wa98104.us/fhs 


---
Inferred from the ether.


----------



## Gordon Werner

Gordon Werner said:


> Final concrete pour for southbound (downhill) First Hill Streetcar track.
> 
> Pics here: wa98104.us/fhs
> 
> 
> ---
> Inferred from the ether.


How many posts do I have to make before it will allow me to post photos and links?


----------



## Suburbanist

Gordon Werner said:


> How many posts do I have to make before it will allow me to post photos and links?


20 I think


----------



## Scizoid.Trans.Prog.

What are they building in Seattle? It's some kind of a LRT?


----------



## mhays

We have one existing LRT line from the airport to Downtown. It operates similar to heavy rail in many sections, while it also crosses streets in other areas. Extensions to the north (tunnel) and south (elevated) will open in 2016. The photos are of a further northward extension to open in 2021(?). A new east line will be next, in 2021(?). It'll also go further in all three directions.


----------



## dimlys1994

Published today:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/urban/single-view/view/sound-transit-approves-2014-budget.html
> 
> *Sound Transit approves 2014 budget*
> 11 Feb 2014
> 
> USA: Seattle’s Sound Transit has approved a 2014 budget of $1·1bn. This includes $146·9m for construction of the University Link, $141·1m for East Link final design, and $138·6m for Northgate Link Extension tunnelling and station construction.
> 
> Another $31·2m will continue project development for light rail extensions south from South 200th Street to Federal Way and north from Northgate to Lynnwood, and $21·8m is allocated to the First Hill Streetcar.
> 
> Sound Transit will spend $2·7m on alternative analysis and community engagement for Tacoma Link expansion, and $15·1m to complete high-capacity corridor planning studies and update its Long Range Regional Transit Plan.


----------



## Gordon Werner

Stacy & Witbeck has reached the last segment of First Hill Streetcar track that will be built in the initial segment of this line. 

The final two rail welds should occur sometime this week. 

Pics here: wa98104.us/fhs 


---
Inferred from the ether.


----------



## Gordon Werner

Scizoid.Trans.Prog. said:


> What are they building in Seattle? It's some kind of a LRT?



See: soundtransit.org/projects and select Link Light Rail


---
Inferred from the ether.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Sound Transit, an update of Northgate Link:


Maple Leaf Portal: TBM cutter head by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: hydromill and lattice boom crawler crane by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: case bencore crews receive a trench cutter for the hydromill by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: RBI crews begin assembly of rebar cages for the slurry wall by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: bencore crews begin hydration of bentonite for the slurry walls by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: hayward baker crews jet grout at location by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: bencore crews begin excavation of slurry wall panel with the clam shell bucket by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Maple Leaf Portal: JCM has 6 men working with 220 ton crane assembling thrust cylinders in TBM by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Maple Leaf Portal: DBM excavates West wall for row B of tiebacks by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Maple Leaf Portal: JCM continues grading and begins forming lane 2 of TBM skid road by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Maple Leaf Portal: JCM has cutterhead lifted for installation by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: DDJ tack welding joint 16 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Roosevelt Station site: FCC positioning pipe MK15 into trench by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Assemble DBM crane by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Remove tank by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Invert prep by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

On the 5th March, FTA announced list of 32 favorable transit projects for funding for 2015. Region's favored matched in red:


image by dimlys46, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Huge rebar for future Roosevelt station. From Sound Transit:


Raising rebar by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

From Sound Transit's Flickr page, inside of future University of Washington Link station:


An inside look by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Update of University Link construction from Sound Transit's Flickr page:


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


University of Washington Station construction March 2014 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## BoulderGrad

Sound Transit Eastlink simulation:
http://www.soundtransit.org/Project...-document-archive/Video---East-Link-animation


----------



## dimlys1994

Tracks laid in new tunnels near Capitol Hill station:


Tracking the tunnel by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Northgate Link extension construction, taken yesterday by Earthcam. Link

_Maple Leaf Portal:_









_U-District station:_









_Roosevelt station:_


----------



## dimlys1994

From SoundTransit's Flickr page, construction update of Link SeaTac/Airport - Angle Lake section:


----------



## dimlys1994

From Sound Transit's Youtube channel, an animation of prefered route for Lynnwood Link extension:


----------



## dimlys1994

New TBM Brenda arrived to Seattle to construct new tunnels for Northgate Link extension, courtesy of Sound Transit:


NorthLink_TBM_Dedication_042814_14 by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## ssiguy2

That LRT route looks sort of ridiculous. 

All it does is follow the freeway and the stations are just big park n rides with little room for TOD. If all they are going to do is follow a freeway they should just put in bus-only lanes on the freeway and save themselves a cool billion. 

This system looks more like a bunch of parking lots joined by rails than a true transit system to serve people.................not impressed and I think the ridership will be substandard. American cities have a habit of building expensive transit lines to places nobody lives.


----------



## trainrover

trainrover said:


> This is an Eastern Canada practice.


----------



## Rail_Serbia

ssiguy2 said:


> That LRT route looks sort of ridiculous.
> 
> All it does is follow the freeway and the stations are just big park n rides with little room for TOD. If all they are going to do is follow a freeway they should just put in bus-only lanes on the freeway and save themselves a cool billion.
> 
> This system looks more like a bunch of parking lots joined by rails than a true transit system to serve people.................not impressed and I think the ridership will be substandard. American cities have a habit of building expensive transit lines to places nobody lives.


Lines like this one needs a little to be good and useful. Just put some branches into the neighbourhood, and use rapid section for fast service to the center. For realiable service, don't use more then 3 branches of neighbourhood lines on main line. On branches, rush hour interval every 9 minutes, every 15 minutes on not rush hours. The ridership and effects could be tripled.


----------



## MrAronymous

But what if more people in the neighbourhood want brunches?!


----------



## Woonsocket54

They love brunch in Seattle. You should see the crowds on the light rail on Saturday and Sunday around 11 am-noon!


----------



## BoulderGrad

Alternatives analysis for a West Seattle extension:
http://westseattleblog.com/2014/05/...-given-to-sound-transits-executive-committee/


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Forgive my ignorance but is it common for light-rail stations to be underground? If you're going through the insane expense of underground stations, at least upgrade to heavy rail, no?


----------



## fieldsofdreams

Manitopiaaa said:


> Forgive my ignorance but is it common for light-rail stations to be underground? If you're going through the insane expense of underground stations, at least upgrade to heavy rail, no?


Well, it all depends on several things, from current conditions of the station/s being constructed and its surroundings (density, road congestion, etc) to addressing noise and traffic issues assessed by both transit planners and community leaders. However, light rail going underground has been in place for many years, especially in denser communities like Boston or San Francisco, since those would go through downtown or crowded areas where it saves space overground for larger buildings, and it also addresses noise and congestion issues, especially for trendy neighborhoods. Other examples include San Diego (at SDSU light rail station) and Los Angeles (the downtown portion of the Blue and Expo Lines north of Pico Station).


----------



## zaphod

I think the benefit of light rail is that right of way and station types can be varied based on what is needed.

Parts of the Seattle Light Rail runs at grade, but parts of it are a subway or elevated. A heavy rail system would need to be entirely grade separated which would cost more.


----------



## BoulderGrad

zaphod said:


> I think the benefit of light rail is that right of way and station types can be varied based on what is needed.
> 
> Parts of the Seattle Light Rail runs at grade, but parts of it are a subway or elevated. A heavy rail system would need to be entirely grade separated which would cost more.


Disadvantage being that the trains have to run slower and with lower frequencies in the non grade separated sections. Heavy rail can be run with very long trains, very frequently at full speed for most of the length of the line. 

Seattle's light rail has been loosely referred to as a light metro or heavy light rail because of the large amount of grade separation and high frequencies but still having some slow street crossing sections.


----------



## MrAronymous

Manitopiaaa said:


> Forgive my ignorance but is it common for light-rail stations to be underground? If you're going through the insane expense of underground stations, at least upgrade to heavy rail, no?


According to the right defenitions (although they're quite vague anyway) light rail includes metros/subways. Heavy rail means regional/(inter)national trains! They're usually bigger and heavier, therefore don't accelerate that well and are more suited for longer distances in stead of stop-go. Just saying.

OT: If you have a busy stretch of track with busy (usually downtown) streets, it makes sense to put it underground. But when it comes to suburban lines, not so much. Ridership ofter doesn't warrant it.


----------



## BoulderGrad

MrAronymous said:


> According to the right defenitions (although they're quite vague anyway) light rail includes metros/subways. Heavy rail means regional/(inter)national trains! They're usually bigger and heavier, therefore don't accelerate that well and are more suited for longer distances in stead of stop-go. Just saying.
> 
> OT: If you have a busy stretch of track with busy (usually downtown) streets, it makes sense to put it underground. But when it comes to suburban lines, not so much. Ridership ofter doesn't warrant it.


Not quite. Heavy rail refers to fully grade separated high capacity systems like the DC metro, Chicago el, and NYC subway. 

Light rail refers to mostly grade separated but with a few at grade sections like Minneapolis, Dallas, Seattle, etc.

Commuter rail is low frequency long distance. Typically sharing tracks with passenger and freight rail like metra in Chicago, or the sounder in Seattle. 

Lastly there's streetcars which almost exclusively run in mixed traffic in the street.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Is the ridership really projected to be high enough that heavy rail will be needed in the near future?


----------



## BoulderGrad

Nouvellecosse said:


> Is the ridership really projected to be high enough that heavy rail will be needed in the near future?


Hmmm... this is combining a couple good questions:

-Is there enough demand for transit in Seattle that they could justify building a heavy rail network?: Yes, definitely. Seattle is a very compact, fairly dense, geographically complicated city with transport choke points all over the place. This environment favors high capacity modes of transportation (heavy rail transit) over low capacity (cars). Seattle was going to be almost gifted a heavy rail system by the federal government in the late 60's, but passed on the money which went to Atlanta to build MARTA. Were a comprehensive system to be built today (covering the areas laid out by the Seattle subway guys: http://www.seattlesubway.org/template_files/big-map.png) I could see it having ridership comparable to the DC metro.

-Is our current system going to be turned into a heavy rail network if ridership is high enough?: mmmm.... Not likely. Its already approaching heavy rail capacity as it is. There would be a few sections that could be upgraded to eliminate grade crossings and such (SoDo, South Seattle, and a few sections of the new Eastlink), but that would be pretty disruptive and expensive. Best we can do is build more lines. Northlink + East link would max out the capacity of the 3rd ave transit tunnel. A Ballard-West Seattle line sharing a tunnel with a 99 aligned route would max out a 2nd ave tunnel. I'd say that serves downtown pretty well far into the future.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Why would a city pass up free infrastructure funding?


----------



## BoulderGrad

Nouvellecosse said:


> Why would a city pass up free infrastructure funding?


It wasn't "Free", the split was about 20/80 for a pretty comprehensive system. An older Seattlite might have a better summary, but it was a pretty close vote in the era that most cities thought freeways were the way of the future.


----------



## MrAronymous

BoulderGrad said:


> Not quite. Heavy rail refers to fully grade separated high capacity systems like the DC metro, Chicago el, and NYC subway.


Different definitions then I guess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#Heavy_rail


----------



## Under The Clouds

BoulderGrad said:


> It wasn't "Free", the split was about 20/80 for a pretty comprehensive system. An older Seattlite might have a better summary, but it was a pretty close vote in the era that most cities thought freeways were the way of the future.


 According to Wikipedia, the 1968 vote received a small majority of 50% to 49%, but needed a supermajority of 60% to pass. A repackaged version in 1970 lost 46-54%, influenced by the economic downturn caused by the Boeing Bust. The two successful Sound Transit votes (Sound Move in 1996 and ST2 in 2008) passed with approximately 55%, if I recall correctly. The Sound Transit board is in the process of preparing a new list of projects for an ST3 vote in 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Thrust


----------



## trainrover

Manitopiaaa said:


> the insane expense of underground stations


Me, I suppose your basement brain ache be the problem. Just on what might you yourself suppose corresponding insane savings have been spent on, or are you just one of dem -uhm- ♪marvelous♪ believers?


----------



## ssiguy2

This stupid idea of building LRT underground is what Toronto is doing and hence gthe world's most expensive LRT project.........20km for $6 billion yet not entirely grade separated so still has to wait for lights, traffic, is far more expensive to run as it can't be automated, and cannot be run near as frequently greatly reducing capacity.


----------



## greg_christine

The only explanation I can find for why Seattle is building light rail is that the politicians who made the decisions envy Portland.

Light rail should offer cost savings by permitting the line to be built in the medians of city streets, but this hasn't been done in Seattle except for the Rainier Valley segment. From what I've seen, the future extensions are being planned as grade-segregated. At one time, the future segment through Bellevue was envisioned as being at-grade, but now a tunnel is planned for that segment. Building light rail in a tunnel might be even more expensive than building a metro because the tunnel must be large enough to accommodate the overhead wires. There definitely aren't any cost savings relative to a metro, and the light rail trains don't offer quite the same performance. In this instance, building light rail just doesn't make much sense.


----------



## seapug

One major difference is capacity. Our light rail cars can carry 200 people, and after u-link opens in 2016 sound transit will be operating 4 car trains every 6 minutes during peak hours. Portland's light rail, and many others are not operating anywhere near this capacity or frequency. Also after the busses get kicked out of the tunnel frequency will be increased once again, and then again in 2021 when more lines open.


----------



## sweet-d

Yeah I guess tunnels for light rail would have to room for overhead wires. But don't some heavy rail train cars use overhead wires also. I'm pretty sure a lot of the metro's in Japan use overhead wires. But I do think if your gonna go to the trouble of tunneling you might as well spring for heavy rail.


----------



## BoulderGrad

sweet-d said:


> Yeah I guess tunnels for light rail would have to room for overhead wires. But don't some heavy rail train cars use overhead wires also. I'm pretty sure a lot of the metro's in Japan use overhead wires. But I do think if your gonna go to the trouble of tunneling you might as well spring for heavy rail.


Barcelona as well


----------



## MelbourneCity

greg_christine said:


> The only explanation I can find for why Seattle is building light rail is that the politicians who made the decisions envy Portland.
> 
> Light rail should offer cost savings by permitting the line to be built in the medians of city streets, but this hasn't been done in Seattle except for the Rainier Valley segment. From what I've seen, the future extensions are being planned as grade-segregated. At one time, the future segment through Bellevue was envisioned as being at-grade, but now a tunnel is planned for that segment. Building light rail in a tunnel might be even more expensive than building a metro because the tunnel must be large enough to accommodate the overhead wires. There definitely aren't any cost savings relative to a metro, and the light rail trains don't offer quite the same performance. In this instance, building light rail just doesn't make much sense.



Why not look north, to Vancouver & their Skytrain?


----------



## Manitopiaaa

BoulderGrad said:


> It wasn't "Free", the split was about 20/80 for a pretty comprehensive system. An older Seattlite might have a better summary, but it was a pretty close vote in the era that most cities thought freeways were the way of the future.


Is there no possibility to upgrading parts of the light rail system to heavy rail? Vancouver Sky Train has 47 stations and the metro is much smaller than Seattle's. Sound Transit by comparison only has 20 stations which are merely light rail. Seems like if Vancouver can accomodate 47 heavy rail metro stations, then Seattle can too.


