Last Night: Sound Transit’s One-Car “Trains”

That is *not* a crush load. If you can still move around the train it’s nowhere near crush capacity. Sound Transit’s cars have 74 seats but up to 200 people can be packed into a single car. Now *that* would be a serious crush load.

The expression you captured on the face of that child in the stroller makes clear how terrifying all the crushing must have been. It’s very sad. We must think of the children.

I would guess that the cost of operating that one car LINK is about the same as operating 10 buses.So there’s your space.

How do you figure?

I think you need to spend some time in a New York subway.

Ride the F Train from Manhattan to Brooklyn at 4:30 and stfu.

“Even with no major sports events”

http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Matches/2010/Season/Game-27-vs-Toronto.aspx

I don’t know what time of the afternoon Erica’s trip was, but there was a Sounders game at Qwest Field Saturday afternoon, which drew 36,079 fans. I think that qualifies as a “major sports event” to most people. Afterall, in August, the average total boardings for all Link trains on Saturdays was 23,979.

Then, there was a Mariners game this evening at Safeco Field.

If this was a typical trip on Link light rail, I would imagine that many seats were taken up with luggage, and that there were probably no more passengers than seats in the picture accompanying this post. Total lack of luggage racks in a train to and from the airport, which forces people to put luggage on seats or in aisles, taking up space which would otherwise be available to paying passengers, is just one of the many inconveniences of Link light rail.

If Link customers are going to be turned off by Link cars only as “full” as the one pictured here, then Sound Transit will never get anythink close to 200 people on one Link car, which is the number they use as “capacity” for Link cars. There are only about 75 people, at most, in the car pictured, I would estimate.

“Even with no major sports events”

http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Matches/2010/Season/Game-27-vs-Toronto.aspx

I don’t know what time of the afternoon Erica’s trip was, but there was a Sounders game at Qwest Field Saturday afternoon, which drew 36,079 fans. I think that qualifies as a “major sports event” to most people. Afterall, in August, the average total boardings for all Link trains on Saturdays was 23,979.

Then, there was a Mariners game this evening at Safeco Field.

If this was a typical trip on Link light rail, I would imagine that many seats were taken up with luggage, and that there were probably no more passengers than seats in the picture accompanying this post. Total lack of luggage racks in a train to and from the airport, which forces people to put luggage on seats or in aisles, taking up space which would otherwise be available to paying passengers, is just one of the many inconveniences of Link light rail.

If Link customers are going to be turned off by Link cars only as “full” as the one pictured here, then Sound Transit will never get anythink close to 200 people on one Link car, which is the number they use as “capacity” for Link cars. There are only about 75 people, at most, in the car pictured, I would estimate.

“Even with no major sports events”

http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Matches/2010/Season/Game-27-vs-Toronto.aspx

I don’t know what time of the afternoon Erica’s trip was, but there was a Sounders game at Qwest Field Saturday afternoon, which drew 36,079 fans. I think that qualifies as a “major sports event” to most people. Afterall, in August, the average total boardings for all Link trains on Saturdays was 23,979.

Then, there was a Mariners game this evening at Safeco Field.

If this was a typical trip on Link light rail, I would imagine that many seats were taken up with luggage, and that there were probably no more passengers than seats in the picture accompanying this post. Total lack of luggage racks in a train to and from the airport, which forces people to put luggage on seats or in aisles, taking up space which would otherwise be available to paying passengers, is just one of the many inconveniences of Link light rail.

If Link customers are going to be turned off by Link cars only as “full” as the one pictured here, then Sound Transit will never get anythink close to 200 people on one Link car, which is the number they use as “capacity” for Link cars. There are only about 75 people, at most, in the car pictured, I would estimate.

“Even with no major sports events”

http://www.soundersfc.com/Matchday/Matches/2010/Season/Game-27-vs-Toronto.aspx

I don’t know what time of the afternoon Erica’s trip was, but there was a Sounders game at Qwest Field Saturday afternoon, which drew 36,079 fans. I think that qualifies as a “major sports event” to most people. Afterall, in August, the average total boardings for all Link trains on Saturdays was 23,979.

Then, there was a Mariners game this evening at Safeco Field.

