Should Seattle Go It Alone On Light Rail?

McGinn is the same guy who is whining about cost over runs over the tunnel and now he is proposing light rail funding solely by Seattle? This is after the voters rejected the monorail? The monorail project had already acquired the ROW and bought the properties along the ROW, was collecting car tab fees, and McGinn wants to revisit the project? Why doesn’t he respect the voters on that issue?

Based on a 13% growth rate statewide during the “boom” years, I’m amazed that politicians are still making these rosy predictions about population increases.

However, if we want to stick with LINK light rail, city or county, then we have to do one thing: Figure out how to reduce the cost per mile to build. By now, after nearly 3 decades of fiddling around with the technology we should be able to roll out light rail as easy as pie! It shouldn’t be this $1.6 billion per mile thing that everyone agonizes over.

We need light rail…but we need it cheaper, easier, faster.

Nothing McGinn does makes any sense including this.

It occurs to me that when I lived in Seattle and road the bus from the U-District to downtown every day, not once did I think to myself, “Screw this, stupid bus isn’t on rails.” I can see where light-rail makes sense in places where longer term investment is justified, but it shouldn’t be a fetish.

It’s in my selfish interest for Seattle to go it alone, it’d be foolish for it to do so.

Exactly!

The only differences between LR and EBT is that EBT doesn’t require billions in investment, runs on rubber, not rails, and when one breaks down, the entire line isn’t stopped waiting for it to be moved.

Any city agreeing to fund major transit infrastructure on its own (at the same time it citizens are also funding a massive regional transit project) is taking a big financial risk. We saw this in the failed Monorail project, which simply couldn’t collect enough money to fund its proposed system. Taking a risk like this would require strong leadership at City Hall, which we simply don’t have with tunnel-obsessed one-termer McGinn. After the voters retire Mike in 2013, we could always give this another look.

If His Honor wishes to get people out of cars, how about asking Seattle voters to help fund Metro’s BRT system? Right now, Metro doesn’t have the money to complete it quickly.

For example, there is already BRT in Snohomish County that runs from Aurora Village to Everett Station, mostly along Evergreen Way (what Aurora Avenue becomes in Snohomish County). It is Community Transit’s highest ridership line. http://www.commtrans.org/News/New.cfm?id=1431 Meanwhile, anyone travelling south towards Seattle from Snohomish County has to transfer to the MT 358, a long, slow ride sometimes described as the “Ship of Fools.” How many vehicles heading for Seattle could be removed from the road if Metro could finish planned BRT service from Aurora Village?

Is the goal to be just like Portland or to be what we need to have?

If Mayor McGinn likes Portland so much, maybe he should move there.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Better rail connectivity to Ballard and West Seattle doesn’t just benefit Seattle, it benefits the whole region. If you live in Bellevue or Federal Way and you want to go to West Seattle or Ballard, you’ll probably be more likely to ride the light rail from Tukwilla or Bellevue, if there is a way to to get to Ballard, Fremont, West Seattle, etc. on the train. Yes, the region is much more than just Seattle. But I have to think that Seattle is and will remain the biggest transit destination within the region for a long time to come.

Most major cities in the midwest and the east work this way. Communter rail (like the sounder) goes into the city from the suburbs, light rail goes throughout the city to get you to all the major parts of it. Or as in Cleveland, they have light rail out into the suburbs in a number of directions, with park and rides at those outer rail stops. But the orientation is about getting people from the suburbs into the city and then allowing them to get where they need to go on the train.

Let’s be real here. The train is about two things: (1) moving people; and (2) real estate development (not necessarily in that order). What Julia Patterson is really saying is that she doesn’t want more trains in Seattle now, because it will drive more real estate development to Seattle rather than out to new train lines in the suburbs (to be built in 2040 or something).

Thanks for this new feature.

April, ST is cash poor in the early years and that is why the study is scheduled to be done in 2015. The city could front ST the money to move that study up. ST has the professional ability to plan and build light rail, the city of Seattle does not.

Hey, Mayor Mike–Seattle is not Portland. Light rail on the Westside faces water crossings and elevation challenges, especially in West Seattle. And the MAX system is impressive, but you get what you pay for. MAX is closer to the South Lake Union streetcar or Tacoma Link than it is Sound Transit’s light rail. ST is building light rail that can handle four car trains that will grow with our city. So, if you are advocating rail that isn’t faster than a bus I question whether that is worth it with Rapid Ride coming on line.

The Mayor has not reached out to his fellow ST board members at all on this issue. If he were a real leader, he would be building support for an ST3 regional package in 2016. Sadly, he is just making up for another bad campaign promise. BTW–where is my municipal wireless?

And that brings up another point – Portland ends at Multnomah County, as does the metro area. Seattle’s metro area goes north to Everett and beyond, and south to Tacoma. Regional transit planning, as Julia pointed out, is underway, and makes much more sense. We are a regional city, not an island.

We should be investing in light rail now – but it won’t happen. This is short-sighted Seattle. We invest money in the big projects without looking towards the long term usage and viability. Did we get 20 years out the Kingdome? Remember the old Library? Now we’re doing it again with the tunnel. Since rapid transit – Light rail – is something that lasts for generations, we obviously are not interested in it.

Perfect is the enemy of good
We need the Sierra Club, and Sierra Club types. That said, we need to also ignore the impetus in this case to make EVERYTHING as green as possible just by ideology. I adore McGinn at times but the constant ideological push is unrealistic. We just saw our President and Democratic leadership have to duck and weave and take some reductions in the budget battles in DC. The same thing applies here on the regional level. Rail if it’s expanded west in this way needs to be regional.

Why build just a West Seattle to Ballard rail line? Why not plan regionally instead for a Shoreline to Burien line, and spec it out to go even better? Why not plan to connect it to Tacoma’s network? Here’s a fun question: how do you get to Olympia from Seattle on mass transit?

Why not go good enough for now?
In the meanwhile, we can have dedicated point to point mass transit today if we wanted: make a dedicated express bus line that runs as a point to point express-only line in this circuit:

1. West Seattle Junction
2. Stadiums
3. 3rd & Pike
4. Seattle Center/Queen Anne
5. NW Market & 15th
6. reverse

You telling me that wouldn’t be a super popular route? You can even do variations on this by a host of neighborhoods. How about a pair of “Loop” buses, that run clockwise and counter clockwise versus the map by just dense neighborhoods/popular locations?

Ballard Fremont UW Broadway Hospitals > Columbia City White Center Junction Stadiums Downtown Ballard

I’m someone who has fought for light rail, for monorail, against a new viaduct. I’m about as hard-core a transit supporter as you’ll find in Seattle. And I’ve got to say, with friends like Mike McGinn, we don’t need enemies.

Seattle absolutely needs more light rail than we’re getting already with Central Link. But instead of debating whether to do more light rail or whether to study it sooner (we should already be an emphatic yes on both), we need to be debating what it means to do light rail right. Just as with the tunnel, McGinn is picking the counterproductive fight.

It’s a shame that he should hold up Portland and not Vancouver as the model for wise light rail investments. Try riding Portland’s light rail system some time and see just how slow and infrequent it is. See how little ride share it generates. Why? In large measure because Portland decided to cut corners and run their lines on the streets through downtown. But even if we wanted to emulate Portland’s vision of light rail on the cheap, we physically couldn’t, as McGinn knows all too well. There are the small matters of the ship canal and Duwamish crossings.

And nowhere does McGinn say anything about Sound Transit’s role in his proposed planning. How can anyone who has given the least amount of serious thought to studying light rail go through an entire sales pitch without once mentioning Sound Transit’s role?

We need political leaders like Tom Rasmussen to step forward and claim the mantle of “yes to light rail, no to stupid.” Yes, we should go to the ballot to fund design Ballard-downtown-West Seattle light rail, but only to accelerate Sound Transit’s efforts and only if we give real consideration to grade separation through downtown and its costs.

Following up my previous post, I almost get the sense that, where the Seattle Monorail Project poisoned the well for westside monorail, McGinn’s half-assed afterthought of a light rail proposal will poison the well for westside light rail. I hope I’m wrong.