----------



## Professor L Gee

Manitopiaaa said:


> Is there no possibility to upgrading parts of the light rail system to heavy rail? Vancouver Sky Train has 47 stations and the metro is much smaller than Seattle's. Sound Transit by comparison only has 20 stations which are merely light rail. Seems like if Vancouver can accomodate 47 heavy rail metro stations, then Seattle can too.


There are a few at-grade sections that would need to be buried or elevated in order for that to happen.


----------



## seapug

Two major differences: Vancouver is significantly denser, in America if you try to live a careless lifestyle outside of a major urban district you're barely considered a human.


----------



## billfranklin

*This is why Seattle appears to be copying Portland*



greg_christine said:


> The only explanation I can find for why Seattle is building light rail is that the politicians who made the decisions envy Portland.
> 
> Light rail should offer cost savings by permitting the line to be built in the medians of city streets, but this hasn't been done in Seattle except for the Rainier Valley segment. From what I've seen, the future extensions are being planned as grade-segregated. At one time, the future segment through Bellevue was envisioned as being at-grade, but now a tunnel is planned for that segment. Building light rail in a tunnel might be even more expensive than building a metro because the tunnel must be large enough to accommodate the overhead wires. There definitely aren't any cost savings relative to a metro, and the light rail trains don't offer quite the same performance. In this instance, building light rail just doesn't make much sense.


The United States has had two major periods of building urban railroads: the first during the first quarter of the 20th Century, and, the 2nd from about 1985 until now. Light rail (interurbans) and streetcar lines during the first period were built by private enterprise primarily to develop property. During the second period, light rail, streetcar lines, and, commuter lines have been built by local governments with some federal money for the purpose of redeveloping property. In addition, during the first period private rail transportation was built with almost no government regulation other than a charter, issued by local governments. Consequently, rail lines were built quickly. During the current period of construction, government not only "owns" what is built (in most cases), but, has vast regulatory powers, particularly on the Federal level. Consequently, the time required between initial proposal and completion can take many years. The interaction between government ownership of urban passenger transportation and the length of time that is required to deal with the regulatory jungle, has resulted in light rail and commuter rail being primarily concerned with localized property redevelopment and the election money provided by property owners.

The combination of these two factors results in bad right-of-way decisions from a ridership standpoint, and, very high construction costs. 

Anyone who studies (and has ridden) public transportation systems in other affluent or soon to be affluent nations will be struck by how cohesive and integrated public rail transportation systems are (or becoming) in cities like Tokyo, Shanghai, Berlin, Paris, Beijing, Seoul, Mexico City, and Bangkok. I suspect that the primary reason has been that federal money and political will in many cities worldwide exceeds the power of local property developers, which, in the current steel rail public transportation environment in the US is not the case.

The question, as always, concerns power, and, who wields that power. If the power is concentrated in a local moneyed elite, and, public works projects are financed locally, any development will be to the advantage of that elite. If public works projects are financed on a federal level more emphasis will tend to be placed on building a national icon which works well and shows federal concern for the "public."

There are hybrids of the two approaches, such as in Japan, where, in exchange for extensive tax credits, private urban passenger railroads develop company owned property in exchange for insuring that the rail system WORKS.
This hybrid approach enables private railway companies to subsidize money loosing passenger rail operations with company owned office buildings and retail space.


----------



## jam5

greg_christine said:


> The only explanation I can find for why Seattle is building light rail is that the politicians who made the decisions envy Portland.
> 
> Light rail should offer cost savings by permitting the line to be built in the medians of city streets, but this hasn't been done in Seattle except for the Rainier Valley segment. From what I've seen, the future extensions are being planned as grade-segregated. At one time, the future segment through Bellevue was envisioned as being at-grade, but now a tunnel is planned for that segment. Building light rail in a tunnel might be even more expensive than building a metro because the tunnel must be large enough to accommodate the overhead wires. There definitely aren't any cost savings relative to a metro, and the light rail trains don't offer quite the same performance. In this instance, building light rail just doesn't make much sense.


Seattle is seeking to avoid all the mistakes Portlanders made with their light rail network. Believe me, it is not envy that drives them...


----------



## greg_christine

^^ There are no mistakes Portland has made that are as big as the mistake Seattle made in building a system that costs as much as a metro but has the constraints on speed and headways of light rail.


----------



## Nexis

Courtesy of Eric 

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr

Seattle by transbay, on Flickr


----------



## seapug

Having ridden Portland and Seattle's systems multiple times I can tell you that simply isn't true. Seattle's is much faster than Portland's. They are both at grade but Seattle's is separated from traffic, Portland's isn't. The restraints on headway are temporary. Currently link is running every 7.5 minuteS during peak (which I think is already better than Portland's) in 2016 headway will improve to every 6 minutes, with further headway improvements occurring as the busses get kicked out of the tunnel and as more lines open. Also a four car link train can carry 800 people whereas In Portland a four car train can carry 480.


----------



## BoulderGrad

seapug said:


> Having ridden Portland and Seattle's systems multiple times I can tell you that simply isn't true. Seattle's is much faster than Portland's. They are both at grade but Seattle's is separated from traffic, Portland's isn't. The restraints on headway are temporary. Currently link is running every 7.5 minuteS during peak (which I think is already better than Portland's) in 2016 headway will improve to every 6 minutes, with further headway improvements occurring as the busses get kicked out of the tunnel and as more lines open. Also a four car link train can carry 800 people whereas In Portland a four car train can carry 480.


Yes, comparisons to Portland's system have been unfair. Seattle's current and future system are definitely a step up from Portland. 

The point seems to be (whether true or not) is that for a relatively small percentage more than what we paid for an above average light rail system, we could have had an excellent heavy rail system.

I think that's a bit of an over simplification. There were lots of pressures that prevented many elements that would be needed for us to have a fully grade separated system (e.g. The idea that the bus tunnel needed to be shared, South Seattle not wanting an elevated route, so we got at grade instead of a more expensive tunnel, etc), but it is nice to dream about what could have been.

Imagine Seattle building a DC Metro or a Hong Kong MTR (complete with airport express!) on the routes laid out by the Seattle Subway guys. No more sitting in I-5 traffic jams or a bus stuck on Denny or plodding thru downtown.


----------



## greg_christine

^^ Thank you! That's exactly right.


----------



## Under The Clouds

I don't think Central Link would have been built if a heavy metro were chosen instead of light rail, for the simple reason that the cost of the initial line would have been considerably greater if the whole route had to be grade-separated. Sound Transit saved hundreds of millions running at-grade along MLK Way. Without that savings, I don't think they could have started that line, and I don't know if the Feds would have entered a full funding grant agreement for their contribution to the initial line. Without those funds, the initial line couldn't have gone forward.

Another factor overlooked: residents in the Rainier Valley opposed an aerial alignment along MLK Way. Sound Transit is not an omni-powerful agency that can impose a route where it choses. It's a collaborative body of city and county governments that requires permitting approval by each municipality that a line runs through. The recent downtown Bellevue tunnel situation is a great example of this. Had ST not agreed to a tunnel and a station at the city hall (a compromise I hate, by the way), the agency would have had to have fought the City of Bellevue, which would require years of litigation and likely kill East Link. For the initial segment, ST went with the alignment, at-grade, that residents along MLK Way supported (or least had less opposition to). The fact that light rail can function at a variety of alignments gives the agency the flexibility needed to extend the system through jurisdictions with less then welcoming attitudes toward rail transit.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Sound Transit, construction progress of pedestrian underpass under Broadway for Capitol Hill station:


Construction of the pedestrian concourse under Broadway by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Construction of the pedestrian concourse under Broadway by SoundTransit, on Flickr


Construction of the pedestrian concourse under Broadway by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Progress on University Link, Capitol Hill station:

CHS AWP Install at Southwest Wall of Central Station by SoundTransit, on Flickr

CHS Crew Placing Rat Slab at West Entry Elevator Pit.JPG by SoundTransit, on Flickr

CHS North Entry Remove Formwork by SoundTransit, on Flickr

CHS Overview of West Entry Progress From East Side.JPG by SoundTransit, on Flickr\

CHS Concrete Pump Truck and Crew Placing Concrete at South Entry Cell Fill Location.JPG by SoundTransit, on Flickr

CHS Northwest Construction Crew Removing Soldier Piles and Lagging on East Wall.JPG by SoundTransit, on Flickr

CHS Concrete Pump Truck Set Up at Pour No 5 Placement.JPG by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Around University station:

NWC Mtlk Blvd by SoundTransit, on Flickr


NW Paving Mltk Blvd 01 by SoundTransit, on Flickr

University station entrance:

Crawl Door Co. Roll Dn door Escal. 2-3 grade 02 by SoundTransit, on Flickr

And inside of tunnel:

Rail clipping machine at station 1112+50 SB by SoundTransit, on Flickr

Track set up for de-stressing at station 1130+20 SB by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Video of viaduct construction for new Angle Lake station:


----------



## lkstrknb

Thanks for sharing the video, but I want to see the ending. I was on the edge of my seat (haha) wondering how they were going to finish the span and the video ends! Not fair!


----------



## Under The Clouds

Update on Northgate Link extension: the first of two tunnel boring machines (TBM's) is scheduled to be launched next week. A few months ago, Sound Transit announced they'd launch the first TBM in June. Do you think they'll make it by next Monday, the last day of the month? :lol:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Project...oject-update---Northgate-Link-04292014-x16287


----------



## SounderBruce

*Smokey Point Transit Center | July 1, 2014*

A little update from the Land of Transit-less Sundays (formerly known as Snohomish County). The Smokey Point Transit Center, which will serve as a transfer point for riders coming in from northern Snohomish County to Community Transit Routes 201/202 (service to Marysville, Everett, and Lynnwood) *without any parking* (!), is coming along quite nicely. Some photos taken on Tuesday:


Smokey Point TC curb stop by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Smokey Point TC landscaping by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## Gordon Werner

Sound Transit just issued a press release announcing the start of the first Northgate Link TBM tunneling


----------



## SounderBruce

Gordon Werner said:


> Sound Transit just issued a press release announcing the start of the first Northgate Link TBM tunneling


The TBM launch pit, on July 1st:


Maple Leaf Portal site by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## Under The Clouds

Gordon Werner said:


> Sound Transit just issued a press release announcing the start of the first Northgate Link TBM tunneling


Disappointed to read that construction on East Link will start in 2016. ST had been saying that it would start in 2015.


----------



## Gordon Werner

Under The Clouds said:


> Disappointed to read that construction on East Link will start in 2016. ST had been saying that it would start in 2015.


All the lawsuits cause delays


----------



## Under The Clouds

Gordon Werner said:


> All the lawsuits cause delays


Oh, I know. But ST was quoting 2015 earlier this year, after the settlement with Bellevue. I always thought 2015 was the fallback for 2014. Now, there's apparently a developing controversy over where to put the new maintenance facility. More potential for delay. Maybe ST is already accounting for that in its new estimate.


----------



## Arnorian




----------



## mhays

The existing Link Light Rail line continues to grow ridership dramatically every year, despite not touching much density except Downtown and the airport. Up 16.7% year-to-date and over 20% for May-to-May! 

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/May2014_ServicePerformanceReport(0).pdf


----------



## greg_christine

_*Photo for week of July 18, 2014
High Five'n Zap*
Zap Gridlock, Sound Transit's mascot, was on Link light rail trains Friday morning giving riders a high five for Link's fifth birthday. July 18, 2009 was the start of light rail service in this region and over the past five years Link has provided more than 36 million rides between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac Airport. And much more is on the way. Extensions north, south and east will add more than 31 miles of light rail to the region by 2023._


----------



## city_thing

I was in Seattle last week, and I have to say its the coolest place I've ever been to. I was completely in love with the city. The Link Light Rail is really awesome too, so clean, you feel safe, nice stations underground, Great project! I just wish the Capitol Hill station had been opened already as it was just up the street from my apartment.


----------



## Hot Rod

Arnorian said:


>


Seattle subway?

more like Seattle area rapid transit or Seattle area light rail to be more precise.


----------



## SounderBruce

Hot Rod said:


> Seattle subway?
> 
> more like Seattle area rapid transit or Seattle area light rail to be more precise.


It's all about the branding. "Link Light Rail" is a bit of a mouthful, but "Seattle Subway" rolls right off the tongue.

Also, the creators of the map are a group called "Seattle Subway".


----------



## dimlys1994

From Rail Journal:



> http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...nnect-city-centre-tram-lines.html?channel=542
> 
> *Seattle to connect city centre tram lines*
> Tuesday, July 22, 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEATTLE City Council voted on July 21 to approve the alignment of a new tram line in the city centre that will link the existing South Lake Union line and the First Hill line, which is due to open later this year.
> 
> Unlike the two lines it will link, the $US 110m three-station line will run on a dedicated alignment along the central reservation of First Hill.
> 
> No funding has been identified yet for the project, although the city intends to apply for federal funding. This is likely to be through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts or Small Starts programmes.


----------



## Under The Clouds

Sound Transit's Board of Directors today selected a site in Bellevue for location of the new maintenance facility needed for operation of the East Link line.

http://www.soundtransit.org/About-S...ternative-for-new-light-rail-operations-base-


----------



## urbanlife78

That is a good looking future light rail system for Seattle. By the time that is up and running, both Portland and Seattle will have great rail systems.


----------



## CNB30

When will the 1st hill line open?


----------



## androidhay

The expected ridership with just the initial segment and the UW extension would be over 150,000. That would rank it 2nd or 3rd among US light rail systems. With the ST2 extensions ridership is expected to shoot well past 300,000. This would leave any other US light rail system in the dust by well over 100,000 riders. This passengers/mile is similiar to that of the Washington DC subway. Could Seattle support heavy rail? Probably


----------



## SounderBruce

CNB30 said:


> When will the 1st hill line open?


The opening was delayed to this fall because of a failure during a fire test.



androidhay said:


> Could Seattle support heavy rail? Probably


Well, time for a little history lesson.

In 1968, the federal government offered to pay $800 million to build Seattle a heavy rail rapid transit system as long as voters approved spending $400 million on the project. It narrowly passed, but the vote required a super majority and the funding was put on hold.

Two years later, a second vote was held, this time to contribute $500 million to the fed's $900 million. It didn't even get a majority, so the money was given to Atlanta to build MARTA.

We could have had this all built out by 1985, so we could complain about modernizing the stations now:


1985 system : Seattle Metropolitan Area Recommended Public Transportation Plan by Oran Viriyincy, on Flickr


----------



## CNB30

What a shame!


----------



## Nouvellecosse

If the US gov was willing to cover 2/3 of the cost, how could voters turn such a thing down??? I mean, that is just crazy.


----------



## CNB30

Nouvellecosse said:


> If the US gov was willing to cover 2/3 of the cost, how could voters turn such a thing down??? I mean, that is just crazy.


 it was also 40 years ago


----------



## Under The Clouds

Nouvellecosse said:


> If the US gov was willing to cover 2/3 of the cost, how could voters turn such a thing down??? I mean, that is just crazy.