If this was a typical trip on Link light rail, I would imagine that many seats were taken up with luggage, and that there were probably no more passengers than seats in the picture accompanying this post. Total lack of luggage racks in a train to and from the airport, which forces people to put luggage on seats or in aisles, taking up space which would otherwise be available to paying passengers, is just one of the many inconveniences of Link light rail.

If Link customers are going to be turned off by Link cars only as “full” as the one pictured here, then Sound Transit will never get anythink close to 200 people on one Link car, which is the number they use as “capacity” for Link cars. There are only about 75 people, at most, in the car pictured, I would estimate.

Maybe Erica is rambling in public with few facts, other than her observations and assumptions, and we all are watching.

How sad.

Rode the A once from Fulton up to 50th, Friday afternoon/evening. Packed.

I took the northbound Link around 10:30 am this morning. By the time it left Tukwila International Boulevard Station, it was SRO, with roughly 140 passengers on board. The count was above 150 by SODO Station. A few more could have stood safely, but not many. Luggage was a factor, but not that much of a factor.

Additional two-car trains were thrown into service somewhere between then and after the game. When I got to Link afterward, a couple dozen riders had to let a train pass and wait for the next one. The next one was five minutes later, was a 2-car, and cleared out the platform.

Given the reasonable expectation of having to stand on Link, I think ST had a pretty good prediction of ridership, and had a plan for how to handle it. I’m not sure if this actually saved money today, though, given the extra operators who had to be put into service.

And your rambling is always backed up by facts?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/4846617601/in/set-72157624623653562/

A few pictures of how luggage on Link light rail often takes up seats and standing space that could otherwise be occupied by passengers.

Has ST considered installing luggage racks over seating areas? (not over standing areas or bike-hook areas)

I think it would have added capacity of a dozen or so more passengers on my trip from Airport Station yesterday.

Still, 200 is in the imagination of someone who thinks Americans will tolerate being packed like sardines. I don’t think the fire codes will allow it, thankfully.

Well, clearly (at least according to Sound Transit budgeteers), while one would think that that marginal cost of a second car on an existing train would be minimal (given that the car is already bought, that there is already a driver, and the variable costs — extra electricity for second car, clean up crew doing double duty, should be trivial)…

The official capacity of one Link light rail car is 137. That is using the accepted North American standard of 2 standing passengers per square meter of floor space. This is what the experts have determined U.S. transit passengers (outside of NYC) will tolerate in terms of “crowding” on a light rail train on a regular basis. From Erica’s comments, I would say even 137 per car may be an exaggeration, since she seemed unhappy about conditions on the Link car pictured, which has well under 100 people on it.

Sound Transit often uses 200 as the capacity for its Link light rail cars, because that gives a larger number when ST calculates the capacity of its system, which is measured in passengers per hour per direction. Using 200 passengers per car gives a much larger number than using the correct figure of 137 passengers per car.

The cost of the electricity for the second car may not be so trivial. There is mileage-based depreciation, too, plus depreciation on the tracks themselves. But from electricity bill figures I saw floating around, the electricity seems to be the big hit, approaching the cost of the operator.

Given that the route is 37 minutes long, that 200 figure isn’t unrealistic. It’s just a different measure than how many people can be on a Link railcar at one time.

As an aside, ST could up that capacity-per-hour figure by shortening the travel time (e.g. by smoothing out the tunnel algorithm, getting the train to be considered as not part of traffic on MLK, taking turns at the safer optimal speeds for which the slanted curves were designed, and not stopping for two minutes at the railyard to change operators).

Plus, getting travel time down to 34 minutes would reduce the required number of trains and operators by one for all the different frequencies.

Shouldn’t crossing gates enable Link to be considered as not part of traffic on MLK?

200 passengers as the capacity of one LInk light rail car is not only “unrealistic”, it is just flat-out wrong. Capacity is determined by a forumla which is based on studies of many transit systems in the U.S. over a period of years. 137 passengers per Link car is the official capacity, which means that is the highest number ST can expect to average over a one-hour period in the peak travel time. 137 passengers per car is the official capacity figure to be used when calculating the system-wide capacity of Link light rail in passengers per hour per direction.

And 137 passengers per car is the capacity of one Link light rail car without any wheelchairs, bicycles, or luggage taking up space on the car. Each wheelchair would reduce capacity by one or two, and each bicycle and large piece of luggage would reduce the capacity by at least one.

