Orphan Road - seattle - Comments

One of the guys who was a

serial catowner — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:26:19 -0700

One of the guys who was a motorman on the trolley and is also a long-standing rail buff is pretty hot about the whole thing. He comments at the Seattle Transit blog once in a while. I haven't actually inspected the books myself, but he's pretty convincing and nobody has offered facts to contradict him.

I think it probably has to do with high tourist ridership at times when native Seattleites, for obvious reasons, tend to avoid the waterfront. Not that I've got anything against tourists, mind you, I just don't like crowds and lines.

This is not really on topic,

SteveM — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:45:37 -0700

This is not really on topic, but I keep hearing that the waterfront streetcar was the only operation to make money, and that just doesn't ring true to me. It required two people to operate, didn't run frequently, and often seemed empty when it did come by. Was it really profitable?

I've also heard the monorail is profitable (or break-even, anyway), and I can believe that -- it costs a fair amount, usually seems to have a decent number of folks on it, and wouldn't seem to have high labor costs (absent recent breakdowns).

I lived in Seattle from 1970

serial catowner — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:49:04 -0700

I lived in Seattle from 1970 to 1996, and I always knew where I would be living next year- in Seattle. Because of that, I never regretted making an investment in the city that would never repay me personally. Then something came up and we moved out and I got a chance to look back.

And what you see is a city of 'hipsters' who rejected the Seattle Commons because of some faux populism, and who continue to snark at the South Lake Union Streetcar. A city that pulls out the Waterfront Streetcar, a historical operation that was also the only transit link in the city to make money, so the art museum crowd can look at sculptures of cardboard boxes and trash cans without being disturbed by the sight of the streetcar barn. A city of people who are fighting right now to keep the Mercer Street Mess in operation.

There's gotta be a better way.

If you like it, stay. If you don't, leave. But there's no sense in sticking it out through thick and thin so that, in your old age, you can look back on a life filled with bickering and disappointment.

I think if you're a strong

rizzuhjj — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:31:25 -0700

I think if you're a strong advocate for transit, then seeing your region repeatedly reject transit packages can be disheartening. It's not that the benefits would be coming soon if Prop. 1 passes, it's that if it fails one might feel that the region as a whole is out-of-step with their strong advocacy in transit. And people can lament, and fight boneheaded governance reform, and try to shape our region for the better -- or we can see our future in another region that doesn't have these battles anymore. One course of action isn't necessarily better than the other.

About thirty years ago I had

serial catowner — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:45:05 -0700

About thirty years ago I had a real estate agent who would give me last weeks multiples and I did some analysis. Turned out basically that after you got three miles from the city center, the cost of the home and the commute, for comparable properties, added up to the same thing- IOW, as home price fell the cost of commuting rose. And I don't mean this just theoretically- in the actual dollars of the time, your mortgage payment and commuting costs would be about the same for any given size and condition of home.

The conclusion I drew from this was that a home within that three-mile ring would be a much better investment than almost any home outside that ring.

And that was probably true at the time. The question today would be how much bigger that magic ring has grown.

For all his craziness, this

The Overhead Wire — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:37:16 -0700

For all his craziness, this post gives credence to Jim Kunstler's assertion that we have wasted our postwar wealth. This is money that could have been saved OR invested locally in restaurants, entertainment or other industries that create community rather than just taking your money and running.

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)

To me this seems totally

serial catowner — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:35:22 -0700

To me this seems totally obvious- put streetcars where electric buses now run, hang some more wire, and use the electric buses where diesels now run. For a while you can increase the capacity of the streetcar lines by adding more streetcars, and when the traffic becomes too great for this approach, take out some of the obstacles to faster running.

I am aware that everyone else will have all kinds of reasons this wouldn't work. I'm inclined to think transit in Seattle will develop very slowly until those reasons no longer hold force.

That's good news, Ben. Of

Matt the Engineer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:07:08 -0700

That's good news, Ben. Of course waiting 10 years plus the construction time sure sounds like a long time from now, but it's something.

There's another option here.

BenSchiendelman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:27:21 -0700

There's another option here. Sound Transit wants to build Ballard-Downtown rail, likely in ST3, which could be less than 10 years off. Gear up an agency to build a 2nd Avenue tunnel for them. That we can afford, and it would get us what we want.

North King subarea money from Sound Transit is going to have to go somewhere - partner up!

King County Metro runs Sound

BenSchiendelman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:26:11 -0700

King County Metro runs Sound Transit's services in King County, remember.

But I agree that Sound Transit should administer it.

I agree, except Sound

alexjonlin — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:04:34 -0700

I agree, except Sound Transit should run it, not King County. If the ST board decides not to put a plan up this fall, then Seattle alone should vote a Seattle-only tax to build light rail to Northgate, and to study options for a route along the Seattle Monorail Project route. Basically, we would build it, then just hand it all over to Sound Transit.

Hmm. I agree with both the

SteveM — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:08:37 -0700

Hmm. I agree with both the original post (Seattle needs a rapid transit network) and the first comment (Seattle cannot fund a rapid transit network). That said, I see the streetcar network as having potential in this direction -- I'd argue that streetcars in dedicated right-of-way with signal priority and stops no more than every 1/2 mile ought to be able to average 15-20 mph including stops, which is pretty decent for cross-town transit. I could also imagine incremental projects to, say, bypass tricky intersections having a significant performance impact.

The funding side is tricky but not out of the question. For capital investment, LIDs, Federal Small Starts funding and bonds covered by dedicated parking meter revenues all seems like decent options. I could also imagine charging developers for spot upzones if the network is successful enough at drawing development. For operations, rededicating Metro bus dollars for replaced routes ought to mostly cover it, and additional ad revenue can cover shortfalls.