It actually did receive a small majority (51%), but sadly a supermajority was required in order to pass. And yes, I do look back at this and cry myself to sleep at night. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Thrust


----------



## Under The Clouds

androidhay said:


> The expected ridership with just the initial segment and the UW extension would be over 150,000. That would rank it 2nd or 3rd among US light rail systems. With the ST2 extensions ridership is expected to shoot well past 300,000. This would leave any other US light rail system in the dust by well over 100,000 riders. This passengers/mile is similiar to that of the Washington DC subway. Could Seattle support heavy rail? Probably


I wish this were true. If you have a source of information that says otherwise, please post it, but I've added the estimates provided by Sound Transit for each segment with my admittedly imperfect math and come to a daily ridership of 190,000-200,000 when ST2 plan is fully built out (Northgate Link, Lynnwood Link, East Link, and South Link down to Kent-Des Moines (1 station south of Angle Lake)).


----------



## Jim856796

Never knew Seattle had plans for a heavy rail rapid transit system.

Most major cities in the United States pretty much find heavy rail rapid transit to be really unaffordable and prohibitively expensive, so the only rail transit systems they'd be willing to develop are light rail/"supertram" systems.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Jim856796 said:


> Never knew Seattle had plans for a heavy rail rapid transit system.
> 
> Most major cities in the United States pretty much find heavy rail rapid transit to be really unaffordable and prohibitively expensive, so the only rail transit systems they'd be willing to develop are light rail/"supertram" systems.


They dont.

THe 1985 map was a plan that was defeated at the ballot box.

The "Seattle Subway" maps that have popped up a few times were put together by a citizens action group as a sort of preferred priorities for expansion of Seattle's Link Light Rail system.

Saying that, Link Light rail is about as close as you can get to a Heavy Rail system while still being considered "light rail". High frequency/capacity with a large percentage of the line being grade separated. Many people on this forum wonder why they didn't just throw in a little more money to make a true heavy rail system.


----------



## Gordon Werner

Jim856796 said:


> Never knew Seattle had plans for a heavy rail rapid transit system.



The issue with seattle is mostly one of topography. Any future lines will most likely be in tunnels in the urban core and otherwise grade separated (for the most part) in outlying areas. But our frequent LRT trains should work for a good while. 

Remember, our light rail line stations can handle up to 4 car trains from the start


----------



## SounderBruce

*Your Morbid Metro Fact of the Day*

Interesting fact I found while researching the history of the bus tunnel (you can see my notes here): there is apparently a severed arm and hand buried in the cement under Ninth & Pine belonging to a 28-year-old man who fell into an open pit during its construction in 1987. Full article below, from _The Seattle Times_:



> *SUIT FILED BY PARENTS IN METRO TUNNEL DEATH*
> *THE SEATTLE TIMES* - Tuesday, June 27, 1989
> 
> Suit filed by parents in Metro tunnel death
> 
> -- The parents of a Ballard man who died 20 months ago in a fall at a Metro bus - tunnel construction site have filed a $6.2 million civil suit in King County Superior Court
> 
> The wrongful-death suit alleges that Metro, the city of Seattle and two contracting firms - SCI Contractors Inc. and Frontier Foundations Inc. - were negligent in leaving a hole 80 feet deep uncovered at Ninth Avenue and Pine Street.
> 
> Glen Kevin Bokamper, 28, was found dead Oct. 5, 1987, at the base of the 12-foot-wide hole that was being drilled for concrete piling in the tunnel project. Bokamper, a bathtub finisher, was not working on the project.
> 
> Bokamper's body was recovered, but his right arm and hand were left in the hole, which later was filled with cement. Bokamper's parents, Wes and Doris Bokamper of Port Angeles, said in the suit that they are continuing to suffer "knowing that part of their son remains buried in the Metro Station on Pine Street.''
> 
> The complaint maintains that Bokamper apparently was walking on the Pine Street overpass of Interstate 5 at a site where the sidewalk ended. Gabriel Sheridan, the family's attorney, said that while the sidewalk was marked to keep out, it was unlit and poorly marked.
> 
> Sheridan said Seattle police Detective Robert Gebo found a videotape that showed the hole may have been left uncovered the night of the accident. The videotape was made by a firm that held the contract to record the movement of earth at the site.
> 
> King County prosecutors still are investigating Bokamper's death for a possible negligent-homicide charge.
> 
> Richard Mattsen, Metro's administrative legal counsel, said the incident was tragic, but that the allegations against Metro were 'very thin.'


Source: _The Seattle Times_ Archive at NewsBank (requires Seattle Public Library login)


----------



## SounderBruce

*Bogue Plan*

I found the original text for the Bogue Plan of 1911 and decided to draw out the entire rapid transit system that he planned over modern Seattle, with Google Maps Engine. Enjoy!


----------



## mhays

Good job! Interesting how they dealt with hilltops and hills. For example not going straight out Madison.


----------



## SounderBruce

From the _Seattle P-I_ archives, an artist's rendering of a Metro bus tunnel station with an island platform and electronic schedule signs:










Source: Parker, Laura (April 15, 1984). "Underground: Metro wants bus tunnel". _Seattle Post-Intelligencer_, via _The Seattle Times_, p. A26. (Via NewsBank)


----------



## dimlys1994

August update on Northgate Link at Roosevelt station:


August 2014 Roosevelt Station by SoundTransit, on Flickr

And at U District station:


August 2014: U District Station by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## Gordon Werner

Here are some photos of the First Hill Streetcar trams that are being constructed by Inekon in the Czech Republic


First Hill Streetcar Trams under Construction by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar Trams under Construction by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar Trams under Construction by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## SounderBruce

I was looking through _The Seattle Times_ archive again, researching the history of Community Transit, when I stumbled upon a name contest held in 1977 for the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (the predecessor to CT).










The most popular option was "SCAT", the winner was "Snohomish Area Metro (SAM)". Community Transit wasn't the best name to choose, in hindsight, since it tells someone nothing about the general service area. King County Metro? Serves King County. Everett Transit? Serves the city of Everett. Community Transit? Serves...communities?


----------



## Gordon Werner

SounderBruce said:


> I was looking through _The Seattle Times_ archive again, researching the history of Community Transit, when I stumbled upon a name contest held in 1977 for the Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corporation (the predecessor to CT).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most popular option was "SCAT", the winner was "Snohomish Area Metro (SAM)". Community Transit wasn't the best name to choose, in hindsight, since it tells someone nothing about the general service area. King County Metro? Serves King County. Everett Transit? Serves the city of Everett. Community Transit? Serves...communities?



FONZ though. Lol. 


---
Inferred from the ether.


----------



## Under The Clouds

Contractor Stacy and Witbeck put a photo on Instagram 2 weeks ago announcing that the final concrete pour in the U-Link tunnel had been made.

http://instagram.com/p/r7SXhlSW29/


----------



## dimlys1994

Progress on Mukilteo station, serving Sounder commuter rail service between Seattle and Everett (aka North Line). Here, as you can see, the second platform and new footbridge are constructing and will be ready by early next year:


Movin' on up in Mukilteo by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## SounderBruce

dimlys1994 said:


> Progress on Mukilteo station, serving Sounder commuter rail service between Seattle and Everett (aka North Line). Here, as you can see, the second platform and new footbridge are constructing and will be ready by early next year:
> 
> 
> Movin' on up in Mukilteo by SoundTransit, on Flickr


That's good use of the 1 percent for the arts fund right there. Functionally it's extra seats at the platform, but still art.


----------



## SounderBruce

The next two years are going to be very interesting for transit in Seattle. Here's a small schedule:

2015: First Hill Streetcar finally begins service

2015 to 2018: Lynnwood Link final design, Northgate Link construction

June 2015: Community Transit restores Sunday service

March 2016: University Link begins service

Spring/Summer 2016: ST Board finalizes ST3 planning, assuming state legislature cooperates

September 2016: Angle Lake Station opens

November 8, 2016: Anticipated day of ST3 vote


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/.../view/sound-transit-approves-2015-budget.html
> 
> *Sound Transit approves 2015 budget*
> 29 Dec 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: The Sound Transit Board approved a $1·2bn 2015 budget for public transport projects in the Seattle area on December 18, including several light rail developments.
> 
> The budget includes $121m to complete station construction, fit-out and testing for the University Link extension, due to open in early 2016. A further $208m is allotted for the Northgate Link, $143m for East Link pre-construction work and $16·3m for final design work for the Lynwood Link.
> 
> The budget is based on assumptions of 32 million passenger-journeys. ‘Sound Transit is poised to see record ridership growth in 2015, while staying on track for the early, under-budget completion of light rail to the University of Washington and rollout of the next rail expansion plan,’ said Sound Transit Board Chair Dow Constantine.
> 
> Sound Transit is also preparing to introduce a ballot measure for November 2016 where voters can approve further funding programmes


----------



## Tower Dude

Progress being made on East Link construction!
http://www.progressiverailroading.c...st-Link-extension-preconstruction-work--43045


----------



## ianto

The First Hill streetcar underwent trials in the Czech republic.


http://ekonomika.idnes.cz/ceska-tra...-/ekoakcie.aspx?c=A150112_172303_ekoakcie_fih


----------



## Tower Dude

http://www.kentreporter.com/news/288887471.html
It seems like a lot of light rail projects are going to be funded within the immediate future! :cheers:


----------



## SounderBruce

Tower Dude said:


> http://www.kentreporter.com/news/288887471.html
> It seems like a lot of light rail projects are going to be funded within the immediate future! :cheers:


That's just for the deferred ST2 projects (e.g. East Link into Downtown Redmond and South Link to Federal Way TC). The real funding comes next November in the form of the ST3 ballot, pending taxing authority approval from the state legislature this year.


----------



## Tower Dude

Well it allows those projects to get back under way much soon than expected, after they were canceled, doesn't it?


----------



## dimlys1994

Work continues on new extension to Angle Lake station:


Gantry at work by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Angle Lake Station construction*

Angle Lake Station construction at sunset by SoundTransit, on Flickr


----------



## SounderBruce

Community Transit recently opened its newest transit center, located in the far-flung suburb of Smokey Point in southwestern Arlington. A cheap, $3 million project that expanded the older, smaller bus station at the same location and without a single public parking space, as it is intended to be used by local routes feeding into frequent routes 201/202.


Smokey Point TC sign by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Smokey Point TC by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Smokey Point TC shelter by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

Video about construction of Roosevelt station:


----------



## Ginkgo

*First Hill Streetcar*

The saga continues, but perhaps some cause for optimism. From the Seattle Times.


----------



## Woonsocket54

My view is that they don't even need to open the streetcar.

Merely having the tracks in the ground has already spurred tens of billions of dollars in development in adjoining neighborhoods.

I am not even sure why they are wasting money on buying the rolling stock.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Sound Transit Central Link: Angle Lake Extension*


Current end of track, Sea-Tac Airport station.









More to come.









Mount Rainier watches over all.


----------



## SounderBruce

King County Metro sent out a press release revealing that six peak-only express routes in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel will be moved to surface effective September 26, 2015. University Link testing is expected to begin then, so there's not much capacity left for these routes.

The routes effected are: 76, 77, 216, 218, 219, and 316


----------



## Ginkgo

Update on First Hill streetcar line from the Capitol Hill Blog.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Good luck getting any pecuniary damages from that Czech company, Seattle! LOL


----------



## Nexis

First Hill Streetcars under Construction


First Hill Streetcar Trams under Construction by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar Trams under Construction by Gordon Werner, on Flickr

Assembled Czech Tram


Czech-assembled baby-blue tram by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

> The yellow tube steel is the streetcar, the black rubber delineates the operating envelope (Clearence required to operate)



First Hill Streetcar catenary /envelope clearance test cart at 5th & Jackson @seatransitblog @thestreetcar @stacywitbeck by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


First Hill Streetcar catenary /envelope clearance test cart at 5th & Jackson @seatransitblog @thestreetcar @stacywitbeck by Gordon Werner, on Flickr


----------



## Ginkgo

I'm looking forward to taking pictures of the real cars when testing begins.


----------



## SounderBruce

Testing on the First Hill Streetcar has finally begun with the first vehicle. The line is scheduled to open sometime this year after a long delay caused by the manufacturer in the Czech Republic.



> *Hey All, Did you see Streetcar on Broadway last night?*
> May 19, 2015 by Norm Mah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that was the New Streetcar you saw out and about last night.
> 
> The Streetcar made low speed test runs last night and traveled from the Maintenance Facility Yard and proceeded north on 8th Ave S, and entered the mainline at S Jackson St, then traveled west to the end of the line. The streetcar then reversed direction and proceeded outbound on the “on-wire” track to the other end of the line, changing to the “off-wire” track and returned to 7th Ave S and S Jackson St, and then returned to the Yard via 8th Avenue S.


----------



## SounderBruce

The first of 64 new 60-foot New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 trolleybuses (which will replace, among others, the aging Breda trolleybuses that once ran through the bus tunnel) has arrived for testing. (Source)


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Are those longer than the Bredas?


----------



## SounderBruce

BoulderGrad said:


> ^^Are those longer than the Bredas?


They're both 60 feet.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Media Tour of Capitol Hill Station*

Especially great to see a train at the platform. The station appears to me to be somewhat claustrophobic, busy and "clunky". Of course we are used to the very expansive downtown transit tunnel stations. The only other current "subway" station on the line is at Beacon Hill where the two tracks and platforms are fully separated by a walkway, and elevator bank, such that each platform seems roomier. Just my opinion based on the photos and video. Of course I can't wait to use it! 

From the Capitol Hill Blog.


----------



## nw_systems

*University Link Progress*

The light rail extension from Downtown Seattle/Westlake to the University of Washington is expected to open ahead of schedule in the first quarter of 2016. Below are pictures from Sound Transit on the Capitol Hill Station.
























((Images By Sound Transit, Creative Commons Attribution Non Commerical License)


----------



## ode of bund

SounderBruce said:


> The first of 64 new 60-foot New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 trolleybuses (which will replace, among others, the aging Breda trolleybuses that once ran through the bus tunnel) has arrived for testing. (Source)


San Francisco's XT60 is already running revenue service on the 14-Mission line. When can Seattle's XT40 (4301) enter revenue service?


----------



## SounderBruce

ode of bund said:


> San Francisco's XT60 is already running revenue service on the 14-Mission line. When can Seattle's XT40 (4301) enter revenue service?


Not sure. Most estimates put it sometime in late summer.

Anyway...the double-deckers have jumped the sound and are on trial with Kitsap Transit. Their reasoning (ferry terminals don't have enough space for articulated coaches) is pretty solid and I hope they get a few. They're great marketing tools and are fantastic for express routes (long distance and limited stops), which makes them ideal for suburban transit.


----------



## SounderBruce

The East Link stations (scheduled to open in 2023) are close to getting their permanent names, displayed on the map below in red:










Some terribly long names in there ("Redmond Technology Center"...just call it Microsoft Station) and then there's a few unnecessary suffixes (Bellevue Downtown, 120th and 130th).


----------



## lkstrknb

Here are pictures I took a couple weeks ago from the Seattle Light Rail extension past the airport station.

The pictures are form my flickr page at https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/?








[/url]IMG_2307 by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]








[/url]Seattle Light Rail S 200th Link Exptention by Luke Ord, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## SounderBruce

Cross-post from the Seattle subforum:

*Pine Street Stub Tunnel vent shaft*, located next to Convention Place tunnel station


Pine Street Stub Tunnel vent shaft by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Pine Street Stub Tunnel vent shaft by SounderBruce, on Flickr

*U District (Brooklyn) Station*


U District Station excavation by SounderBruce, on Flickr


U District Station wall by SounderBruce, on Flickr


U District Station excavation by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## Woonsocket54

First Hill Streetcar may open in August 2015.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/06/first-hill-streetcar-service-to-begin-in-august-hopefully/


----------



## Nexis

*Sounder Arriving King Street Station Seattle*


----------



## SounderBruce

A preview ride on King County Metro's new 60-foot New Flyer XT60 electric trolleybuses, featuring a small demonstration of the off-wire capabilities:


----------



## SounderBruce

I took a tour aboard some historic trolleybuses preserved by the Metro Employees Historic Vehicle Association. $5 a pop, 4 hours along Seattle's extensive trolleywire network (with a lunch break at the Ballard Locks). Well worth the trip.