There aren’t any crossing gates for Link trains on MLK Jr Way. Travel time on Link is listed at 38 minutes Westlake to SeaTac.

Ha Ha. Very funny. The kid looks more curious than terrified. Maybe your terror alert code monitor is mistakenly indicating high.

Oh, and having one-car “trains” may cut the cost of rent-a-cops by as much as half.

One measurement to differentiate light rail from bus patronage goes like this: The distance one can travel comfortably on light rail is twice that of a local or express bus. I predicted low ridership on Link would occur because of the decision to bypass Southcenter. “It would save a whopping ’3 minutes’ travel time between Seatac and Westlake station,” ST directors boasted. I bring this up because the initial line must extend south at least to the community college to build sufficient ridership. A spur to Southcenter and even through to Renton should be in the offering, but noooo! ST prefers time-consuming political battles over productive planning.

Given that most of the train-blocking accidents have been illegal left turns, I think it would be wise for ST to install crossing gates. They don’t have to make lots of noise. They just need to be a physical barrier.

My rambling is not being passed off as journalism.

I rode the single car, there were more people on it than if there were two cars, I don’t know why there were so many people…
Ack!

I can’t help but be amused by people who support light rail and then complain when the riding experience is reduced to that of a bus. Standing room only. No place for your bike. But of course buses have a couple of advantages over light rail. They are flexible (you can run them on alternative routes). They are cheaper to run and easier to expand their service areas. They employ more people (drivers). Not a bad thing these days. I know that ship has sailed, but I still don’t get it.

I’ve been on some pretty packed subways in NYC and DC. I think Americans will tolerate it if they need to be somewhere.

They could also, I imagine, pullout some of the seats in the future, which would increase standing capacity.

My guess, real estate owners convinced plenty of folks to supplant ugly buses for pretty trains.

Institutionalizing commuting patterns does not look like the Lean thing to do.

Buses may employ more drivers per passenger, but rail provides a lot of jobs for the construction jobs needed to build the initial capital projects.

Generally, the idea is to pay more upfront in capital costs to reduce per passenger operating costs over time and improve capacity, speed, reliability and comfort.

Why?

Or perhaps it is foolish to evaluate the utility of a rail network based on its first year of operation.

The operating costs per passenger should drop dramatically as ridership increases 10X over the next 20 years or so, driven by the increasing costs and hassles of automobile ownership and by Link’s expansion to the region’s densest residential and recreational areas and job centers (Capitol Hill, UW, U-District, Roosevelt, Northgate, downtown Bellevue).

The counter-argument SDOT uses to deflect critism of road diets is that if it doesn’t work we can always re-stripe the road.
This is a good argument, not that they would ever admit they were wrong, still a good argument based on the flexibility of the solution that intend to implement.

For the cost of LR we could have by now spread far more buses to places where cars sleep at night.

sirkulat: killing small jokes since 1997.

It has not been shown that the operating cost per passengers mile is less for light rail than for bus rapid transit, which costs less to operate than regular city buses. And ST light rail has very high operating cost.

Where do you get this figure from? Portland’s MAX light rail operating costs are less per passenger than its bus service.

http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf

From a GAO report on bus rapid transit compared to light rail in several U.S. cities. Page 4:

“Precise operating cost comparisons for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail
systems within and between cities are difficult due to differences among
transit agencies, transit systems, and how they account for costs. We found mixed results when we compared the operating costs for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems in the cities we reviewed that operated both types of systems. Bus systems generally had lower vehicle operating costs. However, we found no clear pattern for operating cost per trip. In some cases Light Rail had higher operating costs per trip than Bus Rapid Transit, and in other cases the reverse was true. The performance characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems also varied widely, with the largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light Rail ridership. Finally, Bus Rapid Transit routes showed generally higher operating speeds than the Light Rail lines in these cities.”

Page 23:

“Transit operating costs can also be measured on a per passenger trip basis. Operating cost per passenger trip measures the total annual operating cost divided by the total annual passenger boardings, regardless of whether the passenger is transferring from a bus to a Light Rail vehicle, or vice versa. Thus, it shows how much it costs to carry a person on a trip, regardless of the length of that trip. Using this measure, four of six Bus Rapid Transit routes had lower operating costs per passenger trip than did Light Rail systems, as shown in figure 9.”