I should add that Ben Schiendelman at Seattle Transit Blog shares much the same concerns, although he is far more charitable towards McGinn than I am:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/04/09/mcginn-rail-approach/

Portland’s metro area does not end at the edge of Multnomah County – that’s crazy. Clearly regional transit planning is not producing the results Seattle wants fast enough for our citizens. We’re already buying extra service from Metro because of the 40/40/20 rule that has been perpetuated by Julia and her colleagues – but we shouldn’t be permitted to move faster on rail?

And FYI, rail enabled enormous economic development in our region. We have streetcar suburbs that are now part of the city, and many cities developed along the Interurban. It’s not really fair to expect enormous economic growth during a deep recession when Link has been open less than 2 years.

Except that in a few years Westlake to Husky Stadium will only take a few minutes by rail. That will be very attractive.

(and Vancouver). Generally speaking, though, outside of Portland/Vancouver (I admit, I missed that!), there’s not much, and especially nothing like Seattle/Bellevue/Everett/Tacoma/Bremerton.

As for the rest of your statement – Light Rail has not done the same, and there is nothing to say that it would. EBTs and BRT can give us basically the same results, but a fraction of the cost, and the ability to change the system routing if population centers change, unlike fixed-rail.

Light Rail is great for long trips (it will be awesome if it can ever get to Everett), but for short, intracity, we have a great system in place already.

You can’t ignore the politics of light rail in this city. If politics weren’t an issue, we would have started with a line from downtown to the U District. Such a line would be very fast, avoid a high traffic area, and free up dozens of buses. But we wanted a regional transit system. This is fine, and makes sense. Eventually, you want rail that goes from Everett to Tacoma (if not Olympia) as well as to the Eastside.

Great. So, we took a vote for a solid system that would deliver all of that. Guess what? It failed. Well, it did really well in Seattle, but failed elsewhere. The way the system works, you need to get all areas to agree. So, they came up with a scaled down version (what we have now). They do the logical thing and run a line from downtown to the U-District (or maybe U-District to Rainier Valley). That line would make perfect sense from a transportation standpoint. Unfortunately, it would fail miserably politically. The suburban voters would consider it a gift to Seattle. So, they came up with a system that we have now. This is OK as a start, but again, it wasn’t done that way because it makes sense from a transportation standpoint. It was made that way to satisfy suburban voters.

The mayor is simply proposing a plan that makes sense. It is obvious at this point that the rail system will move very slowly, and will be focused on placating suburban voters over meeting the needs of the people of the region. The mayor simply wants to change priorities. He wants to build transit sooner in the area where folks want it, have supported it and will use it .

As someone who has been packed on 71, 72, 73 buses between downtown and the U-District many times, I have heard numerous times comments such as, “boy I can’t wait until U-Link and North Link open.” Like Papi said, downtown to UW will be 6 minutes, either direction, any time of day. It currently ranges from probably 8 minutes under ideal conditions (express lanes open, no traffic delays) to 20+ minutes (university bridge is up for a boat passing, traffic in Eastlake, etc.).

Furthermore, the 4-car trains will have the capacity of at least half a dozen articulated buses, with much faster loading and unloading, which can be a real pain during crushload times.

In sum, Derek, I’d say you don’t have your finger on the pulse of today’s huskies and U-District residents.

This sounds similar to a part of the Metro BRT plan. Not exactly like it, but close. http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/metrotransit/rapidride.aspx

So, Metro is planning this. All they lack is money to implement the whole thing.

If you want to know how to make BRT work, come to Snohomish County. We can show you how to do it.

(So, why isn’t Metro trying to connect with already-running BRT in Snohomish County quicker? You want to remove cars from the streets?)

Well under ST’s scheme, excluding federal grants, light rail in Seattle is funded solely by Seattle as I understand it. We’re the North King County subarea, which maybe includes Shoreline, but other than that, North subarea means “Seattle.” So there’s not a huge difference in terms of funding source, and I assume the city could still apply for federal grants.

You want Seattle to pay out of our own pockets for routes to Snohomish County? Good luck with that. Maybe paying for BRT between West Seattle/Ballard and downtown would make sense.

The only differences? Yeah, sure ya betcha. Light rail will only take 6 minutes (versus 20-30 minutes on the “express” 7Xx buses) to get from downtown to the U-District and one train can carry 800 people at rush hour. Explain to me how you can do that with a trolley bus. Have you ever ridden the 43 or the 49? I love the trolley buses for local service, and would like to see the system expanded, but they are not a replacement for a real rapid mass transit system.

Arguing that Link is just too expensive on a cost-benefit analysis is one thing, and a reasonable argument, but arguing that BRT in a dense urban corridor is basically the same is not credible. The capacity is not the same–one articulated bus carries maybe 80 people at crushloads while a 4-car train carries 600-800–and the speed and reliability are not comparable either. BRT that travels between park and rides on a freeway makes a compelling case compared to rail, but not traveling between dense urban centers like downtown, Capitol Hill, and the U-District. How do you get a bus between Westlake Center and Broadway in 2-3 minutes? How do you get between Broadway and the UW in 3 minutes? And how do you do it at anytime of day, in either direction? You can’t get anywhere near that kind of performance from BRT.

Arguing that Link is just too expensive on a cost-benefit analysis is one thing, and a reasonable argument, but arguing that BRT in a dense urban corridor is basically the same is not credible. The capacity is not the same–one articulated bus carries maybe 80 people at crushloads while a 4-car train carries 600-800–and the speed and reliability are not comparable either. BRT that travels between park and rides on a freeway makes a compelling case compared to rail, but not traveling between dense urban centers like downtown, Capitol Hill, and the U-District. How do you get a bus between Westlake Center and Broadway in 2-3 minutes? How do you get between Broadway and the UW in 3 minutes? And how do you do it at anytime of day, in either direction? You can’t get anywhere near that kind of performance from BRT.

The swift system is pretty good and because it has good signage, better than normal bus stops (they kind of look like a rail stop/platform) and frequent service it makes buses really simple for people that don’t understand how routes and times work….it makes it like rail….”I know where this thing is going because I’ve seen platforms all along 99.” A few key lines that are color-coded and shown on maps at nicer-than-normal stops would make it work best for Seattle.

And, unlike ST light rail, Swift actually has a higher-than-projected ridership after just a year.

I agree. I think any light rail should work with the existing light rail. The tracks should be separated from traffic (otherwise, you just have a very big bus). The cheapest way to do this is to have elevated rail. The monorail had its problems, but if not for a funding snafu, it would be running right now, and would probably be quite popular. Remember, it passed three times despite having a terrible funding mechanism. Its biggest weakness is that it didn’t integrate well with the light rail system. Proposing another system like that would be stupid.

I agree. I think any light rail should work with the existing light rail. The tracks should be separated from traffic (otherwise, you just have a very big bus). The cheapest way to do this is to have elevated rail. The monorail had its problems, but if not for a funding snafu, it would be running right now, and would probably be quite popular. Remember, it passed three times despite having a terrible funding mechanism. Its biggest weakness is that it didn’t integrate well with the light rail system. Proposing another system like that would be stupid.

Very fair point. And yes, it’s been a while since I rode those routes. I would hope that LR would reduce travel times, but that’s a fairly small increment for the huge cost.

Very fair point. And yes, it’s been a while since I rode those routes. I would hope that LR would reduce travel times, but that’s a fairly small increment for the huge cost.

Going it alone – well, good to see McGinn is still taking pages from the George W Bush playbook.

Clearly he also learned nothing from the monorail debacle and still doesn’t mention how the City could close down all of Fisherman’s Terminal & the working port around the Locks to build a bridge capable of handling light rail. Nobody believes that Seattle alone has the tax base or the political will to pay for a project of that magnitude by itself without regional help, puh-leeze.

Sorry Mr. McGinn, Westside light rail is a total non-starter. Joe’s idea of loop buses on the other hand is a very reasonable, easy to implement idea that could provide enough ridership and real data in a short period to assess its feasibility.

Given this region’s topological challenges bus rapid transit is where it’s at, and for a great deal of King County, where it will be in the future.

You make a good point. McGinn has clearly tipped his hat that he favors a MAX-style light rail expansion, which means little to no grade separation and no separate ROW. That might means 2-car trains and speeds not much better than BRT.