The next trolley tour is in September, but there are historic diesel bus tours coming up this month. Check out MEHVA's website for more details.


Panorama of MEHVA trolleybuses by SounderBruce, on Flickr


75 years of trackless trolleys in Seattle by SounderBruce, on Flickr


MEHVA 1005 crossing Rizal Bridge by SounderBruce, on Flickr


MEHVA 643 on Broadway by SounderBruce, on Flickr


MEHVA trolleybuses in Pioneer Square by SounderBruce, on Flickr


MEHVA trolleybuses in Ballard by SounderBruce, on Flickr


MEHVA 1008 interior by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## SounderBruce

Local designer Rick Pierce posted a high-concept rebrand proposal for Metro, featuring a new logo/wordmark, a new livery and a slightly modified bus stop sign. He also posted it to reddit and got plenty of feedback and some suggestions that are worth looking at.










Personally, I love the wordmark (and getting rid of MLK...bring back the crown!) and additional liveries (while it is harder to implement because of the shared fleet between different bases)


----------



## Nexis

Seattle, Washington by Anthony May, on Flickr


----------



## Ginkgo

Sound Transit Link Operations & Maintenance center in SODO.

New construction. Getting ready for the opening of U-Link?


















So many Links!


















A few are wrapped with advertisements.



























All ST facilities have some artwork included, most noticeable at the stations. The R is a throwback to the old Rainier Beer specialized R.









Another bit of art are the yellow and black poles, meant to mimic the local and very pervasive horsetail plant.









The old, defunct Rainier Brewery is conveniently located across the street from the O&M yard. The facility is on Airport Way South, named for Boeing Field, not SeaTac Airport. Boeing Field is about a mile south of the O&M. In Georgetown, just north of Boeing Field, one gets a double whammy: views of planes thundering barely overhead on the approach to Boeing as well as great views of low flying jets on approach to SeaTac. (As well as railfanning both freight and passenger, on the BNSF mail line tracks which pass by the edge of Georgetown.)









The R sign on the brewery is adjacent to the I-5 interstate freeway, visible to thousands of drivers and passengers daily.



























One of the businesses occupying the old brewery, always with the stylized R.


----------



## MrAronymous

Ginkgo said:


>


Wow. That is beautiful. I don't know anything about the place or area, but it looks fantasy-like. Just imagine this thing with some rooftop terraces and some plants hanging over the edges, a hip hotel and some night clubs. This could be a great mixed-use entertainment area.


----------



## SounderBruce

MrAronymous said:


> Wow. That is beautiful. I don't know anything about the place or area, but it looks fantasy-like. Just imagine this thing with some rooftop terraces and some plants hanging over the edges, a hip hotel and some night clubs. This could be a great mixed-use entertainment area.


Considering it's in the middle of an industrial area, I don't expect it to be all that well suited for mixed-use anything.

The EVA Air wraps are hideous and a crime against the good people at Kinkisharyo who designed the trains.


----------



## SounderBruce

Ginkgo said:


> Almost complete. From KIRO-TV.


That KIRO broadcast was terrible. The map showing Central Link running along I-5 to SeaTac, mentioning Snohomish County/North Sound commuters (this extension does nothing for them, since their bus service will not be truncated to UW Station; there are bus restructures planned for NE Seattle and Capitol Hill that will benefit, though).


----------



## SounderBruce

With Aurora Bridge closed, SDOT has converted a lane on Westlake Avenue into a temporary bus lane:










Maybe a more refined version of this could be used for events and other closures in the near future, complete with movable barriers and temporary paint/signage that is on hand.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Angle Lake Link Extension*

As seen from Sea-Tac Airport station.


----------



## Ginkgo

*First Hill Streetcar Line*

Update of sorts on the long-delayed line. From SDOT by way of the  Capitol Hill Blog.


----------



## dimlys1994

Point Defiance Bypass project progress:


Rail – Tacoma-Point Defiance Bypass work Sept. 2015 by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr

And render of future Tacoma Dome station for Amtrak:


New Amtrak Cascades station at Freighthouse Square by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-selects-light-rail-satellite-depot-site.html
> 
> *Seattle selects light rail satellite depot site*
> 25 Oct 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: The Sound Transit board has selected a site in Bellevue’s Bel-Red corridor between downtown Bellevue and Redmond for a $380m light rail operations and maintenance satellite facility. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2018 for opening in 2020.
> 
> The depot will be designed to maximise the potential for transit-oriented development in the vicinity, incorporating recommendations from the Urban Land Institute and local stakeholders seeking to provide development opportunities in the area
> 
> ...


----------



## Ginkgo

*First Hill Line*

If the streetcars have to travel 310 miles each during the shakedown phase, they should be approaching that mileage soon. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an upcoming announcement for opening day.














































In front of Union Station (ex Milwaukee Road and Union Pacific).


















And King Street Station (ex-Great Northern and Northern Pacific).


----------



## zaphod

Ginkgo said:


> If the streetcars have to travel 310 miles each during the shakedown phase, they should be approaching that mileage soon. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an upcoming announcement for opening day.


Wow. That is really pink. Looks like a toy. The green one looks kind of like the start bar with the olive theme in Windows XP. Who is deciding the colors of these things?

Barbie modern streetcar, to go with Amazon Employee Barbie and Hipster Ken, by Mattel! All products sold seperately. Not shown: Barbie's dream condo.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Seattle First Hill streetcar colors*

Quoted from an earlier Seattle Times article:

The colors for Seattle’s First Hill streetcars, and another to be added to the South Lake Union line, are linked to neighborhoods along the trackways. Here is the chosen palette, and the rationale:

• First Hill: baby blue, for children born in nearby hospitals.

• Pioneer Square: metallic gold for the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897-98, when Seattle served as the gateway to Alaska.

• Chinatown International District: one red and one yellow, traditional colors of China.

• Little Saigon: jade green to represent Vietnam and neighbor countries.

• Capitol Hill: hot pink, to display that neighborhood’s “modern energy,” said Ethan Melone, rail-projects manager at the Seattle Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, a mobile of pinkish fighter-plane parts is also being installed in the future Sound Transit light-rail station off Broadway.

• South Lake Union: orange, a corporate color of Amazon, which paid for the new fourth train of the SLU line.

Of course it looks like one is already wrapped in advertising, blunting the color scheme.


----------



## Nexis




----------



## Nexis

*Second Quarter Ridership numbers for Seattle-Tacoma*

*Seattle*

Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Light Rail - 2,200 (2015) : -8.47%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Buses - 333,500 (2015) : 1.53% +
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Trolley Buses - 74,000 (2015) : -4.96%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Van Pool - 13,500 (2015) : 1.57% +
Seattle / Sound Transit | Commuter Rail - 13,900 (2015) : 11.77% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Light Rail - 39,400 (2015) : 5.72% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Buses - 64,600 (2015) : 5.99% +
Seattle / Washington State Ferries - 68,700 (2015) : 4.71% +

*Tacoma*

Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Buses - 31,000 (2015) : -10.65%
Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Van Pool - 3,200 (2015) : -7.74%

*Bremerton*

Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Buses - 11,000 (2015) : 0.59% + 
Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Ferries - 2,000 (2015) : 8.82% +

*Olympia *

Olympia / Intercity Transit | Buses - 15,100 (2015) : -4.15%

*Everett *

Everett / Everett Transit System | Buses - 6,700 (2015) : -1.42%
Everett / Everett Transit System | Direct Response - 4,000 (2015) : 4.49% +
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Buses - 33,200 (2015) : 2.63% + 
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Van Pool - 3,700 (2015) : -1.31%


----------



## hmmwv

What's up with the huge decrease in Seattle light rail ridership? I assume light rail means streetcar since it says SPD.


----------



## DCUrbanist

hmmwv said:


> What's up with the huge decrease in Seattle light rail ridership? I assume light rail means streetcar since it says SPD.


8% of 2,200 is only about 180 people. That's practically a margin or error. That area is building up so quickly and will be connected through the CBD anyway, so that number is poised to explode.


----------



## dimlys1994

TBM breakthrough at the future U District station of Northgate extension:

144926809


----------



## bighomey3000

DCUrbanist said:


> 8% of 2,200 is only about 180 people. That's practically a margin or error. That area is building up so quickly and will be connected through the CBD anyway, so that number is poised to explode.


2,200 is 8% of the total ridership.


----------



## SounderBruce

Proterra electric bus spotted in Bellevue and Seattle:


Proterra bus in Downtown by Mike Bjork, on Flickr


Proterra bus in Downtown by Mike Bjork, on Flickr


King County Metro Proterra by Atomic Taco, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

Thats one sexy bus....


----------



## nanar

^^ Male, or female ?


----------



## Lw25

That bus has some kind of recharge system except plug and wire? To be honest, without recharging during the day, electric bus is a bit problematic. My local public transport authority is testing electric buses next to my house since a year and very often I see diesel powered buses because electric buses have not enough battery capacity. I think the best option is bus with pantograph (like Wien Liner's Rampini Alé El) or inductive energy transfer (like Berlin's Solaris Urbino 12 Electric with Bombardier Primove).


----------



## 00Zy99

Lw25 said:


> That bus has some kind of recharge system except plug and wire? To be honest, without recharging during the day, electric bus is a bit problematic. My local public transport authority is testing electric buses next to my house since a year and very often I see diesel powered buses because electric buses have not enough battery capacity. I think the best option is bus with pantograph (like Wien Liner's Rampini Alé El) or inductive energy transfer (like Berlin's Solaris Urbino 12 Electric with Bombardier Primove).


It can plug and recharge at the end of a route in a few minutes.


----------



## SounderBruce

*First Hill Streetcar update*

Thursday was First Hill Streetcar Safety Day, where SDOT personnel were on hand to teach people how to ride the streetcar. I went to all three parked streetcars to get a look at the interiors and check out some features.

*Broadway & Denny - 403*


Streetcar 403 at Broadway & Denny by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 interior by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 interior by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 door by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 interior seat by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 operators cabin by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 interior bike racks by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 at Broadway & Denny by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 at Broadway & Denny by SounderBruce, on Flickr

*14th & Washington - 404*


Streetcar 404 at 14th & Washington by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 404 interior sign by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 404 wheelchair ramp by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 404 scrolling destination sign by SounderBruce, on Flickr

Two videos of the destination signs, which list all the stations while scrolling. The terminus really shouldn't scroll, to be honest.











*Jackson & Occidental - 405*


Streetcar 405 at Occidental Mall by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar Safety Day at Occidental Mall by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 405 operators panel by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 405 sign controls by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 405 speedometer by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 405 interior by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 405 interior screen by SounderBruce, on Flickr

*Other Streetcar Tests*


Streetcar 401 in testing on S Jackson Street by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 403 testing with destination sign on by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcar 402 with Chinatown wrap by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Streetcars 403 and 405 passing on Jackson Street by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## austrian

Really love pics of the inside of public transportation vehicles!



Ginkgo said:


>


Ohmy, sorry if it sound cheesy but.. that's so cute! :nuts::lol:


----------



## SounderBruce

*Proterra Catalyst electric battery bus at Eastgate P&R*

Took a 554 to Eastgate Park and Ride to check out one of three Proterra electric battery buses that King County Metro is piloting. They really do charge in 10 minutes (and using a quite sleek top-down system). Looking forward to seeing the interior someday, if it ever gets opened up to the public (or even in service). Metro has the option to purchase 200 of the 40-foot buses after the trial ends, to replace some of the older diesels in the fleet.

The parking garage at Eastgate also has a fantastic view of the Seattle and Bellevue skylines:


Seattle and Bellevue skylines from Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr

But you came here for bus photos, so here they are:


Proterra fast charge station at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus charging at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus at Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra bus and New Flyer Xcelsiors by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus leaving Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Proterra electric bus leaving Eastgate P&R by SounderBruce, on Flickr

*Full album here*


----------



## N830MH

SounderBruce said:


> Note that the double-decker had that new bus smell the whole time. It made the seats feel 25% more comfortable.
> 
> EDIT: Here's an interior shot of the upper deck.






SounderBruce said:


> The first of Sound Transit's new double-decker buses will enter service tomorrow morning. All five will be operated by Community Transit and will replace a few older articulated buses on routes 510, 511 and 512.
> 
> 
> ST 91501 on display at Union Station by SounderBruce, on Flickr



Wow!!! Thanks for sharing!!! Looking good! I just saw it on Facebook.


----------



## phoenixboi08

SounderBruce said:


> Thursday was First Hill Streetcar Safety Day, where SDOT personnel were on hand to teach people how to ride the streetcar. I went to all three parked streetcars to get a look at the interiors and check out some features.
> 
> *Broadway & Denny - 403*
> 
> 
> 
> Streetcar 404 wheelchair ramp by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Is this ramp mechanically or manually deployed? My guess is the latter, but it appears that the doors are closing with it in place.

Do it rest somewhere under the carriage, then?
This may be common, sorry, but I've never seen it, before. Very curious.


----------



## Sunfuns

Why are those streetcars all painted in different colours? Most cities go for an identical design for all vehicles.


----------



## MrAronymous

"Portland did it so we want it too." 


And yeah the ramp only moved when doors are closed. So


----------



## Ginkgo

Sunfuns said:


> Why are those streetcars all painted in different colours? Most cities go for an identical design for all vehicles.


Here's an explanation of the reason for the different colors. I think one is already wrapped in advertising, so the full effect of the color scheme may become muted over time.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/streetcars-readied-for-test-runs/


----------



## Ginkgo

Recent video released by SDOT showing some street action during testing. It *really* shouldn't be much longer until a start up date is announced....

http://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2015/12/10/streetcar-safety-day-and-a-streetcar-ride-along-tour-video/


----------



## Nexis

*3rd Quarter Ridership numbers for Seattle-Tacoma*

*Seattle*

Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Light Rail - 2,200 (2015) : -12.96%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Buses - 321,400 (2015) : 1.83% +
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Trolley Buses - 69,900 (2015) : -9.16%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Van Pool - 14,100 (2015) : 5.50% +
Seattle / Sound Transit | Commuter Rail - 15,100 (2015) : 14.00% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Light Rail - 42,200 (2015) : 3.90% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Buses - 63,600 (2015) : 2.88% +
Seattle / Washington State Ferries - 79,300 (2015) : 1.57% +

*Tacoma*

Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Buses - 28,900 (2015) : -12.43%
Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Van Pool - 3,100 (2015) : -4.94%

*Bremerton*

Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Buses - 10,600 (2015) : 1.86% + 
Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Ferries - 1,900 (2015) : 8.09%

*Olympia *

Olympia / Intercity Transit | Buses - 14,300 (2015) : -4.29%

*Everett *

Everett / Everett Transit System | Buses - 6,300 (2015) : -2.65%
Everett / Everett Transit System | Direct Response - 4,000 (2015) : -0.75%
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Buses - 30,400 (2015) : -3.69% 
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Van Pool - 3,500 (2015) : -2.12%


----------



## SounderBruce

That's a huge Sounder bump! I wonder what spurred it.


