Orphan Road - light rail - Comments

Why did they choose not to

JoshMahar — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:25:48 -0700

Why did they choose not to do a North Cap. Hill/Montlake stop and what are the possiblities of putting one in if or when the area densifies (although North 15th is pretty crackin already, who doesn't love Hopvine)?

Perhaps it does. In a

joshkelley — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:44:52 -0700

Perhaps it does. In a previous version, I had it going to Redmond, but saw only 9 stations on the current map at ST. Going out to Overlake TC gave me 10, so I just dropped the last one.

I think the new East Link

rizzuhjj — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:11:30 -0700

I think the new East Link still goes to the Overlake Transit Center, which for crazy reasons is different than Overlake Hospital and Overlake Village. (http://www.future.soundtransit.org/news_pr_2008_07_10.aspx)

I wish! Disclaimer: this

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:21:04 -0700

I wish! Disclaimer: this post uses only vague knowledge on the part of the poster, and no calculators were harmed in it's creation.

Of course the difference wouldn't be great for this route, as many of the busses are electric trolley busses.

There are certainly many

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:17:33 -0700

There are certainly many factors to consider, which is why I tried to boil this down to a very simple analysis. Yes, there are part-time drivers, and routes change back and forth into other routes and a full analysis would require far more data than I have. This being said, I've left off other cost savings such as maintenance.

//Where would they go?// Ah, I think you've missed my point. One bus moving at 15mph can carry twice the number of (much happier) people the same bus can carry at 6mph. It simply drives the loop twice. Basically, we're paying a whole lot of bus drivers a whole lot of money to sit in traffic with a lot of unnecessary busses.

//it would take 250 years// Well, perhaps for the gold standard. If we used streetcars that number drops down to around 30 years (using SLUT numbers). That means that after 30 years of much reduced travel time and much increased capacity, we'll start actually making money from switching. How's that for a good purchase? Of course the full LRT solution would have many other benefits that I'd likely be willing to pay for.

//much of that is just the reality of the street grid and the geography// But most of that reality is because we treat cars as the kings of the road. It's time to realize that there's a better way - even stealing a lane from cars can significantly reduce traffic. How? Because a rush-hour bus replaces the better part of a hundred cars.

Did you also measure the

The Overhead Wire — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:06:14 -0700

Did you also measure the acceleration difference between electric transit and diesel? It can make quite a difference.

Interesting thoughts, Matt.

Frank — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:58:24 -0700

Interesting thoughts, Matt. But there are a lot of other variables to consider. Do you know for a fact that taking 6 buses off the road would allow you to lay off 6 drivers? I kinda doubt it, since rush hour is an especially driver-heavy time, and many of them are part-time.

Also, what would you do with all the extra people if you got rid of 6 buses? Where would they go? If you're planning on putting them on a train, you're looking at about $150M/mile or more for grade-separated transit (probably more on the hilly, urban route that the #2 and #13 run). It would take you 250 years to pay for a 2-mile line, even if you did get the full $600K/year.

It is weird that it takes so long on a bus to travel such a short distance in this town, but much of that is just the reality of the street grid and the geography.

I've added a note to try and

Matt the Engineer — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:10:37 -0700

I've added a note to try and make it clear that I'm using very rough estimates, not any calculated values.

An important note: the 15mph estimate includes stops. The 20 minute figure I've used works out to 6 mph including stops, and represents a day where nothing goes wrong (i.e. based on the schedule). I've spent more than 50 minutes coming home, and my average commute time is closer to 35 minutes on my way home. This is less than 4mph (and the reason I ride my bike when it's not raining).

You might want to take your

serial catowner — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:24:47 -0700

You might want to take your figures out to a back alley and punch them up a bit to see if they change their story, but one thing really stands out- 15 mph is a speed that doesn't need to be separated from our daily life.

In reality, Seattle is not a very big town, and transit that can keep moving, even at a modest speed, can get to a lot of places we want to go in a very reasonable time. The ability to impose mobility by fiat, by improving performance by simply banning car traffic from some roads, could be crucial in meeting an out-of-control energy scenario.