For all the talk about Portland’s vaunted transit system, the fact remains that 20% of Seattle residents commute by transit, compared to 12% in Portland. Link offers clear speed, capacity and reliability advantages over bus (especially in U-Link and North Link) and MAX does not. Link is very expensive, but at least you get some clear and distinct benefits over bus routes for your extra money.

I think the best thing McGinn could do to help transit in Seattle is find a way to allow Seattle to tax itself more to pay for faster and better Link expansion in Seattle, and not wait for a broader regional vote.

You make a good point. McGinn has clearly tipped his hat that he favors a MAX-style light rail expansion, which means little to no grade separation and no separate ROW. That might means 2-car trains and speeds not much better than BRT.

For all the talk about Portland’s vaunted transit system, the fact remains that 20% of Seattle residents commute by transit, compared to 12% in Portland. Link offers clear speed, capacity and reliability advantages over bus (especially in U-Link and North Link) and MAX does not. Link is very expensive, but at least you get some clear and distinct benefits over bus routes for your extra money.

I think the best thing McGinn could do to help transit in Seattle is find a way to allow Seattle to tax itself more to pay for faster and better Link expansion in Seattle, and not wait for a broader regional vote.

Couldn’t agree more, all this poo-pooing is misplaced hooey. “The impulse” of rail transit is “ideological, not rational”, indeed. That must be pure rationality at it’s height.

So far these two Think Tank “discussions” have been overwhelmingly one-sided, why is that?

Couldn’t agree more, all this poo-pooing is misplaced hooey. “The impulse” of rail transit is “ideological, not rational”, indeed. That must be pure rationality at it’s height.

So far these two Think Tank “discussions” have been overwhelmingly one-sided, why is that?

Why is everyone assuming that this will be a “standalone” light rail line? From what I understand the idea is to hire a professional firm to study the corridor and come up with the best alignment for tying West Seattle and Ballard in to the regional line that Sound Transit is currently building, basically fronting the money to accelerate the study that Sound Transit has planned to do sometime in the future anyways. This is the same tactic the city used with the First Hill Streetcar, which is resulting in it being opened 3 years sooner than Sound Transit had planned. The Westside line itself would more than likely ultimately end up being constructed and operated by Sound Transit, just sooner rather than later. What’s so wrong with that?

Why is everyone assuming that this will be a “standalone” light rail line? From what I understand the idea is to hire a professional firm to study the corridor and come up with the best alignment for tying West Seattle and Ballard in to the regional line that Sound Transit is currently building, basically fronting the money to accelerate the study that Sound Transit has planned to do sometime in the future anyways. This is the same tactic the city used with the First Hill Streetcar, which is resulting in it being opened 3 years sooner than Sound Transit had planned. The Westside line itself would more than likely ultimately end up being constructed and operated by Sound Transit, just sooner rather than later. What’s so wrong with that?

How many people are commuting from the Stadium to downtown? Try a 70′s route, or the 66, or the 25, all of which are routes that will still be needed, and still be at capacity (which, for an 80 foot articulated, is just over 100, if memory serves) once the U-District link is complete.

That said, we’re talking about two different things. The question right now is whether Seattle should go it alone, right now, on commuter light rail from West Seattle and Ballard to downtown, or whether we should give ST the opportunity to do it, as part of the regional plan already in place.

These would be almost strictly commuter trips, which will not need constant, all-day service, and could be just as well served, for a fraction of the price, through dedicated bus lanes with EBTs (yay! environment!) and BRT (or, more likely, express routes).

And buses are something that can be done now. Signage and re-striping bus-only lanes (and I mean bus-only – not bus-only, right turn permitted, but bus-only, with lights that are programmed to let buses fly through) is something that can be done right now. And the cost is something that is relatively manageable right now.

How many people are commuting from the Stadium to downtown? Try a 70′s route, or the 66, or the 25, all of which are routes that will still be needed, and still be at capacity (which, for an 80 foot articulated, is just over 100, if memory serves) once the U-District link is complete.

That said, we’re talking about two different things. The question right now is whether Seattle should go it alone, right now, on commuter light rail from West Seattle and Ballard to downtown, or whether we should give ST the opportunity to do it, as part of the regional plan already in place.

These would be almost strictly commuter trips, which will not need constant, all-day service, and could be just as well served, for a fraction of the price, through dedicated bus lanes with EBTs (yay! environment!) and BRT (or, more likely, express routes).

And buses are something that can be done now. Signage and re-striping bus-only lanes (and I mean bus-only – not bus-only, right turn permitted, but bus-only, with lights that are programmed to let buses fly through) is something that can be done right now. And the cost is something that is relatively manageable right now.

I support this effort. I don’t want to have to wait until Issaquah and Sammamish decide to make funding light rail a priority for Seattle to become connected.

I support this effort. I don’t want to have to wait until Issaquah and Sammamish decide to make funding light rail a priority for Seattle to become connected.

I support this effort. I don’t want to have to wait until Issaquah and Sammamish decide to make funding light rail a priority for Seattle to become connected.

agree, that 71,72, 73 bus service is the best in the entire Metro system. There was talk back with the previous Mayor that they would pursue a streetcar line to run on Eastlake. To solve exactly what problem was never made clear. Hopefully that idea has died.

Dammit, let me say stupid shit in peace!!!

It is true – I am blatantly confusing BRT and Express routes. However, I would say the focus with respect to buses should be on bus-only lanes, and as noted above, I look at bus-only as just that, with street lights programmed to let buses get the hell through.

As for the train capacity – current crush capacity is what, 200 per car on LR? Realistically, though, how often does it reach that point? Running more articulated EBTs during peak hours (every 5 minutes, say?), which have the 100+ crush capacity, handles that issue.

And, just so it’s clear – where I blur the BRT and Express lines is more with the idea that the bus is, in theory, coming every 5 minutes (or 8 minutes) during peak hours, and getting rid of the schedule.

I’d like to see how this would even work. What keeps the BRT moving through the already packed Seattle streets? For all of this talk of “rail is a non-starter”, as a driver who navigates Seattle’s streets every day all day, the BRT alternative on its face doesn’t sound very workable.

I’ll support dedicated bus lanes and other investments in BRT, but please stop claiming that there is no difference between a subway rail line and BRT in a dense, hilly environment.

As for the routing, I agree that Husky Stadium wouldn’t be my ideal choice for a stop, but it won’t just serve football and basketball games. It is also near the UWMC, and many southeast campus locations, as well as the Burke Gilman. Also, keep in mind that a second station will be built near the Ave. So there will essentially be a station at the southeast part of campus and one at the northeast end of campus. Together, they’ll put most of the campus and the Ave businesses within a 1/2 mile or shorter walk–certainly a reasonable option for a mostly young and able student population.

What do you expect? The guy is an idiot.

But it runs along a highway and doesn’t serve dense urban areas. I agree with you that BRT pencils out better in more sprawling areas near a freeway, but not to places like Broadway, the U-District, Ballard, etc.

I don’t see who making bus-only lanes is even viable in Seattle. Why don’t you take a day a drive a car up and down Seattle streets, especially ones that link neighborhoods and would be where space would be lost to dedicated bus lanes? The proposal doesn’t even seem realistic, do you really think enough cars would be taken off the road by the buses that are already packed streets wouldn’t get worse? I actually haven’t heard anyone argue this outright, but it doesn’t even seem remotely possible.

A subway rail line is a completely different story, but not something that is sustainable in Seattle. For one, as you note, this is a very hilly environment. How long are people willing to wait on an elevator to get into a tunnel system for underground LR? EBT is a much better option for a lot of trips in our city at this point in time. LR studies for W. Seattle and Ballard to downtown will come, but why waste taxpayer dollars on a study that we’re already paying another agency to do? Why not use that money to get the rights of way moving, and start working with our neighbors and the County government to get EBT, BRT, Express buses in those lanes?

The stadium station is just an interim terminus. The line goes to the U-District, Roosevelt, Northgate and eventually north to Lynnwood. But I digress.

If it did it would basically replace the 70. I’m less enthusiastic about street car lines because their advantages over buses are much more modest. On the one hand, they probably do encourage more choice riders to take public transit, and they’re smoother. But on the other hand, they don’t really offer more capacity than buses or trolleys, and they don’t seem to be any faster, as they usually use all the same streets as buses and cars. Though cheaper than light rail to build, they seem to be more expensive than buses, and don’t offer any apparent advantages in the long run in operating costs compared to buses (and unlike more high capacity rail lines), from what I can tell.

