What about Seattle?
Different problems generally require different solutions. So why does King County only use busses?
At some level of ridership, busses are less efficient than rail. This can be seen by imagining the extremes - say Auburn with it's own light rail system or New York with only a bus system. The first case is far from affordable and the second far from useful.
Our region has decided that long-distance commuting has passed this point - hence the creation of Sound Transit and thereafter Link. This system won't replace busses - just compliment them by providing a traffic-free trunk that will lead to density.
But what about short-distance travel? We can again imagine Manhattan with only busses - the streets would be packed with the things to the point of not being useful. Such a city would quickly break down and lose its density. There must come a point where busses need to be complimented by faster, higher capacity transit.
Back to King County Transit. They do busses - and that's it. That's ok. As I've stated, busses are useful. Just because New York has a subway system doesn't mean they don't need their busses. But I'd argue busses aren't enough.
I think we're well past the point of bus transit limiting our city's density. Watch the crowds at 3rd and Pine at 5pm for some evidence of this. We need a rapid way to get between neighborhoods.
Maybe the solution is to convince King County Metro to try something new and fix Seattle. But it seems out of their scope of interest or charter - after all they get their funding from the whole county, and why would a Kentian want to spend a large sum of money getting Seattlites from Fremont to Capital Hill?
I think the reason we don't have an in-city rapid transit system is because we don't have an in-city transit agency - something that can act on our behalf and let us tax ourselves for our own benefit. I know the Monorail fiasco is still a fresh open wound, and our city failed in its attempt. But just because we've failed to build an in-city rapid transit system (or an effective transit agency) doesn't mean we don't want or need one.
- Matt the Engineer's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Maybe Seattle can then build itself a local light rail/streetcar system. And then it'll be just like it was in the old days: a system of local rail transit for Seattle, and interurban lines to places like Everett and Tacoma and Redmond.
Of course, there's the minor problem that the SLUT (and Tacoma Link) isn't compatible with the electrification used for light rail, and I think vice versa, so there might be some problems with sharing tracks, but that can be solved with dual mode vehicles. After all, the Sacramento Northern operated a system with four different electrification systems and two different voltages, and it all worked out just fine.
Matt, I agree with much of your logic, however I'm not really sure we need yet another transit agency for the Puget Sound region.. We've got what six or something like that already?
First, I want to point out what's happened with the monorail agency. Even today, people think that the light rail under construction is a "monorail". Even today, there are people who think Sound Transit "is that monorail thing they voted against". I also recently heard "Sound Transit promised us light rail to the airport, and all they built was a streetcar downtown".
Having yet another agency would create a new agency identification problem when we haven't even come close to solving the ones we have now. Ever notice that it's unclear, looking at a Metro bus, that they're a county agency? Sound Transit has a cohesive brand, but that basically means that people blame them for everything. Construction project ruining your day? "Must be Sound Transit."
From a utility standpoint, a new agency would be pointless. The highest priority project in Seattle is still extension to Northgate. We don't want to start anything before that passes. After that, with U Link under construction and Central Link operating, we'll see support for Sound Transit climb steadily, and they'll be the ones with the political capital to ask for more money.
While I think it's possible that a city-wide agency may eventually be necessary if we're to get from Ballard to West Seattle in one go (with a 2nd Avenue tunnel), I think that creating any confusion before we get Northgate (and the East and South projects that will go with it) would be foolhardy.
Well, as I understand it, about 20 years ago the institutions of governance projected that future growth would require more transportation in the future, and study was made about how that transportation capacity should be provided. The LINK, for example, provides future transportation to future growth along the route of the LINK. In the fullness of time the future is becoming now, and, whaddaya know, it seems to be working out somewhat as predicted.
Now, frustration with the buses has led all sorts of people here to propose solutions like subways or grade-separated light rail. Frankly, this is quantum leap stuff in a city that has not yet reached a quantum state.
Let us note that the city has routine and on-going expenses rebuilding the mechanical parts of the city- streets, traffic lights, drain pipes, electrical supplies, street furniture, etc etc. Adding, for example, a subway, would do nothing to decrease those other expenses.
OTOH, if you upgrade an electric bus to a streetcar, you can take all of those other inevitable expenses and bundle them in building the new-street-with-rails. At the very least, building the street entirely new provides fast fast fast relief from budgeting every year to patch cracks and replace worn out fixtures.
If the city had the will, it could bundle future expenses and save money by spending all of those future expenses now on projects like installing streetcars. There's nothing new or radical about this idea, for example, Google spends tons of money on hardware now that will provide revenue in the future.
But all of this works best if your gamble on the future is based on realistic odds.
I don't get how building a streetcar unburdens the ongoing expenses of rebuilding the mechanical parts of the city?
Most of the mechanicals are under or adjacent to the streets, and most of them are nearing the end of their lifetime. In order to avoid tearing up your new streetcar line you try to fix things like drains, water pipes, and gas pipes. The electrical supply should be upgraded to supply the streetcars, and this would include protecting underground vaults from flooding and other problems. The signals, streetlamps, passenger shelters, curb cuts etc should be upgraded or rebuilt to take advantage of technical improvements and meet the changed demands of the new passenger service.
This is quite easily seen on the new Westlake line. That used to be one of the worst avenues in the city, now it is one of the best. Part of why it cost around $50 million per mile- Seattle was buying more than just a streetcar.
That was also the case with Link in the Rainier Valley. MLK was utterly rebuilt, including electrical and sewer, and modularized for much simpler later upgrades and tie-ins.
They replaced some of the Cedar River water line into the city, too.