----------



## Woonsocket54

SounderBruce said:


> That's a huge Sounder bump! I wonder what spurred it.


Higher load factor. Look at the "boardings per revenue vehicle hour" line:










http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/q3_2015_rpt_service_delivery.pdf

Underlying causes could be regional population growth, job growth in Seattle CBD, increased freeway congestion and perceived reliability of rail (increased on-time performance and lower amount of customer complaints per 100K boardings)


----------



## mhays

The winter quarters have had serious issues with landslides closing the northern Sounder line. The worst locations are now getting retaining walls etc. I don't recall issues in Q3s but that might have happened (a minor issue with "trips operated" is shown). When it does, it not only takes passengers away that day, but also reduces trust and general adoption by riders. But maybe a factor? 

In Q3, alignment with Mariner games can be a sizeable factor too. 

But also the lines are getting more popular. My impression is that's the main factor here.


----------



## SounderBruce

The M/V Doc Maynard entered service this morning on the West Seattle run.

http://komonews.com/news/local/new-water-taxi-on-elliott-bay-gears-up-for-viaduct-closure

The run in particular is anticipated to have a short surge in ridership during the planned closure of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in March (when Bertha burrows under).


----------



## dimlys1994




----------



## SounderBruce

dimlys1994 said:


>


Here's a still photo I captured a few weeks ago:


Angle Lake art and airplane by SounderBruce, on Flickr

Bonus panorama of Angle Lake Station:


Angle Lake Station under construction by SounderBruce, on Flickr


----------



## Ginkgo

*Better late than never!*

With but little more than a day's notice, the First Hill Streetcar is "soft launching" Saturday, with free rides until the "official opening", sometime in the future. 

From the Seattle Transit Blog.


----------



## dimlys1994

^^Updated map on urbanrail.net:
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/seat/seattle.htm


----------



## Amexpat

"With but little more than a day's notice, the First Hill Streetcar is "soft launching" Saturday, with free rides until the "official opening", sometime in the future"

It seems odd to have two unconnected street car lines relatively close. Does Seattle have plans to connect the two street car lines in the future?


----------



## Ginkgo

Amexpat said:


> "With but little more than a day's notice, the First Hill Streetcar is "soft launching" Saturday, with free rides until the "official opening", sometime in the future"
> 
> It seems odd to have two unconnected street car lines relatively close. Does Seattle have plans to connect the two street car lines in the future?


We sure do!

More Here. All kinds of additional links to the project from that site.

Of course, every project in Seattle takes a long time from the first idea to fruition (the so-called "Seattle process"), but the plan is now in place to connect the two lines along First Avenue and Stewart Street.


----------



## 00Zy99

ssiguy2 said:


> I'm glad they are opening the line and I don't mean to rain on Seattle's parade but........... I think they made a grave mistake in only having one intermediate station.
> 
> They have created a 4km non-stop stretch in the inner city which tosses out 10,000s of potential riders. Yes, there is always a conversation between accessibility/stations and speed but this is too much of a gap in the city itself. They have built a line that doesn't serve the mid-density they want the other future area to develop into.
> 
> 4 km between stations is more like commuter rail station spacing and has no place inner city urban transit.


There were major issues with the terrain, curvature, soil, and several other things. The new First Hill streetcar is deliberately designed to plug that gap.


----------



## Ginkgo

ssiguy2 said:


> I'm glad they are opening the line and I don't mean to rain on Seattle's parade but........... I think they made a grave mistake in only having one intermediate station.
> 
> They have created a 4km non-stop stretch in the inner city which tosses out 10,000s of potential riders. Yes, there is always a conversation between accessibility/stations and speed but this is too much of a gap in the city itself. They have built a line that doesn't serve the mid-density they want the other future area to develop into.
> 
> 4 km between stations is more like commuter rail station spacing and has no place inner city urban transit.





00Zy99 said:


> There were major issues with the terrain, curvature, soil, and several other things. The new First Hill streetcar is deliberately designed to plug that gap.


I wish there had been a station at Volunteer Park, which would have served multiple purposes: thick, residential area, in somewhat close proximity to the 15th Avenue East business district, and of course Volunteer Park with all it has to offer (Seattle Asian Art Museum, VP conservatory, water tower, lush tree canopy with sun-dappled lawns), nearby Lakeview cemetery (with graves of some well-known individuals), tremendous views from Louisa Boren Park, etc. The tracks run literally underneath the park. Of course, as 00Z alludes to, there might have also been a station on First Hill, but for the reasons he mentions, that wasn't possible and the First Hill Streetcar line was a consolation prize. So, yes, it's a long way from CH station to UW/Husky station without an intermediate stop. If the funding materializes for an extension of the FHSC line along Broadway toward Aloha or even Roy Streets, that would bring the terminus closer to Volunteer Park, though an uphill slog for those not fit enough to walk it. Be assured that beyond UW/Husky stadium toward Northgate (now in building stage) there will fewer gaps in station siting.


----------



## SounderBruce

Ginkgo said:


> I wish there had been a station at Volunteer Park, which would have served multiple purposes: thick, residential area, in somewhat close proximity to the 15th Avenue East business district, and of course Volunteer Park with all it has to offer (Seattle Asian Art Museum, VP conservatory, water tower, lush tree canopy with sun-dappled lawns), nearby Lakeview cemetery (with graves of some well-known individuals), tremendous views from Louisa Boren Park, etc. The tracks run literally underneath the park. Of course, as 00Z alludes to, there might have also been a station on First Hill, but for the reasons he mentions, that wasn't possible and the First Hill Streetcar line was a consolation prize. So, yes, it's a long way from CH station to UW/Husky station without an intermediate stop. If the funding materializes for an extension of the FHSC line along Broadway toward Aloha or even Roy Streets, that would bring the terminus closer to Volunteer Park, though an uphill slog for those not fit enough to walk it. Be assured that beyond UW/Husky stadium toward Northgate (now in building stage) there will fewer gaps in station siting.


If we had the money and could avoid the risks (and not jeopardize FTA funding), a Volunteer Park station would've been a spectacular asset. Sadly, the line is sloped all the way from CHS to the Montlake Cut, so there's no hope of ever building a station unless a new line entirely is built.

I would hope that the streetcar eventually terminates at the front door of the Asian Art Museum (off-topic, but it needs more non-Chinese and non-Japanese works...Korean art is apparently hard to come by). Perfect place for a photo-op, with the Space Needle in the background.


----------



## Ginkgo

*Capitol Hill Station*

Preview from the Seattle Times.


----------



## hmmwv

Too bad they can't put a Link station at Volunteer Park.


----------



## Ginkgo

Big doings planned for Saturday's U-Link inaugural. From Sound Transit.


----------



## Dan78

hmmwv said:


> Too bad they can't put a Link station at Volunteer Park.


Yeah, it would have been nice. There might have been some NIMBY reaction against it as well. The neighborhood around Volunteer Park is mostly SFHs and not an urban village like Capitol Hill or First Hill. On that note, I always had to wonder how much of an engineering difficulty the First Hill Station that was part of the plan in the late 90s actually was, and how much of the reason it was dropped was just to cut costs and digging time...subway tunnels have been built through solid granite in many places around the globe.


----------



## 00Zy99

I seem to recall that it wasn't just solid rock. The issue was to do with faults IN the rock. Trying to put the tunnel through that, let alone a station, that would have risked cave-ins as well as major settlement above.


----------



## SounderBruce

I've heard that the risk involved with First Hill would've jeopardized federal funding. ULink has $800 million in federal grants as a result of taking a safe route.


----------



## SounderBruce

Rail ridership statistics from the PSRC (Link and Sounder combined):

http://blog.psrc.org/2016/03/rail-ridership-continues-to-climb/


----------



## dimlys1994

OK, Seattle, I want to congratulate you with opening of new LRT extension to University of Washington:cheers::cheers::banana::banana:


----------



## Nexis

Id expect to see a Tsunami of photos posted later today...


----------



## jay stew




----------



## mhays

I rode from Capitol Hill to Downtown today. It was pretty packed! And breathtakingly fast compared to any alternative before. 

Speaking of Volunteer Park, that's why I was on the hill today, visiting the Seattle Asian Art Museum (formerly the Seattle Art Museum, now home to its Asian collections) with some other people. The park is popular, but it's still low-intensity compared to an equivalent area of houses. The cemetery and ravines wouldn't help. Plus it's pretty close to Capitol Hill Station. I can't imagine it justifying its own station. (Now a station around Pine and Melrose on the other hand....


----------



## Ginkgo

CAVEAT: Excuse the poor quality of some of the pix. I was rushed at times. Some motion photos are fuzzy. And the subterranean lighting was not optimal for my less-than expensive camera. With that, here are some opening day pictures.

It's official!




































Capitol Hill. 
Real time information board!


















Even the dogs got to enjoy opening day!




































Crush mode.




































A lot of tiling of various shades adorn CH station.


















And art.



























Touting the neighborhood.









Volunteers aplenty to handle/help/guide the crowds.































































Intrepid cyclist braves the crowds.









UW/Husky Stadium.
Hospital scrubs. The mammoth UW Medical Center staff will be frequent users of Link, the station being just across the street.









UW station is very deep down.

















































































About time!









I had never entered Husky Stadium before.


----------



## SounderBruce

Video of the Capitol Hill speeches and opening.

Excuse the shakiness and the pauses (took stills during video...someday I'll have a better system thought out):


----------



## hmmwv

Thanks for the update, I was at UW for the cherry blossom but didn't have time to visit the station.


----------



## Nexis

Some recent Seattle Streetcars from Peter Ehrlich 


SEATTLE--404 at Broadway/Pike IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--405 appr Broadway/Denny by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--403 at Broadway/Fir IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404, 4204 at Broadway/Denny by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404 at 14th Avenue/Yesler Way OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404 lv Broadway/Denny Terminal by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--402 at Yesler Way/13th Avenue IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


----------



## Ginkgo

A few pix from the UW/Husky Stadium station taken today, without the crowds.














































Patience indeed! That's an understatement if I ever saw one.


----------



## Nexis

Whats with the Weird Chrome like skin on the front of the train?


----------



## SounderBruce

Nexis said:


> Whats with the Weird Chrome like skin on the front of the train?


Special wrap celebrating the new extension. Two trains with wraps for each station "Capitol Hill Station now open!" with the Step Up slogan over the articulated section.

They look really good in person, but are a pain to capture on camera. Looked really nice under the blue lights on opening day.


----------



## SounderBruce

42 percent of new arrivals in Seattle are opting to take buses, the highest increase among U.S. cities:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...es-biggest-jump-in-bus-riders-of-any-us-city/


----------



## mhays

No, 42% of the net increase is taking buses (not including the increase taking rail, walking, etc.). We don't know how the new arrivals act.


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...lynnwood-link-design-contractor-selected.html
> 
> *Lynnwood Link design contractor selected*
> 12 Apr 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: Sound Transit approved the final design contract for the Lynnwood Link light rail extension in Seattle on April 11. The $73·7m contract is to be awarded to the HNTB Jacobs Trusted Design Partners joint venture.
> 
> The 13·6 km route from Northgate to Lynnwood would form a northern extension of the Northgate Link, which is under construction and scheduled to open in 2021. There would be four stops with around 1 500 park-and-ride spaces. Ridership is estimated to be 63 000 to 74 000 passengers per weekday by 2035
> 
> ...


----------



## elliot42

Ginkgo said:


> CAVEAT: Excuse the poor quality of some of the pix. I was rushed at times. Some motion photos are fuzzy. And the subterranean lighting was not optimal for my less-than expensive camera. With that, here are some opening day pictures.


--"deboard" trains? Couldn't they just say "exit train"? :nuts:


----------



## Professor L Gee

elliot42 said:


> --"deboard" trains? Couldn't they just say "exit train"? :nuts:


"Deboard" sounds fancier. :lol:


----------



## Ginkgo

Angle Lake, next station south from Sea-Tac, "on track" for opening later this year.


----------



## Nexis

Whats the projected ridership for the extension?


----------



## SounderBruce

Nexis said:


> Whats the projected ridership for the extension?


5,400 daily riders by 2018. Seems a bit high to me, given that the only station on this extension doesn't have all that much going to it (parking garage, no bus feeders, only adjacent landmark is a prison).


----------



## Nexis

Some moar recent Seattle Public Transit photos from Peter Ehrlich

Seattle Streetcars


SEATTLE--402 at Broadway/E. Marion OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--402 at Broadway/E. Union IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--402 at Occidental/Jackson by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404 at Broadway/E. Pike IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404 (OB), 406 at S. Jackson/2nd Av Ext by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--404 appr Broadway/E. Union OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--405 at Broadway/Denny by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--406 at Broadway/E. Pike OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--Overhead Wirework at Broadway/Madison by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--302 at Terry/Mercer OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr

*Trolley Buses *


SEATTLE--4505 at E. Pine/Broadway NB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--4508 at S. Jackson/6th Ave. S. NB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--4353 at 12th Avenue S. Bridge SB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr

*Commuter Rail*


SEATTLE--Sounder 923 passing under LINK IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr

*Light Rail*


SEATTLE--128 in Sound Transit Shops by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--118 at Capitol Hill Station OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--105 at Univ. of Washington Station by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--118 arr Capitol Hill Station IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--128 in Sound Transit Shop, on lift by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--134/150 lv Beacon Hill Tunnel IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--158/131 appr Beacon Hill Tunnel OB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


SEATTLE--150/134 at Sound Transit LINK Yard Junction IB by Peter Ehrlich, on Flickr


----------



## Nexis

*4th Quarter Ridership numbers for Seattle-Tacoma*

*Seattle*

Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Light Rail - 1,800 (2015) : -18.96%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Buses - 330,300 (2015) : 2.14% +
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Trolley Buses - 69,700 (2015) : -4.63%
Seattle / King County Dept of Trp | Van Pool - 14,400 (2015) : 14.71% +
Seattle / Sound Transit | Commuter Rail - 15,000 (2015) : 8.96% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Light Rail - 41,000 (2015) : 11.11% + 
Seattle / Sound Transit | Buses - 62,000 (2015) : 1.79% +
Seattle / Washington State Ferries - 58,400 (2015) : 2.18% +
Seattle / University of Washington - 8,200 (2015) : -2.19%


*Tacoma*

Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Buses - 29,000 (2015) : -13.03%
Tacoma / Pierce Transit | Van Pool - 3,000 (2015) : -6.29%

*Bremerton*

Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Buses - 7,200 (2015) : -3.93% 
Bremerton / Kitsap Transit | Ferries - 1,700 (2015) : 9.37%

*Olympia *

Olympia / Intercity Transit | Buses - 14,600 (2015) : -7.46%

*Everett *

Everett / Everett Transit System | Buses - 6,400 (2015) : -2.45%
Everett / Everett Transit System | Direct Response - 4,000 (2015) : -3.70%
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Buses - 31,700 (2015) : 2.78% 
Everett / Snohomish County PTBA | Van Pool - 3,400 (2015) : -0.64%


----------



## SounderBruce

I put up a fact (and picture) about the Community Transit Double Talls on the front page of Wikipedia today:


----------



## dimlys1994

From Railway Gazette:



> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ew/view/seattle-east-link-groundbreaking.html
> 
> *Seattle East Link groundbreaking*
> 25 Apr 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USA: A groundbreaking ceremony in Bellvue on April 22 marked the start of construction of Sound Transit’s East Link light rail line between Seattle and Redmond.
> 
> The 22·5 km line will branch off the existing light rail line at International District/Chinatown and run east towards Mercer Island, Bellvue and Redmond. Services will cross Lake Washington on median strips on the I-90 motorway, and a 0·5 km tunnel will be excavated under central Bellvue. There will be 10 stops
> 
> ...