“That said, we’re talking about two different things. The question right now is whether Seattle should go it alone, right now, on commuter light rail from West Seattle and Ballard to downtown, or whether we should give ST the opportunity to do it, as part of the regional plan already in place.”

There’s no reason that it can’t be built by the city and be a part of the regional plan. The two are not mutually exclusive. And right now the “plan” is merely a line on a piece of paper. Accelerating the design of the Westside line with city funding would add some substance to the regional plan.

@Carlton – in downtown, 3rd Ave. You could easily fit bus only north-south lanes in SODO along 1st Ave S, Elliott Ave, Eastlake Ave, Rainier Ave, etc. Okay, maybe not “easily”, and there would be a fight from the neighborhoods (parking!), but it’s not unrealistic at all.

And where do you think light rail would go? It would be at grade from West Seattle and from Ballard, unless you believe we would magically create a subway system in Seattle.

The new double-decker buses that are being operated in our area now have 77 seats, and room for 20 standees, for a capacity of 97. That is not “crush load.” That is normal capacity.

Capacity of Link cars is 74 seated and 68 standees for a capacity of 132 per light rail car.

60-foot articulated buses have about 60 seats and room for 30 standees for a capacity of 90.

So, Link light rail cars have a little less than 1.5 times the capacity of an articulated bus and about 1.36 times the capacity of a double-decker bus.

“How long are people willing to wait on an elevator to get into a tunnel system for underground LR?”

The station at Beacon Hill is nearly 200 feet underground and the elevator takes about 20 seconds – less time then it takes me to get to my desk from the lobby.

“How long are people willing to wait on an elevator to get into a tunnel system for underground LR?”

The station at Beacon Hill is nearly 200 feet underground and the elevator takes about 20 seconds – less time then it takes me to get to my desk from the lobby.

Well, yeah, there is. Going it alone, and then saying, “okay, we built this, ST, you drive the trains and maintain the system and make it integrate” won’t go over well. And, of course, we can’t afford it. The cost of W. Seattle and Ballard to downtown will turn out to be huge. Crossing bodies of water super high so as to not impede shipping traffic, the grade to get to the top of West Seattle, the draw-bridge into Ballard, and the construction and the like…I don’t see why we should bear all of that on our own.

This is, actually, quite similar to the monorail. We’ve learned the costs of going it alone, and now we want to spend millions to re-learn it? I’m sorry, but I’m going to call bullshit.

RapidRide buses between W. Seattle and downtown and Ballard and downtown is already funded. It is already in the planning stage, and should be operating within a few years. Those neighborhoods are already going to be served with improved bus service within a few years. Even contemplating putting light rail on those routes is patently absurd. Nothing more than a stupid waste of money.

Bus Rapid Transit requires acquisition of right of way and construction of new lanes or it is just more busses stuck in traffic. It is not just a matter of purchasing busses and hiring drivers. Quit lying and saying it is much cheaper to implement than light rail. It is not.

Don’t jump in without paying attention. I’ve already said a crapload about right of way and bus only lanes.

And yes, it is much cheaper than light rail.

Shorter Julia Patterson: Come on Seattle, don’t go off on your own to fund your transportation requirements, we need your votes and taxes to run more busses out to Maple Valley.

@MichaelP: “Bear all of that on our own.” I thought ST had its regions and had to spend money from each region in that region (unless they declare some kind of emergency). I don’t know what those regions are, but is the Seattle sufficiently than the city limits itself to really share the burden?

There is much more development in W. Seattle and Ballard now than exists or is planned along the entire Centrl Link light rail route. Light rail doesn’t create developement — zoning changes and tax incentives create development.

Here is some of the development in Ballard, along BUS ROUTES:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/sets/72157624200668965/

Here is some of the developement along Dexter Ave. in Seattle, on BUS ROUTES:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/sets/72157624781148987/

Here is some of the development on Lower Queen Anne and the Counter Balance (Queen Anne Ave. N.) on BUS ROUTES:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/sets/72157624781148987/

You can have exactly as much, and exactly the same sort of development along bus routes that you get along light rail lines. It just depends on zoning changes and — in the case of light rail — on tax incentives.

“Why doesn’t he respect the voters on that issue? ”

How long ago was that vote? It wasn’t a vote on transit anyways, it was a vote against the horrible mismanagement and unworkable funding scheme of the monorail project. People had demonstrated in three previous votes that they were in favor of high-capacity transit in the Ballard-Downtown-West Seattle corridor. And I’d be willing to bet that the voters have become even more pro-transit in the time since the monorail votes because of the demographic shift in the Ballard area.

@Grover:

Double-decker buses sound great! I haven’t seen any in Seattle, but they do work well in Hong Kong and London.

I was recently on an artic so full that people were standing past the yellow line at hte front, and I counted 80-something, so 90 sounds about like as far as you could push it. I’m not sure where you get your figure of 132 max for Link cars. But even assuming that lowball figure for link capacity, that would be total capcity of a 4-car Link train at 528, which would mean that it has 6X the capacity of an artic absolutely packed to the gills.

However, using the 200-passenger per car capacity cited by other sources, a Link train would have about 9X the capacity of an articulated bus, and much speedier loading and unloading times from its large, 400-feet platforms.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009284443_ststadium01m.html

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/seattle/

@Jakers – To a point, sure, but there are benefits to having the regional transit authority already in place do the leg work, especially one that we are already paying taxes to to do this exact same thing.

At the same time, looking at whether LR is even a good idea from W. Seattle and Ballard to Downtown with ST, as opposed to doing it and trying to force it on ST, is just a better way, overall, to play with others.

It is true – I’m not convinced that LR is even appropriate for this corridor, and I get super excited at the prospect of instead using the lanes that would be used for LR to have bus-only lanes, and expand the trolley routes, so I may be biased .

But if LR is what is deemed a good idea when ST does the study, I also won’t complain. In the meantime, I don’t feel it is prudent to dump $1.5 million (I believe is the number I’ve seen?) into this study, as an additional tax on Seattle taxpayers, when we can instead use it to improve bus service and rights of way for transit in Seattle.

How do you know how it will go over? The city is designing and building the First Hill Streetcar, a Sound Transit project, which will ultimately be operated by Metro. The city built the SLUT and contracts Metro to operate it. The city pays Metro for extra bus service and funds most transit improvements within the city. Transit planning within the city is completely within the purview of SDOT. This is not an unprecedented idea.

Try that again. Here is the link to pictures of the development on Lower Queen Anne and the Counter Balance (Queen Anne Ave. N.) on BUS ROUTES:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51332149@N02/sets/72157624740260985/

I have not heard a single good idea come out of this Mayor’s grey cells since he was elected…he and a large part of the Seattle voting public just have no connection with reality and the pols preference for putting things in front of voters all the time is just another form of unaccountability – after all, they were elected to make decisions! The sooner McSchwinn moves onto another career the better off Seattle will be…Seattle is not an island, but this mayor certainly sometimes acts like he would like to become one.

@Jay – those are projects where Seattle worked with our neighbors.

Mayor McGinn is proposing, yet again, we tell them all to piss off, and we’re going to do our own thing.

The deep bored tunnel will not last for generations? The viaduct has already lasted for about 3 generations.

False and unsupported nonsense.

“Here’s a fun question: how do you get to Olympia from Seattle on mass transit?” You transfer buses in Lakewood. It’s pretty relaxing compared to driving.

Then put it on the ballot and see if Seattle taxpayers and ONLY Seattle taxpayers are willing to accept yet another property tax increase to pay for something they know, deep down, they will never see. The monorail permanently poisoned that well, I’m afraid.

In other words the Seattle public is brain dead, democracy is for the birds, a dictator for life will keep the buses running on time, but no trains!

@MichaelP

So bus-only on 3rd Ave and somewhere in SODO — OK, you have about 2% of the city covered, now what? Should we close down Pine Street too? Denny? How about magical bus-only freeways through the sky? (Like how I switched that around? Anybody can throw in a dig with the word “magical”.)

Yes you’ve said much, though nothing convincingly.

Wow, maybe McGinn should move to Portland?

