Chad Newton has an interesting post at STB on stop spacing, speed and ridership of various rail systems across the US. He’s making the case that more stops on LINK wouldn’t necessarily hurt ridership, and might even help.
That seems fair to me. But the graphs make me think about something else. If you look at the graph of systems sorted by stop spacing, the ones on the left (with the greatest number of stops) tend to be hybrid subway/commuter rail systems, while the ones on the right are strict urban systems, supplemented by a separate commuter rail to provide service to the suburbs (commuter rail systems are seemingly left out of this analysis). It makes sense the hybrid systems (BART, MARTA, DC Metro) are going to have a larger average distance between stops, because they go all the way out into the ‘burbs.
Now, maybe in the 21st century the old hub-and-spoke model doesn’t apply, but there’s still a qualitative difference between a system that’s geared towards commuters who use it once a day, and urban denizens who use it for errands and socializing and the like.
So the bigger question is: what kind of system is LINK? Or, rather, what kind of system does LINK want to be? Thus far, I think Sound Transit has thread the needle quite carefully (and quite well). It’s a regional agency, with a regional constituency, so of course the bias is going to be toward a hybrid system that serves commuters as well as urban metro riders. But they’ve also been very good about avoiding the freeway median stations and massive park-and-rides that characterize other hybrid systems. Thus, density can still occur around stations, and more stations can be added relatively easily (in places such as the Rainier Valley or, later, Bel-Red).
The real test will come later (ST3? ST4??), when the agency is forced to make tradeoffs between developing a true urban system and providing a commuter rail for a mostly suburban constituency.
The North Link stations beyond Northgate in ST2 are all for commuters.
My own feeling is that the city must own some transit of its own.
ST is roughly tasked with moving commuter traffic substantial distances in a reasonable time. This implies a level of investment and service that is simply to great for smaller markets.
But the smaller markets have to be served if you want density too increase. Fortunately, smaller markets have smaller distances and passenger loads. The process for all of this, however, has to be local. Expecting people in Bellevue to make an informed decision about a neighborhood in Seattle is not realistic.
The city should do something about local needs (Nickels’ approach of having SDOT come up with possible routes and then working from there looked good) and ST should not have the burden of figuring every possible detail. People like what ST has done so far and they should keep doing it.
We’ll see soon enough if McGinn will push to restore the Waterfront Streetcar and build the 1st Ave line. It’s what the city should be doing.
Interesting thoughts, Frank.
I’m not sure why the Puget Sound ‘locks into’ a particular mode of transit, or a line on the map first, without getting down in the weeds with actual needs based solutions – but it sure seems to happen. (monorail v. LRT, BRT, STEX) or (W. Seattle via this or that v. Ballard to wherever).
Any mention of rethinking the ST1,2,3 long range plan is met by fierce opposition from supporters.
When I submitted an article to STB suggesting a ‘rethink’ of the current tunnel use to accomodate another rail line from the Lake Union/Freemont/Ballard area the chant of ‘you can’t do that’ because the plan won’t allow it came up over and over. Merging two trains from the North end is no more dificult than merging trains from the South end (Central and East Link lines), or currently merging buses and trains.
So the debate should be about needs first, then methods to meet the needs second.
Looking at current bus ridership and screenline data from Seattle to Ballard shows it just about matches E.Link ridership across I-90, and both have more than double the ridership from W.Seattle. That would suggest a line to Ballard/Freemont was twice as important to accomplish than W.Seattle, but that’s not the focus of the debate.
From an equipment standpoint, it would make more sense to route E.Link trains through the tunnel, then on to Ballard, as the demand is nearly equal for both lines, thereby allowing same frequency and consist makeup for the entire line. E. Link riders continuing on to UW would transfer to N.Link somewhere in the DSTT, where demand to UW/Northgate is about double East or Ballard Link, which is a different solution.
W. Seattle to CBD and UW to the eastside is probably better served by BRT across the bridges than trying to shoehorn a rail line into the mix. Again, based on needs, not rail v. ???.