----------



## SounderBruce

The Seattle Transit Blog write-up is so much better, in my totally non-biased opinion.

http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/04/25/sound-transit-breaks-ground-on-east-link-construction/


----------



## Rail_Serbia

Sounder Tacoma - Lakewood commuter rail is rush hour only train service, with maybe highest ridership in the world. What is the problem to implement full time service?

What is the problem to implement some direct north-south commuter trains? 

Why there is no another train station in downtown area? North-south rail is very close to north side of CBD. 

Seattle have hourglass form, and it was expected to have expensive high capacity underground rail in downtown, but it was expected to follow this form, and implement branches southwest and northwest from downtown. I don't understand idea to make Everette to Tacoma light rail, instead of higher integration of regional rail in metropolitan area transit network, and increase the density of light rail in up to 13 miles (20 km) from CBD.


----------



## SounderBruce

Rail_Serbia said:


> Sounder Tacoma - Lakewood commuter rail is rush hour only train service, with maybe highest ridership in the world. What is the problem to implement full time service?
> 
> What is the problem to implement some direct north-south commuter trains?
> 
> Why there is no another train station in downtown area? North-south rail is very close to north side of CBD.
> 
> Seattle have hourglass form, and it was expected to have expensive high capacity underground rail in downtown, but it was expected to follow this form, and implement branches southwest and northwest from downtown. I don't understand idea to make Everette to Tacoma light rail, instead of higher integration of regional rail in metropolitan area transit network, and increase the density of light rail in up to 13 miles (20 km) from CBD.


I doubt Sounder South, as good as it is, has the highest ridership among any category it belongs to.

There is reverse-direction service during peak, though, which doesn't make it fully rush-only by some definition.

As for expanding into all-day service, Sound Transit does not own the tracks used by the trains and has to negotiate with BNSF for timeslots, and they prioritize their freight shipments over passenger rail.

There is only one station in downtown because the tunnel used by North Line trains is a century old and has no room for renovation. Besides that, there's no appropriate place to turnback, unless BNSF sold off some land in their Interbay yard to build a new facility.

As for light rail spreading out further into the suburbs rather than the city, it's all about politics. It's a regional agency with regional goals because of regional politics and regional politicians on its regional board. The suburbs have been waiting patiently for light rail and thus will need to have a train to be satisfied; Sounder isn't quite enough since it's not a one-seat ride to the airport or other areas like the suburbs desire.


----------



## Ervin703

dimlys1994 said:


> From Railway Gazette:


What are the ridership estimates for this line?


----------



## SounderBruce

Ervin703 said:


> What are the ridership estimates for this line?


50,000 by 2030.


----------



## Rail_Serbia

SounderBruce said:


> I doubt Sounder South, as good as it is, has the highest ridership among any category it belongs to.
> 
> There is reverse-direction service during peak, though, which doesn't make it fully rush-only by some definition.
> 
> As for expanding into all-day service, Sound Transit does not own the tracks used by the trains and has to negotiate with BNSF for timeslots, and they prioritize their freight shipments over passenger rail.


It is possible to build transit only third track Settle - Tacoma, and it could be cost-effective. The corridor is dense populated, and expensive rolling stocks are underused. One of freight tracks could be used in rush hour only. With few sidings, it would be possible to have 30 min headway in non-peak hours.


> There is only one station in downtown because the tunnel used by North Line trains is a century old and has no room for renovation. Besides that, there's no appropriate place to turnback, unless BNSF sold off some land in their Interbay yard to build a new facility.


For full day service, yard is needless, just one additional track 300 m (1000 feet) long somewhere in Interbay. Second downtown station could be on north exit of the tunnel. If there is a capacity problem, some trains in rush hours could go there, some not.


> As for light rail spreading out further into the suburbs rather than the city, it's all about politics. It's a regional agency with regional goals because of regional politics and regional politicians on its regional board. The suburbs have been waiting patiently for light rail and thus will need to have a train to be satisfied; Sounder isn't quite enough since it's not a one-seat ride to the airport or other areas like the suburbs desire.


 On southside, it is stupid that light rail and commuter rail just cross each other, without a interchange station. Good transit system has more interchange stations outside downtown, not only light and commuter (regional) rail, also with bus lines. For the beginning, it would be good to have frequent bus line (at least 15 min headway) Des Moines, SeaTac, Tukwilla Station, Renton.

Seattle - Tacoma Regional rail with all day 30 min headway is possible to have in only 2-3 years for very little part of money needed for light rail. Another benefit is possibility to implement rapid service in rush hours, with Seattle - Tacoma travel time only 30-40 minutes.


----------



## SounderBruce

Rail_Serbia said:


> It is possible to build transit only third track Settle - Tacoma, and it could be cost-effective. The corridor is dense populated, and expensive rolling stocks are underused. One of freight tracks could be used in rush hour only. With few sidings, it would be possible to have 30 min headway in non-peak hours.


If only it were that easy. The tracks are all privately-owned and even getting to this level of service we have now has been an absolute pain-in-the-ass. Sound Transit overpaid a lot to BNSF to get rights in the first place and is still on the hook for additional payments for each added run. We're still absolutely at their whim and it's unlikely that they would sell the only north-south railway between the Cascades and the Pacific for a small-town transit system.



> For full day service, yard is needless, just one additional track 300 m (1000 feet) long somewhere in Interbay. Second downtown station could be on north exit of the tunnel. If there is a capacity problem, some trains in rush hours could go there, some not.


If a second station was built at the north end of the tunnel, then it would cost far too much to be worth it. It'd be under Pike Place Market (a historic market that has a lot of political power; also a major tourist trap that can't be closed easily) and would have half of its walkshed restricted by open water.

Not to mention that tunnel is 100 years old and lacks any modern safety features. The current plan if a freight train hauling oil tankers happens to derail in the tunnel is to seal it off and let the fire burn. If only we could rebuild it! (and building a station would probably cascade into rebuilding the tunnel anyhow...)



> On southside, it is stupid that light rail and commuter rail just cross each other, without a interchange station. Good transit system has more interchange stations outside downtown, not only light and commuter (regional) rail, also with bus lines. For the beginning, it would be good to have frequent bus line (at least 15 min headway) Des Moines, SeaTac, Tukwilla Station, Renton.


The interchange station was supposed to be built (Boeing Access Road Station), but the plug was pulled after ridership projections didn't justify the cost. And with Boeing Field not having commercial service, there's barely any reason to build a station there.

I should mention that there's a proposal to build a light rail station there, but the Sounder platform was removed because the cost didn't pan out.

There is a frequent bus route between Tukwila's light rail and commuter rail stations, as well as Burien and Renton (Des Moines and SeaTac are way too out of the way for a direct connection to be reliable): the RapidRide F Line. It isn't performing so well and is kind of a wash because of how screwy the route is: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/maps/routes/images/03262016/m676_0.jpg



> Seattle - Tacoma Regional rail with all day 30 min headway is possible to have in only 2-3 years for very little part of money needed for light rail. Another benefit is possibility to implement rapid service in rush hours, with Seattle - Tacoma travel time only 30-40 minutes.


Nope. The negotiations themselves (with BNSF *AND* UPRR, what a nightmare) would take 3+ years, finding funds for it would take a decade, and construction of necessary infrastructure an additional 5 years.

It's easy to fly in here and suggest that we do this and that and that the solution would be so simple, but it isn't. Our transit system here in Seattle has a lot of special conditions that are imposed on it and there's a lot of political maneuvering (compromises, promises, careful PR management, etc.) that has to be done to get anywhere.


----------



## SounderBruce

ssiguy2 said:


> Those frequencies aren't very high. They could easily double frequency even with at at-grade sections.


Not with the car-first mentality at the DOT. 6 minutes was a hard ask (down from 7.5 at peak before September 2015) and even then it took weeks to hammer out the issues with trains being stuck behind red lights. Add in the pedestrian mid-block crossings and there's more limits to the at-grade section.

This says nothing of the downtown tunnel, where trains are only allowed to proceed into stations after buses have completely cleared the platform. Runners and wheelchair loading cause frequent holdups. And the tunnel isn't equipped to handle lower frequencies because of ventilation and signaling issues that would cost at least $21 million.

There's also the lack of traincars that we are dealing with. We can barely deploy a handful of 3-car trains, so a bump in frequency would stretch us thin between 2-car trains (and maybe 1-car trains *at peak*, which would be a disaster).

In reality, though, it seems trains leave downtown at even higher frequencies and get bottlenecked a bit headed into the at-grade segment. Lots of held trains on the SODO viaduct and other points in the open-air segments.


----------



## Ginkgo

*ST Northgate Link*

The main twin tunnels from UW/Husky to Northgate are almost completed. Of course, side connecting passageways need to be dug and all systems are yet to be installed. Thus the start date of 2021. More  details from the Seattle Times.


----------



## Ginkgo

And stations being constructed!  Cams courtesy of Sound Transit.


----------



## SounderBruce

And video I shot of some dirt passing through Roosevelt Station:


----------



## Ginkgo

*Sound Transit Angle Lake*

The opening date for the extension of Link south from Sea-Tac airport has been announced: September 24. More info here.


----------



## subbotazh

Ginkgo said:


> The opening date for the extension of Link south from Sea-Tac airport has been announced: September 24. More info here.


Angle Lake Station at night by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr

Angle Lake Station platform by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr

Angle Lake Station train and public art by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr

Angle Lake Station train public art by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr

ALS_Platform5 by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr

ALS_MediaEvent1 by Sound Transit Special Selection, on Flickr


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Light-Rail Ridership Explodes In Seattle, Supporting A 3rd Phase Of Sound Transit*

Driving in Seattle or from Seattle to areas in the Puget Sound is a drive in congestion — a drive in overwhelming lanes and lanes of cars[...]


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Light rail to add cars for two busy days in September *

Sound Transit plans to add light-rail cars to help cope with the expected crush of two busy September days, when sports fans should boost ridership above 80,000 passengers[...]


----------



## Ginkgo

Sounder South's new non-commute time frame round trip to start in two weeks! From Sound Transit. Heretofore all regularly scheduled trips have been commuter runs. Sounder is beginning to come of age!


----------



## Ginkgo

I have every printed schedule from Day 1. On that September 18, 2000, there were but two northbound (toward Seattle) runs in the morning, and two returning to Tacoma in the evening. Compare that to THIS a mere sixteen years later. The only intermediate stations served in 2000 were Sumner and Auburn.


----------



## ssiguy2

For many commuter rail is not an option because if you are late leaving work, have a meeting, or just want to go for a drink/movie/dinner with friends you can't. Many people also don't work set hours and may need a late night option or using it to get to work is not an option. 

Even one or ideally 2 southbound trains would make a huge difference say at 8 or 9pm. Or just have one train at 8 or 9 during the week but also offer a later one on Friday nights as well.


----------



## Natorious

What I think the biggest problem is with commuter rail besides the lack of late trains is the frequencie used. It would be a lot clearer for travellers when they know, for example, it runs between so and so every 30 min. It would be smart to add some trains in a clear pattern (e.g. every 90 min) between peak-periods. Maybe even every 120 min. on weekends. I believe that you can gain quite some travellers by offering them off-peak deals.


----------



## Ginkgo

ssiguy2 said:


> For many commuter rail is not an option because if you are late leaving work, have a meeting, or just want to go for a drink/movie/dinner with friends you can't. Many people also don't work set hours and may need a late night option or using it to get to work is not an option.
> 
> Even one or ideally 2 southbound trains would make a huge difference say at 8 or 9pm. Or just have one train at 8 or 9 during the week but also offer a later one on Friday nights as well.





Natorious said:


> What I think the biggest problem is with commuter rail besides the lack of late trains is the frequencie used. It would be a lot clearer for travellers when they know, for example, it runs between so and so every 30 min. It would be smart to add some trains in a clear pattern (e.g. every 90 min) between peak-periods. Maybe even every 120 min. on weekends. I believe that you can gain quite some travellers by offering them off-peak deals.


All good ideas that we all hope can be instituted eventually. The "problem" of course is that the trackage is not Sound Transit's to do with as it pleases, but is owned by the BNSF freight railroad. If I am correct, ST has to pay a continual fee to BNSF for any time slots used. And ST has paid for multiple track and signaling improvements along the corridor which allowed it to gain more access to slots. In the best of all worlds, ST would own its own tracks, but in a very congested area, there is really no room. So any more increases in service, after the two additional, already-announced Sounder South runs next year, will be incremental at best.


----------



## Sunfuns

ssiguy2 said:


> For many commuter rail is not an option because if you are late leaving work, have a meeting, or just want to go for a drink/movie/dinner with friends you can't. Many people also don't work set hours and may need a late night option or using it to get to work is not an option.
> 
> Even one or ideally 2 southbound trains would make a huge difference say at 8 or 9pm. Or just have one train at 8 or 9 during the week but also offer a later one on Friday nights as well.


This might be a good place to say something which I didn't fully realise before commuting regularly with a train. Some trains have to run close to empty!!!

Why would that be? Let's take my real life example. I commute to my work every day with a train in Basel area. Usually I take 17:25, 17:50 or 18:25 train back home and those trains are on average 70-80% full in the second class. However, occasionally I need to stay longer and then I take 19:25 or 20:25 train. Those trains are only ca 20-30% full, but if they didn't exist at all myself and many others in a similar situation would have to acquire a car and probably wouldn't be using those earlier trains either.


----------



## ssiguy2

Exactly. 

Because commuter trains usually serve much further out areas, other form of transit are not an option so if you don't work set hours then even if you would love to take the train, you can't. 

What Sounder could always start off with is late night commuter buses that stop only at current Sounder stations. They could be luxury coach buses and due to immediate turn time could also be used in the opposite direction towards downtown at night. 

If they are nice coaches it would give potential Sounder riders an option of working/staying late downtown. GO transit in Toronto introduced double-decker commuter buses to their fleet and they have been a stellar success especially in off-peak times when people take the train to work in the morning but now have a late night option to get home. People have also shown they love the double-deckers. 

If a late night train right now would not be possible then maybe some late-night commuter buses to help build ridership ie at 7,8, & 10pm and an extra couple at midnight on Sat/Sun. Also due to immediate turn around time it would allow people to get into the city for a night on the town and return on the bus and not have to drive when they have drinking.


----------



## Under The Clouds

*TBM Completes Final Tunnel for Northgate Link*

The TBM "Brenda" holed-through today at the UW station. There is still approximately 5 years (ugh!) of work left, including mining the cross-tunnels, pouring the rail beds, installing tracks, catenary, etc., and of course building the stations, but the riskiest part of the project has been completed, approximately 5 months early.

http://www.soundtransit.org/About-S...ound-transit-contractor-completes-mining-last


----------



## browntown

Under The Clouds said:


> The TBM "Brenda" holed-through today at the UW station. There is still approximately 5 years (ugh!) of work left, including mining the cross-tunnels, pouring the rail beds, installing tracks, catenary, etc., and of course building the stations, but the riskiest part of the project has been completed, approximately 5 months early.
> 
> http://www.soundtransit.org/About-S...ound-transit-contractor-completes-mining-last


It's insane that in the US it takes 5 years to complete even after all the tunnels are dug! In most places it would take less time to go from drawing board to opening date.