Portland has made some good investments in rail, no question. One small problem, Seattle currently exceeds Portland for transit use. With all the funded transit projects that we have under construction are in place, that gap will widen considerably.

One key investment that we do have in place is the transit tunnel beneath downtown. Stand in any of those stations at 5:30 pm, and see how packed the platforms are, with busses and trains smoothly moving beneath the City’s busiest streets. Portland’s MAX crawls through downtown Portland.

Adding subway stations beneath Capitol Hill, UW, U-District, Roosevelt, and a limited access (fenced) segment to the Northgate P&R will create near-heavy rail performance between Northgate and Rainier Valley. Of course, once it on the Valley floor (which many complain about), performance is reduced. But this is what McGinn is advocating in his statement (surface running transit).

Is that his plan to connect West Seattle and Ballard? At-grade trains? How much faster would those be than the busses we have today?

Yes, it does cost more to build grade-separated transit, but there are significant benefits in performance, and an increased upper capacity limit.

@MichaelP: so you get excited by by the prospect of creating bus-only lanes and admit your bias. Doesn’t that mean your choice is “ideological, not rational”, the primary sin as noted by livfinne above?

So then you agree with McGinn, because that is exactly what he is proposing to do.

@Michaelp

No, what he’s proposing is for the city to come up with additional funding to accelerate the construction of a line ST is going to eventually pay for anyways, which Sound Transit would likely be in favor of because it would free up money for actual regional projects. How you turn that in to “piss off” is beyond me. By your reasoning Metro shouldn’t even exist, how dare they operate on the same turf as Sound Transit! If the city and Metro are free to pay for and implement local bus and streetcar improvements then why can’t they look at light rail as well. After all, it’s no different than a bus, right?

Hey we can get 8 miles of surface rail in two months!

1. buy some busses.
2. paint the wrod “Trains!” on them!
3. Tel the drivers to stop at California Junction, Starbucks, King St., Westlake, Dravus then Denny’s site only.

Voila! As good as surface light rail, and at 1/1000th the cost!

Why are there two sets of comments here?
Seems like a system which won’t last very long.

What’s so wrong with that? If the discussion was only based on the idea of doing the study now, instead of a few years, not much – its pennies compare to the cost of the new line.

I am concerned that McGinn is pushing the merits of surface transit. For the new “West Link” to be a notable improvement over a bus, the line would need to be grade-separated in downtown Seattle.

One problem with that is that the current transit tunnel will reach capacity once South, North and East link are constructed.

So the new West Link will need to be either elevated (not likely given the violation of view corridors), or in a tunnel.

For optimum performance, the new tunnel should be adjacent to, or conect with the existing transit tunnel, which would be very costly.

Outside of the downtown core, the alignnment would basically follow the old monorail plan.

The $10 million dollar study will provide much more analysis, and detail, but in general, I’m going to bet the big questions will be:

Should we build it at-grade, or go grade-separated in downtown Seattle? and
How willing is our City to fund a project that will be multiple billions of dollars?

90-foot articulated buses with 3 doors, like SWIFT buses, have dwell times that average only 12 seconds on SWIFT. That is much shorter dwell time than Link light rail, which is about 25 seconds, or twice as long as SWIFT buses, on average.

damn. I meant 60-foot articulated buses, not 90-foot. 30 standees on an articulated bus is easy. that is not “crush load.” I have been on 60-foot articulated buses to and from Husky football games which had way over 100 people on them. Probably 120 or more. But, for normal commutes, 90 is the accepted capacity.

I have a simple question for our Mayor: What will this light rail cost? I don’t expect a definitive answer but he should be able to give us a range, given the experience of Sound Transit and the Monorail. Is it $1.5 to $3 billion? Is it $2 to $4 billion? I intend to vote “No” on any planning until be get a ballpark range of potential cost.

I have a simple question for our Mayor: What will this light rail cost? I don’t expect a definitive answer but he should be able to give us a range, given the experience of Sound Transit and the Monorail. Is it $1.5 to $3 billion? Is it $2 to $4 billion? I intend to vote “No” on any planning until be get a ballpark range of potential cost.

It’s not a small increment. It’s around 20 minutes average for buses, and 6 minutes for rail. Because of the variability with buses, people also have to pad their travel time more than they would with rail – so total travel time will be even lower, relatively, on Link.

When talking about the “huge cost”, consider the cost of I-5 you’re ignoring when you talk about the buses.

The monorail project could have collected plenty of money for their system. They just underplanned their revenue over, and over, and over again. If they had gone to voters in the first place with a more flexible plan that didn’t require a new vote for a change, we would be riding it.

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but a quick internet search tells me that the current central link came in at $179mm/mile, and the average cost of light rail per mile in the US, excluding ST, is $35mm/mile.

Are you going to honestly, with a straight face, tell me that you believe it costs more than $35mm/mile (using the number most in your favor) to re-stripe and re-purpose existing lanes for bus-only lanes?

The biggest question will be if we want light rail at grade, or not, and where. Any place the train is grade-separated (bridge or tunnel) is very costly. If mostly at grade (there is still water to cross), its less expensive, but you won’t get near the performance.

Know that the existing train tunnel will not be able to accomodate the new West Link once South, North and East link are online.

How much of the new line will be elevated, or in tunnel, or at grade. If those 3 questions are answered, you are correct, we could get a reasonable estimate based on cost/ft for those different treatments.

Another McGinn supporter clueless about the meaning of representative democracy.

Everybody’s a critic, David. ; ) Give it a chance. Seems to be swinging today.

NO. Seattle should not. Seattle should concentrate on building the LR to the Eastside first, and until that is in the finishing stages, wait to start any new projects. Plus it’s McGinn…how can you trust him?

Reading is fundamental Jay. You couldn’t have missed my context more if English was your second language.

I wish McGinn luck because without a proposed funding mechanism or at least a ballpark proposal of cost this will be the easiest thing to shoot down at the polls imaginable. Four words – monorail all over again.

I don’t like it either.

@Carlton – I’m not the one who made the ideological comment up above.

@Jay – My understanding, and as Ben has pointed out over at STB, is that the Mayor wants to do this on our own, not accelerate what ST is already doing. ST has, as Ben points out, $12mm set aside in 2015 to do the exact same study McGinn wants to double-tax us for to get to $10mm to do I’m guessing next year.

My position comes out convoluted, but really is simple – go for a chunk of that $10mm, work with KC and SDOT to put in bus only lanes that serve these neighborhoods and downtown, expand trolley service, and let Sound Transit do what they’re already doing. They’ll start their study 3 years later, and in the meantime, we can start having better transit now, and the roads can get used to the reduced capacity while waiting for some sort of rail (if that is what ST determines will best serve this corridor).

@Carlton – I’m not the one who made the ideological comment up above.

@Jay – My understanding, and as Ben has pointed out over at STB, is that the Mayor wants to do this on our own, not accelerate what ST is already doing. ST has, as Ben points out, $12mm set aside in 2015 to do the exact same study McGinn wants to double-tax us for to get to $10mm to do I’m guessing next year.

My position comes out convoluted, but really is simple – go for a chunk of that $10mm, work with KC and SDOT to put in bus only lanes that serve these neighborhoods and downtown, expand trolley service, and let Sound Transit do what they’re already doing. They’ll start their study 3 years later, and in the meantime, we can start having better transit now, and the roads can get used to the reduced capacity while waiting for some sort of rail (if that is what ST determines will best serve this corridor).

couldnt they just connect west seattle to the Sodo station near the old brewery, where light rail has its maintenance yard? and then pick up on the other side of the tunnel veering off towards ballard somehow? or connect to the UW station and run a line through across 45th to 46th to market and so forth until you get to ballard?

most want to get to downtown…not get to ballard from west seattle and vice versa.

Grover wrote:

“90-foot articulated buses with 3 doors, like SWIFT buses, have dwell times that average only 12 seconds on SWIFT. That is much shorter dwell time than Link light rail, which is about 25 seconds, or twice as long as SWIFT buses, on average.”

Where are you getting these figures from? I’d estimate Link dwell times are typically more like 10-20 seconds. Here’s one video from youtube at Beacon Hill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJwQtg7ZKo
The train dwells for under 20 seconds, with the doors open for maybe just under 15 seconds. That’s certainly shorter than the dwell time for bus routes in the tunnel or on Campus Parkway.