By the way, the document you linked to from Portland’s transit agency does not show any costs that I can see. Where do you find the costs in that document?

Interesting report. When you look at some of the details, you start to see that the GAO report is comparing apples to oranges in a certain way. And both are tasty, but they’re not exactly perfectly comparable.

From page 25: “We also found that speed varied but that Bus Rapid Transit projects in our review were generally faster. This was likely due to the nature of the Bus Rapid Transit systems that we visited; express bus operations or operations with longer stop spacing have higher speeds.”

Most of the light rail systems in the report have much narrower spacing than Link, especially compared to University Link and North Link, which will add the most ridership. They also have much less grade separation and separate ROW. This means that they must travel more slowly than highway speeds (like Link in the Rainier Valley), negotiate stoplights, and crawl through downtown traffic (like Portland’s MAX), and stop multiple times a mile in many cases.

BRT, in contrast, generally uses freeways for longer distance commuting routes, with many fewer stops, and more stops to Park & Rides, which is very different than Link.

How could Link even be done with BRT? How would you design a BRT route that would get from Westlake Center to Broadway in 3 minutes? From Capitol Hill to the UW in 4 minutes? You couldn’t achieve anything close to the performance Link will have unless you did the things that make Link so expensive, such as building a special, grade separated tunnel for buses.

To clarify: BRT makes more sense in routes that closely parallel a highway, and where many of the riders come from park and rides, but that is not where the bulk of Link’s ridership currently comes, and will represent even less of its future ridership as it moves into denser, less car-dependent areas.

As for my figures: The figure cited is on the last page, below the pie chart. TriMet cites a cost of $1.91 per MAX boarding v. $2.89 for bus.

For the children!

There are half as many traincars to patrol. Each team can only check one car between each station.

If there was only one team on duty, then there wouldn’t be any savings. If more, savings are there to be had.

What BRT are you referring to? We just started RapidRide in King County 1 day ago, and that isn’t even real BRT.

Are you pro-BRT or just pro BRT-over-light-rail and pro-car-over-bus?

FWIW, Link was back up to 2-car trains today. I hope ST will continue trying out 1-car trains on evenings and weekends, except for special events. Unfortunately, someone didn’t get the word that three special events were going on, so someone goofed, and it cost ST a lot of overtime.

Really? The cost of electricity is high for such a green vehicle…fueled by Hydropower? Why so?

All of this discussion would be easier if someone at Publicola spent more time at the computer doing legwork and less time on the street in front of a bar.

Sound Transit is expecting to spend about $48 million in operating costs for Link in 2010, and they are expecting about 8 million boardings on Link in 2010. That would be about $6 per boarding, or double what buses in Portland cost per boarding.

SWIFT buses between Everett and Aurora Transit Center take about 50 minutes to travel 17 miles, which is about 20 mph average speed. Link between Westlake and Rainier Beach, which is about 8 miles, takes 25 minutes, which is about 19 mph — slower than SWIFT.

The only reason Link averages over 20 mph on the full route is that there is only one station in the 7.6 miles between Rainier Beach and SeaTac, and Link can travel about 55 mph much of the way between Rainier Beach and Tukwila. The old 194 express bus was 10 minutes faster between Westlake and SeaTac than link light rail is.

SWIFT bus is a pretty good approximation of BRT. See my post above.

There’a train in Seattle?

Replying to Grover:

“Sound Transit is expecting to spend about $48 million in operating costs for Link in 2010, and they are expecting about 8 million boardings on Link in 2010. That would be about $6 per boarding, or double what buses in Portland cost per boarding.”

Yes, and Portland has been operating and expanding its system for 25 years. Ridership is projected to grow nearly ten-fold to over 200,000 by 2030. It’s hard to imagine operating costs growing by anywhere near that percentage. Thus, cost per rider should drop closer to MAX, and should probably fall lower due to the greater capacity of Link and Density of Seattle.

“SWIFT buses between Everett and Aurora Transit Center take about 50 minutes to travel 17 miles, which is about 20 mph average speed. Link between Westlake and Rainier Beach, which is about 8 miles, takes 25 minutes, which is about 19 mph — slower than SWIFT.”