----------



## SounderBruce

browntown said:


> It's insane that in the US it takes 5 years to complete even after all the tunnels are dug! In most places it would take less time to go from drawing board to opening date.


Well, only the tunnels have been dug (by machine, at quite some depth), so all that remains is building each station, installing tracks, installing electrical systems, installing lights, installing communications systems, excavating cross-hatches for fire escapes, installing safety mechanisms, completing surface-level work, building the vents, testing trains, receiving the new trains needed for the extra 100,000 anticipated to take the extension, and of course planning for opening day. Not to mention float time so that the project isn't delayed into 2022.

Yeah, we're slow, but it's understandable when you look beyond the surface (pun not intended).


----------



## abcpdo

SounderBruce said:


> Well, only the tunnels have been dug (by machine, at quite some depth), so all that remains is building each station, installing tracks, installing electrical systems, installing lights, installing communications systems, excavating cross-hatches for fire escapes, installing safety mechanisms, completing surface-level work, building the vents, testing trains, receiving the new trains needed for the extra 100,000 anticipated to take the extension, and of course planning for opening day. Not to mention float time so that the project isn't delayed into 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we're slow, but it's understandable when you look beyond the surface (pun not intended).



Why not build the stations concurrently?


----------



## SounderBruce

abcpdo said:


> Why not build the stations concurrently?


The stations are being built concurrently. It just takes a long time to build up from 100 feet underground.


----------



## Rail_Serbia

Tågälskaren said:


> *$54 billion dollar question: expand light rail or back to drawing board?*
> 
> SEATTLE - Advocates call it visionary, necessary and bold; opponents fear it could be a $54 billion dollar boondoggle[...]


Better question is why USA light rail systems are the most expensive in the world? For example, to build an overground rail section in Belgrade, Serbia is 17.000.000$ per km + 2.000.000$ for every station. For street level section is nor more than 7.000.000$ including changing all underground heating, electric, water, savage network, and rebuilding of the road. For sections on a lawn, it is 2.000.000$ per km. Those prices doesn't include rolling stocks, but with two LRV-s per km, in Belgrade is possible to build 2.000 km of light rail. Wages of construction workers in Serbia are 400$-800$ per month, but the most of materials and rolling stocks have similar prices in world trade.

And, one another interesting question: Why nobody in USA make question about so high costs of rail projects?


----------



## DCUrbanist

Rail_Serbia said:


> Better question is why USA light rail systems are the most expensive in the world? For example, to build an overground rail section in Belgrade, Serbia is 17.000.000$ per km + 2.000.000$ for every station. For street level section is nor more than 7.000.000$ including changing all underground heating, electric, water, savage network, and rebuilding of the road. For sections on a lawn, it is 2.000.000$ per km. Those prices doesn't include rolling stocks, but with two LRV-s per km, in Belgrade is possible to build 2.000 km of light rail. Wages of construction workers in Serbia are 400$-800$ per month, but the most of materials and rolling stocks have similar prices in world trade.
> 
> And, one another interesting question: Why nobody in USA make question about so high costs of rail projects?


And THAT is the $64,000 Question. If you could figure that out, you could make quite a bit of money over here. The sad answer is that nobody really knows. There's probably not one single source, but a few people have suggested:

1. Labor costs
2. Contract structures that don't properly control cost increases
3. An over-reliance on lowest-bid contracting that promotes lowballing cost estimates to win the contract
4. The fact that contractors can sue the public sector much more freely here than elsewhere
5. Scope creep, where projects just slowly get bigger and more bloated until they're far larger than they will ever realistically need to be

Probably the best example is the Green Line Extension in Boston, which is a 6.9km light-rail line on an existing right-of-way that cost $2B at the awarding of contracts and then reached 3 BILLION dollars.

Any other reasons, y'all?


----------



## Sunfuns

An obvious one you forgot is the cost of land if any needs to be acquired. Not only the cost itself, but also endless lawsuits which accompany such acquisition.


----------



## DCUrbanist

Sunfuns said:


> An obvious one you forgot is the cost of land if any needs to be acquired. Not only the cost itself, but also endless lawsuits which accompany such acquisition.


Mountains of bureaucracy and lawsuits. How could I forget!


----------



## SounderBruce

Natorious said:


> On a map I saw as part of ST3 that Seattle and Tacoma will be linked by lightrail in 2030. Íf approved, will that be instead of the current commuter rail or will the lightrail follow a different route?


Commuter rail service would continue and even be expanded under ST3, on the South Line. The North Line also intersects with planned light rail in Everett, but both lines serve very different corridors than the light rail will. Light rail will generally follow Interstate 5, while Sounder South follows the Green River Valley (SR 167) and the North Line follows the coast (and ferry terminals).



sweet-d said:


> Why doesn't Seattle opt to build at least one heavy rail line? Light Rail is good but wouldn't it much more efficient to continue with light rail and also build one subway/elevated metro?


Under ST3, the planned "Red Line" from West Seattle to Everett would be 100% grade separated and pretty much meet the requirements of being called a metro.

It is much more efficient to have a single light rail system than a split system like Los Angeles built. Compatible rolling stock, compatible stations, compatible systems...and most of all compatible branding in the minds of customers, who would be rather confused when you throw in additional qualifiers to think about.


----------



## Dan78

DCUrbanist said:


> Mountains of bureaucracy and lawsuits. How could I forget!


As an example, two Purple Line projects (one in LA and the other in the DC metro area) have been and are being held up by years of baseless lawsuits from people who just plain don't want a rail transit line through their community in any way, shape, or form. Or in Washington State witness Kemper Freeman's one-man crusade against Seattle's light rail project. This type of thing is pretty rare outside of the US, if it exists at all.


----------



## etooley1985

Totally true for parts of my city (Los Angeles) also - like in Beverly Hills, the worst place on earth IMHO. I feel your pain. 



Dan78 said:


> As an example, two Purple Line projects (one in LA and the other in the DC metro area) have been and are being held up by years of baseless lawsuits from people who just plain don't want a rail transit line through their community in any way, shape, or form. Or in Washington State witness Kemper Freeman's one-man crusade against Seattle's light rail project. This type of thing is pretty rare outside of the US, if it exists at all.


----------



## Woonsocket54

*Old fart*

Hilarious "letter to the editor" by an old fart:



> *ST3: Transit measure is a money grab*
> Dan Fluaitt, Puyallup
> 
> I get very irate every time I read about Sound Transit wanting my property taxes for public transportation. Why should my property taxes subsidize someone else’s transportation?
> 
> I pay my taxes in the expectation they will be used in Pierce County for better schools, fire and police departments, parks and public recreation, not for someone to ride a train to work. You don’t pay for my vehicle licenses or fuel taxes; why should I pay for your commute?
> 
> In my 70-plus years, I’ve never ridden public transportation and probably never will. According to Sound Transit’s schedule, I’ll be long gone before any of it is even built.
> 
> To those that say it will reduce congestion on our roads, you’re probably correct, but then the HOV lanes were supposed to accomplish that, too; that is if you can afford them.
> 
> Again, I say no to Sound Transit. Leave my property taxes in Pierce County where they belong.


http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article104658631.html


----------



## BoulderGrad

^^Is he or anyone in his immediate family enrolled in school at the moment? Is his house currently on fire? Is he currently being robbed?... Such a waste of his property taxes for these services (by his logic) to pay for someone else to go to school or have their house fire put out.


----------



## towerpower123

^^^ That is the Libertarian way of looking at things, from the perspective of the old man. It's all about me, me, me, and SCREW YOU AND YOUR NEEDS. It is looking at the right now and not the problems of tomorrow or 5 years from now. While many Seattle residents will be able to get on the train, Dan Fluiatt will be stuck paying $10 a gallon or more for gas when the prices inevitably go back up as he continues to drive his car rather than pay THE MAN for a train ticket that will be much more stable in price.


----------



## SounderBruce

Pictures and video from the Angle Lake Station opening on September 24.


Angle Lake Station over S 200th Street by SounderBruce, on Flickr


First train at Angle Lake Station by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Link in chrome for Angle Lake by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Angle Lake Station ribbon cutting by SounderBruce, on Flickr



Angle Lake Station opening by SounderBruce, on Flickr


Waiting to ride to Angle Lake by SounderBruce, on Flickr

And some video, from both sides:











And from the media preview day:


----------



## ssiguy2

Looks great. 

I must admit I find it odd how LINK is grade separated out in the suburbs but not when you enter Seattle itself where there is more congestion. Seems kind of ass-backwards to me.


----------



## Dan78

ssiguy2 said:


> I must admit I find it odd how LINK is grade separated out in the suburbs but not when you enter Seattle itself where there is more congestion. Seems kind of ass-backwards to me.


I'm guessing it happened that way for political reasons and to save money. The Rainier Valley segment was originally going to be in a tunnel but at some point it was decided this was too costly so they put it in the street median instead. The result is that Link train headways are limited by the RV segment and its interaction with auto traffic. RV is less well-off than Northern Seattle or the Eastside so they have less political clout. If a cost saving measure was going to be instituted, here is where it was going to happen.

Nothing is as weird as Buffalo, NY, which has a light rail system that runs on street level through the *city center* (albeit in a former "pedestrian mall") but in a *tunnel* in the suburban area it runs through. Now that the pedestrian mall is being scrapped the LRVs now share the street space with cars, which the city transportation department admits will cause some "complications". It'd have been better if the entire length of the system had just been put in a tunnel.


----------



## Ginkgo

ssiguy2 said:


> Looks great.
> 
> I must admit I find it odd how LINK is grade separated out in the suburbs but not when you enter Seattle itself where there is more congestion. Seems kind of ass-backwards to me.


Not entirely true. The street running is only from just south of Rainier Beach station to just south of Mount Baker. From Mount Baker station northbound all the way to UW/Husky Stadium, the line is grade separated, except for a couple of arterial crossings at grade in SODO, and the vehicular traffic stops at those, never LINK. The only "caveat" is that buses still ply the downtown transit tunnel. The buses, especially at rush hour, can impede train speeds. But not forever: when more LINK lines open, the buses will leave the tunnel entirely. Right now, from Westlake to UW/Husky the tunnel is rail only and the trains zip through quite fast.


----------



## Ginkgo

SounderBruce said:


> Pictures and video from the Angle Lake Station opening on September 24.
> 
> And some video, from both sides:


The small lake briefly shown in the east direction video is not Angle Lake (which is larger and farther south) but rather Bow Lake. Early histories of Sea-Tac airport make abundant mention of Bow Lake as being the location of the new airport. Angle Lake itself is visible just north of the station, also looking to the east. Not shown in the west-facing video, but from the Angle Lake station platform itself is a great view of Puget Sound and for relatively close-in viewing of either landing or departing aircraft, depending on wind direction. And, from the train itself as depicted, are some great close-up airport tarmac views of parked planes at passenger boarding bridges. So there is actually a lot packed along this small length of extension.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*As voters ponder Sound Transit 3, Central District light rail station takes shape*

With a transformative light rail expansion measure now in voters’ hands, Sound Transit offered Central District residents an opportunity this week to see the fruits of passing the measure’s predecessor in 2008[...]


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Proposed light-rail expansion includes 8,560 park-and-ride stalls — but is it enough?*

Sound Transit 3’s investment in parking is likely critical to some voters’ support to expand light rail deep into the suburbs — north to Everett, east to Issaquah and Redmond and south to Tacoma[...]


----------



## Ginkgo

*ST 3*

So far, so good.

From the Seattle Times.


----------



## bighomey3000

Ginkgo said:


> So far, so good.
> 
> From the Seattle Times.


On a dark day, some silver lining in Seattle and Los Angeles' transit votes


----------



## Manitopiaaa

A good infographic on what the vote could mean: http://projects.seattletimes.com/2016/st3-guide/

37 stations and 62 miles of light rail by 2041!


----------



## SounderBruce

*of new light rail.

Total will be 116 miles and 70 stations when you include ST1 and ST2.


----------



## Tower Dude

I love how underhanded the Seattle times is being "post-election switch from an elevated line to a tunnel" or "A community-requested tunnel under Salmon Bay might add $450 million to the cost, compared to the Ballard drawbridge in ST3’s budget."
Sound Transit never expressed exact alignment or construction design in their Expansion proposal.


----------



## Woonsocket54

Light rail ridership is off the charts...

https://www.seattletransitblog.com/...-ridership-report-whole-new-world/#more-85109


----------



## 00Zy99

HURRY!

SOMEBODY GET NEW CHARTS!!!


----------



## BoulderGrad

Ridership at about 68,000 ppl/day on a 20 mile line.

North Link (UW -> Northgate) is projected to bump that up to 110,000 ppl/day on a 24 mile line

Sound Transit 2 just starting construction (Northgate -> Lynnwood, Sea-Tac -> Federal Way, Seattle -> Bellevue/Redmond) is projected to bump that up to 280,000 ppl/day by 2030 on a 51 mile two line system

Sound Transit 3 approved this election (Everettt -> Tacoma, Ballard -> DT Seattle -> West Seattle, Kirkland -> Issaquah) is projected to bump that to 415,000ppl/day to 515,000 ppl/day by 2040 on a 113 mile four line system. 

Exciting transit times in Seattle.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Tacoma Link ridership heads downhill*"

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/traffic/article122023504.html


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*First Avenue streetcar work starts in January, linking South Lake Union and First Hill*"

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...irst-avenue-streetcar-work-starts-in-january/


----------



## MrAronymous

Seattle showing the country how it's supposed to be done.


----------



## SounderBruce

MrAronymous said:


> Seattle showing the country how it's supposed to be done.


Well, our most recent streetcar (the First Hill line, seen at right/east) hasn't been all that successful due to a lack of transit priority. We managed to add transit priority lanes on the South Lake Union line recently, well after it opened, so here's to one day closing Broadway to cars!


----------



## Bond James Bond

Can somebody tell me why anyone would take a streetcar from Capitol Hill to just about anywhere downtown when taking the Link is probably 10 times faster?


----------



## Ginkgo

*City Center Connector*

More detail for serious transit nerds, from The Urbanist.


----------



## SounderBruce

Bond James Bond said:


> Can somebody tell me why anyone would take a streetcar from Capitol Hill to just about anywhere downtown when taking the Link is probably 10 times faster?


Fear of the underground?

But seriously, I think the target markets are ferry riders headed to SLU or First Hill and tourists who aren't adventurous enough to figure out the bus system.


----------



## Bond James Bond

Then it's no wonder that leg of the streetcar is performing poorly. Really dumb idea to put a streetcar route where there's already a rapid transit route serving the same origin/destination pair.