And what is the dwell time per passenger? In other words, assuming your numbers are true (though you’ve cited nothing to support them), SWIFT has a fraction of the riders of Link, which means if there are an average of (let’s say) 10-20 people getting on at Link stations, there are probably 1-2 people getting on and off at the average SWIFT station. And if your dwell time is accurate, it probably suffers from bus delays in the tunnel, which won’t exist in the future as Link expands ridership dramatically.

To sum up, if you can get 9X as many people off a train in a similar amount of time as X from a bus, you’re operating much more efficiently.

you lost me at “adore mcginn”

shouldnt you change your avatar to matt smith now?

I like it. Makes me feel special up top, and scrappy down below! Thanks for the oppo! It was a blast!

they built central link, a trolley car, and are working on light rail to the eastside. just thought i would mention that since you seem to have overlooked those big, expensive projects

He’s a nice guy who genuinely cares about the city… just sometimes in different ways than most of us.

And done.

He’s a nice guy who genuinely cares about the city… just sometimes in different ways than most of us.

And done.

I think we should focus on a regional set of comments before committing to a local one.

I think we should focus on a regional set of comments before committing to a local one.

“Oh, and while you’re at it…figure out how to make it go up hills…”

That’s been done all over the world, including Seattle, where streetcars used to go up Queen Anne Hill.

“Oh, and while you’re at it…figure out how to make it go up hills…”

That’s been done all over the world, including Seattle, where streetcars used to go up Queen Anne Hill.

Is that a response? All you have there is some nonsensical babble which seems to be some sort of intended (but failed) insult. I can see what “representative democracy” means to the likes of you, il duce.

light rail, on average, currently uses 2 car trains (400 people), switching to 1 car trains (200 people) when it makes sense. however, the stations are all designed to accommodate 3 car trains (600 people) when capacity eventually demands it.

size of train cars:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/07/10/2009450350.pdf

i like your attitude!

(originally posted above as a response to Gifferey, but apparently I was getting a bit roudy and was kicked out of the cool kids’ party. Pass me that paper bag of Boons and clear me a spot on the park bench.)

The main point, as I see it, is creating new routes and new capacity within Seattle. Buses are great, but they get stuck in the same traffic that cars do. By contrast, taking a light rail trip from downtown to Cap Hill and then to UW will take what – 6 minutes? Try doing that on the surface no matter how nice your bus-only lanes are built.

It currently takes me about half an hour to travel the 2 miles from my home (right next to a bus stop) to downtown. That’s fine, and it beats dealing with parking, but it’s worth the investment to fix this long term.

What I don’t care about is technology. Want to build a new bus tunnel instead of light rail? Fine. As long as we can upgrade to rail once it makes sense. I do think McGinn’s idea to use surface streets is short-sighted. That’s fine for streetcars or buses. But for light rail (or whatever technology you use for high-speed, high-capacity transit) to be fast enough to be useful we need grade separation.

We need to get moving now. Sound Transit is a regional transit system, and has regional priorities. That’s great – Seattle needs the rest of the region. But we also need to be able to get around in our own city. Seattlites will be willing to pay more to get good transit quickly.

Here’s my plan. Continue building bus service in Seattle. Make more bus-only lanes. Build a network of gondolas (cheap, and can be installed quickly). But start planning for the real solutions we need: high speed, high capacity transit that doesn’t get stuck in traffic and does connect neighborhoods together and to downtown.

I don’t know that Julia Patterson’s statement, “Given that 2010 Census data shows the voting population moving toward the suburbs, Seattle could end up losing out,” is true, but it may be. Overbuild around the light rail stations in Urban Villages and you will destroy many single family neighborhoods driving more homeowners to the suburbs. Then you will a dozen or so little inter-cities with residents that won’t be riding the rails how you want them to.
If you want to get more people out of their cars, provide fewer lanes of traffic for them. Make existing lanes “bus only” and commuters will change their habits.

I don’t know that Julia Patterson’s statement, “Given that 2010 Census data shows the voting population moving toward the suburbs, Seattle could end up losing out,” is true, but it may be. Overbuild around the light rail stations in Urban Villages and you will destroy many single family neighborhoods driving more homeowners to the suburbs. Then you will a dozen or so little inter-cities with residents that won’t be riding the rails how you want them to.
If you want to get more people out of their cars, provide fewer lanes of traffic for them. Make existing lanes “bus only” and commuters will change their habits.

I don’t know that Julia Patterson’s statement, “Given that 2010 Census data shows the voting population moving toward the suburbs, Seattle could end up losing out,” is true, but it may be. Overbuild around the light rail stations in Urban Villages and you will destroy many single family neighborhoods driving more homeowners to the suburbs. Then you will a dozen or so little inter-cities with residents that won’t be riding the rails how you want them to.
If you want to get more people out of their cars, provide fewer lanes of traffic for them. Make existing lanes “bus only” and commuters will change their habits.

They could, but it would constrain the entire system.

Like today, you would have only one northbound track through the tunnel, which would have Central link + East link trains on it. Now you are adding West Link trains as well, which will make the tunnel a choke point. Same goes for the SB trains.

Adding West Link will be the point at which we will need more than one track in each direction though downtown, and how that happens (at grade, elevated, or in a new tunnel) will have a big affect on the project cost.

(Don’t tell Josh I said it, but it’s more fun down here)

well done

Replying to Michael. Right of way has to be acquired. It is not a matter of restriping if you are doing BRT in the City. Your comment below that it would a snap to restripe Rainier and Eastlake is just fantasy. You would have to acquire building and demolish along Eastlake and all the way through Columbia City and Hillman City. You are right about one thing. You have said a crapload.

If memory serves, the initial numbers were based on the Seattle/Shoreline car tabs, which is what led to the financial screw-up.

Which, no matter what, reminds us not to be idiots with the funding, as well as the planning.

…but thats not what i suggested. i suggested NOT running the Ballard to West Seattle line through downtown. In fact, treat them as two separate lines, with the West Seattle line terminating at the SODO station and people transfering to the Central Link to get downtown and the Ballard line running from the Brooklyn station on the North Link to Ballard via 46th and Market. You could then include a Wallingford, Greenwood, Greenlake, Woodland Park Zoo, Phinney Ridge and Freemont stations all within walking distance to those respective neighborhoods.

Can I just go completely off-topic for a minute, and say how refreshing it is to be having a conversation about transit, transit planning, what we want our city and region to look like transit-wise, and how we would like to get there?

(I don’t know. I really like the “dislike” button and the reputation thing. We could always have them implement that down here as well, but poor Bailo…)

Explain to me how re-striping for bus-only lanes requires “building and demolish” along Eastlake, or anywhere else, for that matter?

well what the heck did your response to DavidD have to do with anything? we elect leaders who we think will best serve our interests. seattle, for good or bad (looks mostly bad at this point) hired McGinn to make decisions for us. he has made lousy ones, even by supporters standards…putting everything to a vote before the public does away with needing mcginn or any other representative act in our behalf. and, you might look into electoral law before you get all fancy with terms like democracy. as for il duce making the trains run on time (lack of trains not withstanding) you are mixing metaphors and stretching them at that.

well what the heck did your response to DavidD have to do with anything? we elect leaders who we think will best serve our interests. seattle, for good or bad (looks mostly bad at this point) hired McGinn to make decisions for us. he has made lousy ones, even by supporters standards…putting everything to a vote before the public does away with needing mcginn or any other representative act in our behalf. and, you might look into electoral law before you get all fancy with terms like democracy. as for il duce making the trains run on time (lack of trains not withstanding) you are mixing metaphors and stretching them at that.

(I liked that at first, but then I had a comment simply asking for proof poo-poohed on something fierce. I’m net-positive for “Like”s down here, though, so…yeah )

EBT and doesn’t really seem like a viable solution to West Seattle because of the need to run over the high bridge…

Ok, that is another approach, but again it has limitations.

How can you be sure the Central link trains will have room for the people coming from West Seattle? In the morning Central Link will be full when it hits the SODO station. People wanting to transfer to those trains will be out of luck.

Same goes for the north. If you create all the stations that you are talking about (which would be great), they most likely would fill the the West Link Ballard train. Once they got to the Brooklyn Station, they would have either fill the SB North Link train, or prohibit anyone from getting on at Husky Stadium, or Cap. Hill.