Yes, if you cherry pick a particular segment of Central Link, and then compare it to a route with completely different character, you can find a speed advantage. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Of course a highway bus that makes limited stops along a highway should move with greater speed than a train that travels an entirely intracity route, making stops more than once per mile on average.

“The only reason Link averages over 20 mph on the full route is that there is only one station in the 7.6 miles between Rainier Beach and SeaTac, and Link can travel about 55 mph much of the way between Rainier Beach and Tukwila. The old 194 express bus was 10 minutes faster between Westlake and SeaTac than link light rail is.”

In addition to being much more unpleasant to ride as transit to the airport (try dealing with luggage on that bus!), the 194 is not comparable to Central Link.

1) 194 completely bypasses the many Seattle neighborhoods that Link covers. If a person on Beacon Hill, or Columbia City wanted to take a trip to the airport, she would have to travel all the way downtown just to catch the bus.

2) Link has greater hours of operation than 194. The only option later at night was the 174. I have taken that 174 from the airport to downtown. It was not a pleasant experience.

3) Link’s greater frequency means that even if the 194 was theoretically faster, in actual practice, Link saves the average traveler time because the loading and unloading is quick and painless (just roll your wheelchairs and luggage off) and peak hour travelers have an average wait time of only 3-4 minutes for a train. As a recall, the 194 had half the frequency or less.

Finally, you’re somewhat myopically only looking at Central Link in its first year of operation. If that was the whole plan forever, I probably wouldn’t have supported the plan. But a transportation network gains ridership and utility at a greater than linear rate as its web grows. What is your response to the point I made about how BRT simply can’t provide anything comparable to what U-Link and North Link will provide?

Replying to Grover:

“Sound Transit is expecting to spend about $48 million in operating costs for Link in 2010, and they are expecting about 8 million boardings on Link in 2010. That would be about $6 per boarding, or double what buses in Portland cost per boarding.”

Yes, and Portland has been operating and expanding its system for 25 years. Ridership is projected to grow nearly ten-fold to over 200,000 by 2030. It’s hard to imagine operating costs growing by anywhere near that percentage. Thus, cost per rider should drop closer to MAX, and should probably fall lower due to the greater capacity of Link and Density of Seattle.

“SWIFT buses between Everett and Aurora Transit Center take about 50 minutes to travel 17 miles, which is about 20 mph average speed. Link between Westlake and Rainier Beach, which is about 8 miles, takes 25 minutes, which is about 19 mph — slower than SWIFT.”

Yes, if you cherry pick a particular segment of Central Link, and then compare it to a route with completely different character, you can find a speed advantage. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Of course a highway bus that makes limited stops along a highway should move with greater speed than a train that travels an entirely intracity route, making stops more than once per mile on average.

“The only reason Link averages over 20 mph on the full route is that there is only one station in the 7.6 miles between Rainier Beach and SeaTac, and Link can travel about 55 mph much of the way between Rainier Beach and Tukwila. The old 194 express bus was 10 minutes faster between Westlake and SeaTac than link light rail is.”

In addition to being much more unpleasant to ride as transit to the airport (try dealing with luggage on that bus!), the 194 is not comparable to Central Link.

1) 194 completely bypasses the many Seattle neighborhoods that Link covers. If a person on Beacon Hill, or Columbia City wanted to take a trip to the airport, she would have to travel all the way downtown just to catch the bus.

2) Link has greater hours of operation than 194. The only option later at night was the 174. I have taken that 174 from the airport to downtown. It was not a pleasant experience.

3) Link’s greater frequency means that even if the 194 was theoretically faster, in actual practice, Link saves the average traveler time because the loading and unloading is quick and painless (just roll your wheelchairs and luggage off) and peak hour travelers have an average wait time of only 3-4 minutes for a train. As a recall, the 194 had half the frequency or less.

Finally, you’re somewhat myopically only looking at Central Link in its first year of operation. If that was the whole plan forever, I probably wouldn’t have supported the plan. But a transportation network gains ridership and utility at a greater than linear rate as its web grows. What is your response to the point I made about how BRT simply can’t provide anything comparable to what U-Link and North Link will provide?

Replying to Grover:

“Sound Transit is expecting to spend about $48 million in operating costs for Link in 2010, and they are expecting about 8 million boardings on Link in 2010. That would be about $6 per boarding, or double what buses in Portland cost per boarding.”