----------



## Ginkgo

Your are correct in that the First Hill streetcar in effect starts at a Link station [Chinatown/International District] and ends at a Link station [Capitol Hill], but if I might play devil's advocate: The streetcar does serve Little Saigon, Yesler Terrace and the large hospitals atop First Hill. Someone--and there may not be too many--but someone from Little Saigon or Yesler Terrace would take the streetcar to/from the hospital district or Chinatown/The ID. And though Sounder Bruce was probably joking, there are some living closer to those Link stations who wouldn't feel comfortable descending underground and fussing with ticket machines. All of which might not in itself justify that particular streetcar route, but what totally does justify it is the fact that in the original Link plan there was to be a First Hill station. Due to geological, geographical and cost issues that station was ultimately deemed unfeasible and, as consolation prize, if you will, a streetcar line was promised--and subsequently built--instead, thus linking First Hill with both the Capitol Hill and Chinatown/International District Link stations.


----------



## Bond James Bond

Then they should have done something like this: Instead of going north on Broadway, they should have continued it east along Jackson, then gone north on 23rd for a while, and maybe eventually gone NE up Madison to Madison Park. Or something like that. That way you'd still get a lot of the ID, but you'd also hit a lot of areas that aren't near a Link station.

The hospitals are already so close to downtown I'm not sure why you would need a streetcar. If some people don't want to walk, there are always buses.


----------



## SounderBruce

But the First Hill neighborhood wanted _something_, so they had to be included in the route.

The best way to serve First Hill, in my opinion, is a rapid bus line on Boren. That street needs all-day service. Maybe extending the 7 up there would be better than keeping it downtown.


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Seattle Poised for Another Light-Rail Expansion*

_Feds Agree to Give Sound Transit $2 Billion in Loans
Sound Transit, the Puget Sound region’s metropolitan transit agency, has faced criticism over the years for ballooning costs and delays in building a light-rail rapid transit system serving Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue and environs[...]_


----------



## Tågälskaren

*Seattle’s First Hill Streetcar Expansion Put On Hold*

_Owing to questions about the value of the project, Seattle’s proposed First Hill Streetcar expansion has been put on ice by the Seattle Department of Transportation, according to recent reports[...]_


----------



## Ginkgo

Just to clarify, the above post refers to the Broadway extension which would expand the First Hill line a few blocks to the north. Any such ultimate decision on that does not affect the planned Center City Connector line, joining the two current separated lines (First Hill and South Lake Union), as discussed farther above.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Light rail ridership surges ahead in November*"

http://www.soundtransit.org/About-S...t-rail-ridership-surges-ahead-november-010517


----------



## Ginkgo

For the first time since Link opened ten years ago, a "branch" route (East Link) will need to be connected to the main north-south central spine. Other such routes are in various planning stages. In order for East Link to join the existing Central Link trackage, just south of the Chinatown/International District station, some changes to the current routing at nearby stations and frequencies will be necessary. Here is some information from Sound Transit involving constrained travel for ten weeks, starting a year from now. Clicking the link about halfway through the text will bring up animations of how it will all work. East Link is scheduled to open in 2023.


----------



## MrAronymous




----------



## SounderBruce

My writeup of the new cars: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/06/20/sound-transit-shows-off-new-siemens-light-rail-vehicles/


----------



## Ginkgo

*Sound Transit East Link (Blue Line)*

Tracks are being laid on the floating bridge over Lake Washington. Interesting video included. A Sound Transit news release.


----------



## FabriFlorence

The new Link light rail trains are very beautiful!


----------



## Woonsocket54

The county transit agency is planning a 15-mile-long express bus route, the longest in the system. Parts of it will pass by farmland.










https://seattletransitblog.com/2019...-king-restructures-to-complement-rapidride-i/


----------



## SounderBruce

It's RapidRide, which is limited-stop proto-BRT and not an express route. And most of it is through suburban areas, with only a tiny section in farmland along the bottom of the river valley.

At 15 miles, it's about the same length at Swift BRT, which has far more limited stop spacing and more queue jumps to help speed up travel times.


----------



## Woonsocket54

SounderBruce said:


> It's RapidRide, which is limited-stop proto-BRT and not an express route. And most of it is through suburban areas, with only a tiny section in farmland along the bottom of the river valley.
> 
> At 15 miles, it's about the same length at Swift BRT, which has far more limited stop spacing and more queue jumps to help speed up travel times.


"Limited stop" does not mean "express"? I am just talking generically - how are those terms different?


----------



## SounderBruce

Woonsocket54 said:


> "Limited stop" does not mean "express"? I am just talking generically - how are those terms different?


Limited stop services use local streets and generally stop every mile or so, and form one of the basic requirements for BRT. Express services use freeways and have stop every five miles (if that) between major hubs (e.g. the ST Express network).


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Seattle City Council approves $9 million loan to restart downtown streetcar work*"

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...lion-loan-to-restart-downtown-streetcar-work/


----------



## endrity

Seattle, like many other midsize-to-large US cities, needs a full metro. The lack of investment on public transport is mind blowing.


----------



## MrAronymous

The light rail you see on the map (light blue line) acts as a metro. It's high capacity and grade-seperated where necessary. Expansion plans are bountiful.


----------



## endrity

MrAronymous said:


> The light rail you see on the map (light blue line) acts as a metro. It's high capacity and grade-seperated where necessary. Expansion plans are bountiful.


Great to hear. I thought it was a typical tram route like many that exist in US cities nowadays.


----------



## SounderBruce

The single light rail line in Seattle (soon to be two in 2023 and spanning over 40 miles by 2024) is already carrying 80,000 passengers a day and should carry well over 150,000 by the phase 2 buildout. Phase 3 should take it to 115 miles and 300,000 by 2036.


----------



## Jericho-79

SounderBruce said:


> The single light rail line in Seattle (soon to be two in 2023 and spanning over 40 miles by 2024) is already carrying 80,000 passengers a day and should carry well over 150,000 by the phase 2 buildout. Phase 3 should take it to 115 miles and 300,000 by 2036.


They should extend the Link all the way to the Seattle Center, and just ditch the monorail.

Once the new hockey arena opens, there's gonna be lots and lots of visitors to the Seattle Center for concerts, hockey games, and perhaps ultimately, Sonics games.


----------



## SounderBruce

Jericho-79 said:


> They should extend the Link all the way to the Seattle Center, and just ditch the monorail.
> 
> Once the new hockey arena opens, there's gonna be lots and lots of visitors to the Seattle Center for concerts, hockey games, and perhaps ultimately, Sonics games.


The Seattle Center will get its own Link station as part of the Ballard Extension, which is set to open in 2035. It requires a new downtown tunnel, so it's going to take a long time to develop and construction; in fact, we are currently in the middle of routing studies for this project.

The monorail is being integrated into ORCA and getting a larger entrance at Westlake Station as part of the arena project, though. It should do fine in carrying some of the load, but there will still be a lot of people driving to the games, even on weeknights.


----------



## Amexpat

Anyone know why i will take over 6 years to build the 1.3 mile streetcar connecting segment in Seattle? There shouldn't be the need for tunneling or major utility relocation.


----------



## SounderBruce

Amexpat said:


> Anyone know why i will take over 6 years to build the 1.3 mile streetcar connecting segment in Seattle? There shouldn't be the need for tunneling or major utility relocation.


Politics. The mayor is holding it hostage and the costs are bubbling over because the construction market here is out of control.

And frankly, it really isn't a good time to begin construction. The waterfront corridor is still dealing with viaduct demolition work and the ferry terminal redevelopment, so additional strain caused by streetcar construction would have a negative impact. This project should have been done _before_ the viaduct was closed, but we're not known for foresight here.


----------



## Amexpat

SounderBruce said:


> And frankly, it really isn't a good time to begin construction. The waterfront corridor is still dealing with viaduct demolition work and the ferry terminal redevelopment, so additional strain caused by streetcar construction would have a negative impact. This project should have been done _before_ the viaduct was closed, but we're not known for foresight here.


Looking at the map above, I see the streetcar is only a couple of blocks inland from the waterfront. Wouldn't it make sense to include a streetcar where the Viaduct was, since they have to rebuild anyway? It would also put the streetcar closer to the ferry terminal, which might be a plus.


----------



## krnboy1009

endrity said:


> Great to hear. I thought it was a typical tram route like many that exist in US cities nowadays.


It runs as a tram in the suburban part of the route.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Amexpat said:


> Looking at the map above, I see the streetcar is only a couple of blocks inland from the waterfront. Wouldn't it make sense to include a streetcar where the Viaduct was, since they have to rebuild anyway? It would also put the streetcar closer to the ferry terminal, which might be a plus.


Firstly, there would be no way to connect it to the SLU line from the waterfront. Where the SLU line cuts west is blocked for several blocks from reaching the waterfront either by steep hills or the market or both. The whole point of the Center City Connector is to connect the two current lines, so putting it on the waterfront would make that very inconvenient.

Secondly, even in spite of that, the waterfront isn't really that far from the downtown stops. The Marion-Spring stop is only a 500ft walk to the new ferry terminal, and the Columbia Cherry stop is about the same to the water taxi terminal. It also puts them a little closer to the light rail stop entrances on 3rd.

Thirdly, the waterfront is going to be fairly torn up for at least 2 more years. It doesn't do the city much good to add another 5 to try and wedge in a less useful trolley line to an already complicated project.


----------



## SounderBruce

krnboy1009 said:


> It runs as a tram in the suburban part of the route.


It runs on surface streets in SODO (an industrial area with only four crossings) and Rainier Valley (a residential area with dozens of crossings). The suburban sections in Tukwila and those being built now are all grade-separated (though some run on the surface next to freeways).


----------



## dysharmonica

krnboy1009 said:


> It runs as a tram in the suburban part of the route.


A tram runs in mixed traffic. Link runs on surface and does have surface crossings, but never runs as a tram in mixed traffic. 

You can keep believing in your misconception/lie, but your post just show your ignorance.


----------



## Woonsocket54

dysharmonica said:


> A tram runs in mixed traffic. Link runs on surface and does have surface crossings, but never runs as a tram in mixed traffic.
> 
> You can keep believing in your misconception/lie, but your post just show your ignorance.


What prompted this hostility? I understand the first paragraph, but the second is simply uncalled for. What did this poster do to you?


----------



## krnboy1009

SounderBruce said:


> It runs on surface streets in SODO (an industrial area with only four crossings) and Rainier Valley (a residential area with dozens of crossings). The suburban sections in Tukwila and those being built now are all grade-separated (though some run on the surface next to freeways).


I think I got confused by the definition of tram. I thought of it in British terms.


----------



## Nouvellecosse

Woonsocket54 said:


> What prompted this hostility? I understand the first paragraph, but the second is simply uncalled for. What did this poster do to you?


Seattle missing out on its chance for a heavy rail subway is a really sore spot for Seattlite urban enthusiasts and their allies, so they've understandably become quite invested in having the light rail system be - and be seen as - just as good. To actually suggest that parts of it are merely a _tram_(!!!)

Well... 

The response was actually quite tepid given the severity of the offense.


----------



## dysharmonica

Woonsocket54 said:


> What prompted this hostility? I understand the first paragraph, but the second is simply uncalled for. What did this poster do to you?


Perhaps it was a bit harsher than necessary. He got a very thoughtful response to his first post about Seattle having just a tram .. and then reiterated it without reflecting at all on the thought put into the response to his first false statement ... 

And yes.. losing on heavy rail is sore spot, but for me the main thing is putting Seattle light rail on par with much weaker systems like Houston or Dallas ... and not recognizing the effort Seattle put into its system ... If we ignore grades of light rail (tram, surface, elevated/underground), we will never get to building any good transit in this country. _That _is a sore spot for me.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*Sound Transit Board approves funding for Pierce County bus rapid transit*"

https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to...90822&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery










https://www.piercetransit.org/brt/


----------



## mhays

For Seattle Link, I count 3 street crossings in SoDo and 19 in the Rainier Valley and whatever the little valley is south of that. There are additional pedestrian crossings.


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*The Seattle Monorail takes a big step toward transit integration*"

https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/9/24/20881088/seattle-center-monorail-pass-orca-payment

This begins 2019.10.07


----------



## Ginkgo

*ST Roosevelt Link Station--First Peek*

Media types got a first look at the nearly completed Roosevelt station on the Northlake extension. I like the open-air stairs and, of course, the fact that escalators are "heavy-duty", as the escalators at all current station have been plagued by problems and multiple shut downs for years.....From  Sound Transit. 

And more from the Seattle Times indicating a September 2021 start of service. Seems like still such a long way away .


----------



## Woonsocket54

*"A look at the Redmond Link stations"*









The Downtown Redmond station sits astride 166th St (image: Sound Transit)









SE Redmond station with parking in background (image: Sound Transit)

https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/17/look-at-redmond-stations/


----------



## Woonsocket54

"*U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao Announces $790 Million Grant Agreement, $629.5 Million Loan for Federal Way Link Extension Project*"

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/n...ao-announces-790-million-grant-agreement-6295


----------



## urbanflight

Is light rail really a good idea for a metro city of almost 4 million people?


----------



## MrAronymous

It's a metro.


----------



## Sunfuns

Indeed, I´d also call it a low capacity metro.


----------



## BoulderGrad

urbanflight said:


> Is light rail really a good idea for a metro city of almost 4 million people?


No, but yes.

The Seattle region is definitely at the population and density levels to justify a full heavy rail metro/subway system like DC, and such things have been proposed multiple times in the past; most recently Forward Thrust in the late 1960's proposed a similar system to DC's Metro, but voters turned it down because Seattle was kindof dying at the time, and the federal money went to Atlanta to build MARTA. But here we are...

And where we are ain't so bad. While it's nominally a "light rail" line, it has quite high capacity compared to most other light rail lines to the point that it's basically a "light heavy rail" system as a few other have mentioned. All stations are designed to handle 4 car trains (translates to 800 ppl/train which is pretty close to the average heavy rail level of 1000 ppl/train), and it can run at 4-6 minute frequencies (pretty close to heavy rail's 2-4 min frequencies), and can run at 55mph on grade separated sections (again, pretty close to 60-70mph for heavy metro systems).


----------



## dysharmonica

urbanflight said:


> Is light rail really a good idea for a metro city of almost 4 million people?


With few short exceptions, what Seattle is building is a metro with overhead lines and up to 120m long trains this compares well to many other metro areas of similar size.

The light rail baseline tech with overhead catenary is the right tool for the suburban-heavy system as it allows flexibility to run at grade without expensive fencin and other infrastructure needed for thir-rail 'heavy rail' metro. 

As with most cities in the US .. sure, Seattle could make a great use of an urban metro, a regional rapid transit system, super-regional commuter rail system, and perhaps even a light rail local transit .. but in North America, that level of investment is politically impossible.


----------



## Swede

urbanflight said:


> Is light rail really a good idea for a metro city of almost 4 million people?


The total metropolitan population isn't a good metric for which form of transit is viable. Transit runs along corridors (i.e. a rail line or a bus line) and is dependent on passengers easily getting to the stations and on to their actual destinations. 
This means a carpet of sprawlburbs with wide roads and no sidewalks really can't support good transit. No matter how many live in the metro area.
What you need sufficient density and sufficient walkability right by the stations. The more the better. oh, and it has to be more than just employment hubs along a line (unless its part of a large system). Light rail can be a good mode for pretty high use lines if it, like in Seattle, is grade separated and made to handle trains longer than 100 meters.


----------



## jornadalhl

I've remembered that Seattle's rapid transit system supports maximum of 4 car per platform, which suggest that it could potentially become a mid / high capacity system..

Is it low-floor or high-floor? Could it be modified into high-floor in the future if necessary?


----------