On the flip side, frequency of service can also be critical. The commuter is front-loaded with the time to walk to and from the station, and, usually, the sooner you get on the bus, the sooner you get warm and dry.

With the coming densities it seems likely that 15 minute headways on branch lines that gather into trunks of three or four routes towards the city center would provide very acceptable levels of service and speed- if the buses can average 15-20 mph over the ground.

As I recall the airport

serial catowner — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:09:25 -0700

As I recall the airport thing, after 9/11 the Port said they had to rethink security, a new baggage handling building was under construction, so ST dead-ended the line a mile from the Terminal to avoid all the hassle. Then later somebody figured out it really would be smarter to let the LINK reach the terminal. Who knew.

Carless, the airport station

CJH — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:02:34 -0700

Carless, the airport station is going to be right next to the current parking structure - certainly not a mile from the terminal (which I think most people consider to be the airport proper)! You can already see it taking shape if you take the 194 to the airport (http://www.soundtransit.org/x1173.xml shows its exact location).

Tukwila's city government is notoriously corrupt (I suppose that's what happens when you're a major commercial center but no one lives there!) but it wasn't exactly political blackmail since they didn't get what they really wanted - a stop at Southcenter - which would indeed have been a huge route diversion. The current stop is a over a mile (and a trip over the freeway) from Southcenter in the center of a smaller commercial and residential center. It was a bit of a diversion from a direct Boeing Field to Sea-Tac route but not enough to substantially increase travel time. The real problem with the Tukwila stop is that it cost buckets of money to build an extra station (was this one reason Boeing Field was deferred?).

bgtothen has nailed it, I

Carless in Seattle — Sun, 18 May 2008 08:29:26 -0700

bgtothen has nailed it, I think. If you view the airport as a major employement center like Overlake and Bellevue and Downtown Seattle (which it absolutely is), Link is running through many of the neighborhoods where airport employees live. Add in that the Link station is (if I recall correctly) at least a mile from the airport proper, it's not really designed to get travellers to and from the airport. I think the airport expected travellers to drive, not take mass transit.

The other bit is, as I recall when I was researching this last year, political blackmail by Tukwila. The city council voted against the original route which bypassed the South Center business district, and threatened $500 million in federal financing. Without approval from Tukwila, Sound Transit couldn't complete the route. If I recall correctly, ST had little choice but to change the route the way Tukwila wanted, adding a bunch of time onto the travel time and securing that financing.

The reason that the routes

bgtothen — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:13:56 -0700

The reason that the routes is circuitous is because the assumption about the route choice is wrong. The point of the original LINK segment is not to get to the airport, the point is to connect as many people as possible for the lowest cost possible to light rail. The rainier valley has 2 of metro's 5 highest ridership routes and LINK capitalizes on that fact. As Frank said above it also allows for TOD that would not be possible with other routes.

The point of transit it not to maximize mobility but rather to maximize accessibility. Who cares how fast you can get somewhere if it isn't were you want to go? Maximize speed and you increase mobility at the expense of accessibility. The opposite is true as well. Every mode has to balance these opposing objectives.

Good Q Matt... my guess is

Frank — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:38:15 -0700

Good Q Matt... my guess is there are a couple of reasons, and they both relate to federal grant money:

1. The ridership would have been too low (Downtown -> SoDo -> Airport = no residential neighborhoods).

2. The feds give extra points to projects that "revitalize" low-income neighborhoods, so going through the Rainier Valley made it more attractive for funding.

Very great. Following in San

EvergreenRailfan — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:30:59 -0800

Very great. Following in San Diego's footsteps on that one. Then again, San Diego is not exactly leaning the same way as LA and San Francisco, politically, and San Diego launched the Light Rail boom in the US.

As for Denver Union Station, it would be even better if they had another passenger train going in a different direction. AN Idaho Senator is working on that(the other one, not the one that has been in the news for his extra-cirricular activities. He stood by as the Pioneer was cut). Also, I wonder if they have ever thought of extending the Ski Train to DIA, to make for better connections with skiers flying in to go to Winter Park?

Also, as for Front Runner, too bad they did not put that on the Utah Quarter, the old and new. Have one of the two engines that met at the famous meet, facing the new generation.