Yes, and Portland has been operating and expanding its system for 25 years. Ridership is projected to grow nearly ten-fold to over 200,000 by 2030. It’s hard to imagine operating costs growing by anywhere near that percentage. Thus, cost per rider should drop closer to MAX, and should probably fall lower due to the greater capacity of Link and Density of Seattle.

“SWIFT buses between Everett and Aurora Transit Center take about 50 minutes to travel 17 miles, which is about 20 mph average speed. Link between Westlake and Rainier Beach, which is about 8 miles, takes 25 minutes, which is about 19 mph — slower than SWIFT.”

Yes, if you cherry pick a particular segment of Central Link, and then compare it to a route with completely different character, you can find a speed advantage. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Of course a highway bus that makes limited stops along a highway should move with greater speed than a train that travels an entirely intracity route, making stops more than once per mile on average.

“The only reason Link averages over 20 mph on the full route is that there is only one station in the 7.6 miles between Rainier Beach and SeaTac, and Link can travel about 55 mph much of the way between Rainier Beach and Tukwila. The old 194 express bus was 10 minutes faster between Westlake and SeaTac than link light rail is.”

In addition to being much more unpleasant to ride as transit to the airport (try dealing with luggage on that bus!), the 194 is not comparable to Central Link.

1) 194 completely bypasses the many Seattle neighborhoods that Link covers. If a person on Beacon Hill, or Columbia City wanted to take a trip to the airport, she would have to travel all the way downtown just to catch the bus.

2) Link has greater hours of operation than 194. The only option later at night was the 174. I have taken that 174 from the airport to downtown. It was not a pleasant experience.

3) Link’s greater frequency means that even if the 194 was theoretically faster, in actual practice, Link saves the average traveler time because the loading and unloading is quick and painless (just roll your wheelchairs and luggage off) and peak hour travelers have an average wait time of only 3-4 minutes for a train. As a recall, the 194 had half the frequency or less.

Finally, you’re somewhat myopically only looking at Central Link in its first year of operation. If that was the whole plan forever, I probably wouldn’t have supported the plan. But a transportation network gains ridership and utility at a greater than linear rate as its web grows. What is your response to the point I made about how BRT simply can’t provide anything comparable to what U-Link and North Link will provide?

You could have SWIFT-type bus routes down MLK to the airport, plus an express bus route from downtown to the airport, all at at 5-minute headways 24 hours per day for a fraction of what it cost to build and operate Link light rail.

The only way ST can significantly increase the current ridership on Central Link is by adding more cars and/or decreasing headways, which will increase the operating cost, obviously.

The fact is that Link operating costs are currently more than twice the operating costs of the buses in Portland, which you quote. You can predict that Link’s operating costs will come down, but you don’t know that will actually happen. The only thing we actually KNOW is that operating costs for Link light rail are more than double operating costs of Portland’s buses. That is a fact, which I don’t blame you for trying to ignore.

“The fact is that Link operating costs are currently more than twice the operating costs of the buses in Portland, which you quote. You can predict that Link’s operating costs will come down, but you don’t know that will actually happen. The only thing we actually KNOW is that operating costs for Link light rail are more than double operating costs of Portland’s buses. That is a fact, which I don’t blame you for trying to ignore.”

I haven’t been ignoring that fact. I noted it in a previous post. I also conceded that if Central Link were the whole plan, I probably wouldn’t have supported building Link.

What you continue to ignore is U-Link and North Link. For the third time, what is your response to my point that BRT is not possible along the U-Link/North Link corridor and that with a ten-fold increase in ridership by 2030, operating costs should fall to well under those of METRO’s bus service and even Portland’s MAX light rail?

I don’t want to hear your telephone conversation, thanks!

Skipping Southcenter on Link was still one of the most retarded things ever done. There should have been a station right across the street from the place.

They should continue to experiment with this as others have mentioned. It’s like buses — what’s the point of sending out a double-length bus on a given route that is historically quiet?

Of course BRT is possible on U-Link and North Link. It is possible anywhere. You are just making ignorant claims. There is now SWIFT BRT between Everett and Aurora Village. There will be BRT between downtown and Ballard and downtown and W. Seattle. You can put BRT anywhere there are roads.