Most Cities with good rail transport have more than one track in each direction beneath their downtown. If we want good transit, we have to plan that way.

The unfortunate part of that is that it is very expensive. Worth it? Its not for me to say… for that, we need a vote.

What is the cost of I-5? It’s already there. Adding buses to existing lanes removes cars (by putting their drivers and passengers on buses instead of cars), thus reducing congestion. No new lanes are needed.

With several bus stops in the U District, getting to and from your bus stop takes far less time for most people than walking to the only light rail station, thus adding time to your trip on light rail vs buses.

What is the cost of I-5? It’s already there. Adding buses to existing lanes removes cars (by putting their drivers and passengers on buses instead of cars), thus reducing congestion. No new lanes are needed.

With several bus stops in the U District, getting to and from your bus stop takes far less time for most people than walking to the only light rail station, thus adding time to your trip on light rail vs buses.

@SeaTowner…good points (capacity) and these trains are running near capacity as it is…stations are set up for 3 car trains, so that is a possibility at some point. plus run more of them. and, although you would get an argument, you could move some of the busses out of the tunnel.

If the monorail project had gone to the voters with a higher MVET rate, polling suggested it would have lost. The initial numbers were from a model provided by Sound Transit — which is the agency that goofed on that one. The “mistake” of the monorail project in that instance was trying to save taxpayer dollars by using an existing model from a transit agency building in the same region instead of creating its own.

Improving bus service and contemplating light rail are not mutually exclusive, Grover… Better and faster buses won’t increase carrying capacity by very much. West Seattle already has two of the highest ridership routes run by Metro.

The Viaduct is only about 60 years old… That’s hardly three generations, Grover. And, Rob, we’re STILL PAYING TAXES for the Kingdome.

It manages over other Seattle bridges just fine, and I don’t see why the height of the bridge would have much of an adverse effect. Just means more wire. And the lack of a draw bridge to cross probably makes it even easier to put up than what was done over the University and Ballard bridges (I think Ballard? I’m spacing on that now…eek!)

It manages over other Seattle bridges just fine, and I don’t see why the height of the bridge would have much of an adverse effect. Just means more wire. And the lack of a draw bridge to cross probably makes it even easier to put up than what was done over the University and Ballard bridges (I think Ballard? I’m spacing on that now…eek!)

Your questions are great, not trying to shoot you down at all.

The ultimate Sound Transit plan for the transit tunnel is to have 4-car trains, and no busses. Two minute headways. That would move a LOT of people.

That plan was for Central (plus North and South Link), and East Link, and did not include West Link, so while its true you could get by with the tunnel the way it is currently, we would be crimping the plan we are trying to build out today.

That might also create some friction from the regional vs. local ridership, which may put us (Seattle) at odds with the regional goals of ST.

If memory serves, the model was for the NW section of KC, which is Seattle and Shoreline. Someone should have seen that, and raised a red flag on the numbers provided by ST.

Regardless, the most important point moving forward is to not repeat the mistakes that plagued the monorail project.

http://www.commtrans.org/News/New.cfm?id=1427

“In its first year, the average “dwell” time a Swift bus was stopped at a station was about 12 seconds.”

Totaling up passengers per Link train and comparing that to one bus is just stupid. More than one bus can load and unload at the same stop at the same time. But, more importantly, buses can run more frequently than light rail. So, instead of one 2-car train every 7.5 minutes, you could easily have 3 buses every 7.5 minutes, giving you the same total capacity as light rail, but with shorter headways, which is better for passengers.

Also, comparing buses which collect fares on boarding or deboarding to Link, with off-board payment is stupid. Obviously, paying when you board or leave creates longer dwell times. SWIFT has off-board payment, which is why it is fair to compare SWIFT dwell times to Link dwell times.

SWIFT buses also have 3 doors, instead of the 2 doors on many articluated buses. Again, it is stupid to compare articulated buses with only 2 doors to a Link car with 4 doors. That is why I used SWIFT buses to compare to Link.

I have ridden Link enough times to have a good idea of what its average dwell time is. At Westlake, where it gets the most boardings, the dwell time on southbound Link trains is often around 60 seconds. At other stations, I would say the miniimum dwell time is 20 seconds, with the average over 20 seconds. In fact, in the ST documents, I believe you will find that the dwell time ST uses when calculating expected travel time for Link is at least 20 seconds.

1. buy busses and run them point to point express, say morgan jnction to downtown, 85th to downtown, make about 12 super express routes.
2. build bus stops right in the freeway declivity…let busses use the freeway space. put people in there. knit it back to the city.
3. the gondola in portland is $50 million a ile and gondolas can carry 3300 pphpd why not build about 15 gondola towers from WS to B Hill to sodo to colement up thru the waterfront to ballard with a spur to capitol hill?

$50. Million. A. Mile.

In your video, the dwell time for that Link train was about 24 seconds, and I counted only 6 people boarding it! lol This is what you use to try to prove your point? Pretty sad. It just proves my point very well.

And tunnel platforms can accomodate 6 articulated buses at the same time, which is the same capacity as a 4-car Link train.

And tunnel platforms can accomodate 6 articulated buses at the same time, which is the same capacity as a 4-car Link train.

Doubling the number of buses per hour will double the capacity. Duh.

Light rail is stupidly expensive. It absolutely is mutually exclusive with buses. Why do you think they eliminated the Metro 194 and 42 express when Central Link was fully operating? Because ST does not want any competition from buses. You don’t build light rail between W. Seattle and downtown and continue to run buses on that same route.

Moreover, with the billions of dollars light rail would cost, you could have improved bus service all over Seattle for the cost of one light rail route just between downtown and W. Seattle.

“I agree with you that BRT pencils out better in more sprawling areas near a freeway,”

You mean like between downtown Seattle through Rainier Valley, and between downtown and the airport?

A generation is about 20 years. Many people have children when they are 20 years old, or even younger.

Grover wrote:

“In your video, the dwell time for that Link train was about 24 seconds, and I counted only 6 people boarding it! lol This is what you use to try to prove your point? Pretty sad. It just proves my point very well.”

I question your ability to count. The train stops at about 41 sec, and starts moving at about 1:01. That’s 20 seconds.

If McGinn wants a Seattle-only light rail vote on 2012, he’ll need the state legislature to approve a dedicated funding source during the 2012 legislative session.

Given his record of working with the state legislature, that may be difficult.

In addition, he’ll also need federal funding, which will require the cooperation of Sound Transit. Patterson’s suggestion that he collaborate with his fellow Sound Transit Board members—the implication being that he has yet to do so–does not augur well.

Grover wrote:

“Totaling up passengers per Link train and comparing that to one bus is just stupid. More than one bus can load and unload at the same stop at the same time. But, more importantly, buses can run more frequently than light rail. So, instead of one 2-car train every 7.5 minutes, you could easily have 3 buses every 7.5 minutes, giving you the same total capacity as light rail, but with shorter headways, which is better for passengers.

Also, comparing buses which collect fares on boarding or deboarding to Link, with off-board payment is stupid. Obviously, paying when you board or leave creates longer dwell times. SWIFT has off-board payment, which is why it is fair to compare SWIFT dwell times to Link dwell times.

SWIFT buses also have 3 doors, instead of the 2 doors on many articluated buses. Again, it is stupid to compare articulated buses with only 2 doors to a Link car with 4 doors. That is why I used SWIFT buses to compare to Link.

I have ridden Link enough times to have a good idea of what its average dwell time is. At Westlake, where it gets the most boardings, the dwell time on southbound Link trains is often around 60 seconds. At other stations, I would say the miniimum dwell time is 20 seconds, with the average over 20 seconds. In fact, in the ST documents, I believe you will find that the dwell time ST uses when calculating expected travel time for Link is at least 20 seconds.”

Grover, you are a glutton for punishment. Now you’re making the argument that trains lag behind buses in frequency. A train can run every 2.5 minutes, too, as they do in many places around the world. Link’s frequency will increase to under 5 minute frequency in places in the coming 10 years or so.