As for Link operating costs in 2030, how can you possibly know what either ridership or costs will be in 2030? Ridership may be ten times current ridership, or it may be well below that. Current Link ridership is well below what we were told it would be 16 years ago. Predictions for 20 years in the future are worth no more than your other opinions. One thing we can predict is that, as ridership grows, operating costs will grow also. So, if ridership on Link does increase 10-fold, operating costs might well increase 10-fold as well, keeping operating costs per boarding just the same as it is now, adjusting for inflation.

But, your speculations are worthless. The REALITY is: Link light rail operating cost per boarding is TWICE that of buses in Portland. All your other crap about 2030, is just that: crap.

Brent’s post is absolutely on target! The real-world capacity of Link is pretty well known. On opening day, July 19, 2009, when carefully counting at each station, Sound Transit allowed approximately 150 persons/railcar during the first few hours when dignitaries and then crowds of people waited to try the system. You could still get on-off, or stand without smelling your neighbor’s breath.
- Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times.

“Of course BRT is possible on U-Link and North Link. It is possible anywhere. You are just making ignorant claims. There is now SWIFT BRT between Everett and Aurora Village. There will be BRT between downtown and Ballard and downtown and W. Seattle. You can put BRT anywhere there are roads. ”

How!? Of course you can put a bus on a road anywhere and CALL IT BRT, but does it actually deliver comparable performance? How would you design a BRT route that would get from Westlake Center to Broadway in 3 minutes? From Capitol Hill to the UW in 4 minutes? As I noted before, you couldn’t achieve anything close to the performance Link will have unless you did the things that make Link so expensive, such as building a special, grade separated tunnel for buses.

As the GAO report notes BRT gains advantages in areas with “sprawling patterns of development.” That describes much of the route along Highway 99, as you note. It does not describe downtown Seattle to Capitol Hill, to UW, to NE U-District, Roosevelt. Ballard to Downtown’s Rapid Ride BRT route may be an improvement, but it doesn’t look to be remotely comparable to the performance of U-Link and North Link. From Market and 24th ave, the Metro’s 18 takes 31 minutes, according to Google to reach downtown. A car would take 16 minutes. Rapid Ride will travel the same route as the 18, along 15th ave NW. We can imagine with fewer stops it will probably make the trip in 20-25 minutes. That’s an average speed of about 12-13 mph. Link from downtown to UW will average 27 mph, north and south, any time of day. Not comparable performance.

“But, your speculations are worthless. The REALITY is: Link light rail operating cost per boarding is TWICE that of buses in Portland. All your other crap about 2030, is just that: crap.”

Finally, on your point that we can’t make decisions based on projections, I would say that if this were true, we would never build any public infrastructure, because the costs and benefits are always based on projections. Companies would never invest either in growing business, and banks would never lend, because it’s all speculation. Crap.

Agreed. People in DC complain about how crowded the Metro is at commute times, particularly the Red and Orange Lines even with 6-8 car trains every 2 minutes – but they take it because the alternative (driving) is so much less attractive.

It’s what happens after 40 years of transit-oriented development and rail transit influencing attitudes and commute patterns.

Look at all that room under the seat. Why not practice on the train what we practice on the plane? Put it under the seat in front (or under) you.

You consider THAT crush capacity, ECB? Have you ever been on a 71-72-73 or a popular Downtown commuter bus during rush hour?

I see plenty of standing room in that train photo.

“comparable performance”?

Let’s compare cost:

U-Link $600 million per mile; SWIFT BRT $1.76 million per mile.

Any questions?

I have one for you: would you pay 341 times as much to ride U-Link as BRT between U-Dub and downtown? Or, you just want taxpayers to pay 341 times as much so you can ride a little train instead of a bus?

“comparable performance”?

Let’s compare cost:

U-Link $600 million per mile; SWIFT BRT $1.76 million per mile.

Any questions?

I have one for you: would you pay 341 times as much to ride U-Link as BRT between U-Dub and downtown? Or, you just want taxpayers to pay 341 times as much so you can ride a little train instead of a bus?

Neither you nor ST has any idea how many people will be riding Link in 2030, or what the operatcing cost of the Link system will be in 2030. If you think you do know this, then give us that data: what will the operating cost of Link light rail be in 2030 in millions of dollars per year?

Thank you.

Neither you nor ST has any idea how many people will be riding Link in 2030, or what the operatcing cost of the Link system will be in 2030. If you think you do know this, then give us that data: what will the operating cost of Link light rail be in 2030 in millions of dollars per year?

Thank you.

“Let’s compare cost:

U-Link $600 million per mile; SWIFT BRT $1.76 million per mile.

Any questions?”

After ducking the issue for the fourth time, I’m going to assume that you’ve conceded that there is no BRT route for U-Link/North Link that would deliver even remotely similar performance as the subway line being constructed now.

Moving along…

“I have one for you: would you pay 341 times as much to ride U-Link as BRT between U-Dub and downtown? Or, you just want taxpayers to pay 341 times as much so you can ride a little train instead of a bus? ”

Now, as for the issue of cost. This is a legitimate argument. I’ve never denied it. There’s a reasonable argument to be made either way, just as there is for the South Park Bridge, DBT, expansion of 520 etc.

Let’s break it down:

U-Link — Projected ridership gains to Link system: 70,000
Capital cost to local taxpayer: $1.1 billion. ($1.9 billion – $813 million federal grant = ~$1.1 billion)
Capital Costs per rider: $15,529 per rider

SWIFT — average weekday ridership: 2,218
Capital cost to local taxpayer: $29.6 million
Capital Costs per rider: $13,345 per rider

source:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100318/NEWS01/703189884
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003736716_websoundtransit06m.html

Given that University Link will be faster than SWIFT (and much faster than any BRT route could be along that corridor), will be entirely grade separated, will be much more frequent, will have much more capacity, will be smoother, will use a lower cost power source, will not wear out the highways, will almost certainly have lower operating costs per passenger, and yes, it will appeal to a certain group of “choice” riders who might otherwise drive, I’d say you can make a reasonable case that the extra 14% or so per rider in capital costs to the local taxpayer is worth all of those additional benefits.

Finally, as to projections: I don’t know what more can be said here. I certainly grant that projects can be wrong (sometimes spectacularly so, such as the Bush Administration’s pre-war statements about the cost of the Iraqi invasion), but these projections are not taken out of thin air. The bus ridership is enormous between downtown, Capitol Hill and U-District currently, and that’s even though routes to and from Capitol Hill are slow and often uncomfortable with the steep climbs and descents at times. Add to that the growing density and residential populations of these three areas, rising fuel costs and automobile ownership, and its not hard to make a reasonable guess about ridership. Again, if governments, businesses, and lenders dismissed educated projections, our modern economy could not exist.

The city of Tukwila fought the original alignment up Pacific Highway South. ST spent tons of bucks and time fighting Tukwila, which didn’t support Southcenter either. They dictated the alignment we have today. A link from Renton to Southcenter to Burien to West Seattle is in the ST long range plan that forms the basis for ST3. There is no money to build it until then.

I was on the Light Rail three times that afternoon and I didn’t feel at all cramped for space. I had an entire seat to myself and when I did have to stand, it was about what I see in that photo.

Admittedly, I don’t live on the line, so most of my rides are to/from the airport at odd hours and I’m more accustomed to the MTA in NYC than the Light Rail here. By comparison, the Light Rail is always lightly filled and the “crush” load cited is a joke compared to the 545, 43, and 48 that I take more regularly.

I’d also like to point out that when there is light capacity, having a smaller car increases the perception of safety. I’ve ridden the first and last trains before and having only one or two people per car can be pretty creepy, especially when going through the Rainier Valley bit which is a little sketchier at night.

Erica, you realize the trains are much more energy efficient when they are full, right? Trains with lots of room to stretch your legs out are the equivalent of a half-dozen single occupant hummers. Not green at all.

The costs incurred directly to the transit agency for buses may be lower, but the overall cost is not. If we had buses, no one would factor in the cost of road maintenance, costs of diesel pollution, costs of storm water runoff, or the costs of an increased necessary turnaround of vehicles.

Thank you. Seattlites act like they’re green, but don’t even seem to know what a train is.

Actually, it’s just under 3x the cost of operating a bus but with 6-8 times the capacity. IIRC Link costs $324 per hour to operate while buses run about $120 per hour – all costs included.

Also, don’t forget that Link includes costs to maintain it’s “roadbed” – aka, the track while buses do not. That cost is borne by city, state, and county taxpayers who pay for the roads.