When the frequencies get tight, trains actually have the advantage over buses, because they are less prone to “bunching.” Because buses get caught in traffic lights, and are delayed due to slower boarding, or to deploy ramps for the physically disabled, their spacing in tight frequencies can become bunched up. Take a look her for what happens when a disabled person boards a SWIFT bus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMjscxvLlOs

Due to the more numerous and wider doors, and floors that are level with platforms (luggage and wheelchairs can roll right on), trains are able to reliably operate at higher frequency of operation. Also, the labor costs are much lower when one driver can carry 9X as many people as an articulated bus. It is precisely for situations where bus after bus is crammed to capacity that the biggest payoffs are to be made by switching to high capacity rail transit. That’s why U-Link and North Link make the most sense of all the segments, because they will replace much of the service on a variety of routes, including some of the most busy and crowded routes such as the 71, 72, 73, 74, 41, 48, 43, and 49. The capital costs are considerable, but the result will be faster, more reliable, smoother service to passengers, at a lower operating cost per passenger than buses.

I don’t know where you pulled this $1.6 billion figure from, and I don’t really want to know.

Central link was $200 million a mile. The cost of the tunnel would bring us 20 miles of the stuff.

Scott, I’m digging your ideas, but just FYI, Link platforms can accommodate 4-car trains. One reason Link is so much more expensive than most other light rail systems is that it is really built closer to heavy rail metro line standards, in many ways, though not entirely so.

thanks T…

yeah, didnt realize they could accomodate four car trains…when i spoke with sound transit when they were originally putting in the columbia city station, they told me three cars…i must not have heard correctly. anyway…

thanks for the info!

Don’t feel bad. I think there are more knowledgable people down here anyway. For example, Trevor Griffey wrote:

“Reflecting the fractured state of city and regional transit politics, Seattle is hemorrhaging trains to nowhere. We are told we need light rail because it spurs local business, but the current Sound Transit route bypasses Southcenter mall for a park and ride and will similarly bypass the University District’s business district for a stadium that is used maybe 6 times a year for football. The 194 bus (RIP) got to Sea-Tac faster than light rail now does, and the 71, 72, and 73 get to the U-District faster than light rail will when they run on I-5 express lanes. ”

Bypassed the U-District’s business district? I assume he means the Ave, but of course it doesn’t bypass the Ave, it has yet to reach it, and it will be reached with North Link’s Brooklyn Station.

And the 71, 72, 73 don’t get to the U-District faster than Link will. Sound Transit claims 6 minutes between Westlake and UW, with a stop at Capitol Hill. Oran from STB has a video showing it taking about 6:30 to get between downtown and 42nd ave. But his video starts with the bus already on the way out of Convention Place Station. If you add in the time from Westlake, that would add at least 2 minutes. So even under ideal conditions for the bus, it is going to be slower than Link’s trip to UW with a stop at Capitol Hill.

Don’t get me started on the 194 (good riddance)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It3jmq_Ebw0

I-5 requires serious maintenance that will cost over $2 billion dollars. When link opens, it will reduce the number of cats on I-5, reducing the maintenance cost.

At the end of the day, while we talk about link’s cost, we’re spending over $10 billion on road projects in the next 6 years alone. For some reason, hardly anyone puts those projects to the same scrutiny.

You may notice that my arguments generally relate to U-Link and North Link and not Central Link. There’s a reason for that. Central Link through the Rainier Valley was not the ideal first route, especially without a plan for massive upzones and other infrastructure to create dense new walkable areas, but it’s water under the bridge now. It’s part of the system, and will be more of an asset as other lines comes on board.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2005/05/16/story1.html

Perhaps… but that’s not what you wrote above. And neither West Seattle or Ballard will be seeing a “doubling” of the number of buses per hour. In fact, the Rapid Ride lines are technically in danger of losing their budgets at the moment if worst case scenarios were to occur with federal budget funds and Metro tax collections.

Link has far higher operating costs than SWIFT or Metro buses. Not even close. In fact, Link light rail’s operating costs are about double what the operating costs of Metro buses are.

Buses can operate at far shorter headways than 2.5 minutes. The downtown tunnel used to accomodate about 90 buses per hour per direction, which is headways of about 40 seconds. That is far shorter headways than light rail is capable of. And, buses can operate with shorter headways than 40 seconds. Light rail can’t compare to that.

Also, buses can operate on many parallel streets, giving them a multitude of stops. The total number of buses which can pass through downtown on surface streets is far greater than the number of light rail cars which can use the downtown tunnel. Building a new rail tunnel under downtown would be insanely expensive, as the tunnel between downtown and UW is, at about $600 million per mile.

As far as “bunching” is concerned, this is particularly ridiculous, since light rail cars are not only “bunched” — they are physically connected to each other! lol So, it’s bad if two buses are very close together, but it’s great that two light rail cars are actually physically connected to each other? Too funny.

Were you able to comprehend the Community Transit website where it says the average dwell time of SWIFT buses is about 12 seconds? Or, do you need me to draw you a picture, you little glutton for punishment?

Streets are too damn narrow in much of Seattle to accommodate regular traffic and separated BRT Lanes. It won’t work unless the streets are widened. You have been hanging around too much with Ted VanDyk, it isn’t good for you.

Streets are too damn narrow in much of Seattle to accommodate regular traffic and separated BRT Lanes. It won’t work unless the streets are widened. You have been hanging around too much with Ted VanDyk, it isn’t good for you.

Oh, I try to only hang out with people who disagree with me on something, and in Seattle, that means transit and the tunnel

I’m going to stick with Eastlake for a tic, primarily because it’s the neighborhood I know best –

Eastlake Ave could easily accommodate bus only lanes in the outer two lanes. They’re both wide lanes, and would only require widening near the bridge.

Of course, in the end, it’s all just a fantasy in my brain. Bus only lanes would require a City Council that was majority transit-focuses, and unafraid to piss off NIMBYs by reducing capacity on certain arterial lanes. *le sigh*

How is Link going to reduce the number of “cats” on I-5? It will just take a few buses off of I-5, which are not taking up much space, anyway.

I-5 between UW and the middle of downtown will require $2 billion of maintenance? Says who? Please document that. I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. You just made that up, didn’t you?

In other words, BRT would have been much more intelligent than Central Link light rail on that route.

Not Seattle, most people have kids in their late thirties and early forties here. Maybe we should do this in cat generations. A lot of f*cking cats in this town

He genuinely cares about his vision for this city, he doesn’t appreciate it as it is…

Federal funding , ha ha.

The money from the feds is going to be sacrificed to keep social programs in place

Grover wrote:

“Link has far higher operating costs than SWIFT or Metro buses. Not even close. In fact, Link light rail’s operating costs are about double what the operating costs of Metro buses are.

Buses can operate at far shorter headways than 2.5 minutes. The downtown tunnel used to accomodate about 90 buses per hour per direction, which is headways of about 40 seconds. That is far shorter headways than light rail is capable of. And, buses can operate with shorter headways than 40 seconds. Light rail can’t compare to that.

Also, buses can operate on many parallel streets, giving them a multitude of stops. The total number of buses which can pass through downtown on surface streets is far greater than the number of light rail cars which can use the downtown tunnel. Building a new rail tunnel under downtown would be insanely expensive, as the tunnel between downtown and UW is, at about $600 million per mile.

As far as “bunching” is concerned, this is particularly ridiculous, since light rail cars are not only “bunched” — they are physically connected to each other! lol So, it’s bad if two buses are very close together, but it’s great that two light rail cars are actually physically connected to each other? Too funny.

Were you able to comprehend the Community Transit website where it says the average dwell time of SWIFT buses is about 12 seconds? Or, do you need me to draw you a picture, you little glutton for punishment?”

How about a source here…? What are SWIFT’s operating costs?

And are you aware that rail costs drop significantly with scale. For example, with a more mature system like Portland’s MAX, per passenger costs are lower for train than bus. Sound Transit’s operating costs for Link are already lower per rider than for its buses. Imagine how much lower Link’s costs will be when it adds U-Link and North Link, and switches to 4-car trains, while ridership triples or quadruples.

And Grover, this is just getting silly. Buses can operate on shorter than 40 second-headways? Are you crazy? No transit planner would schedule for that. One person on a wheel chair would make a mockery of such planning. Buses would be backed up for miles. As for bunching, most people don’t consider it a wise allocation of resources to have one bus absolutely packed to the gills while the bus behind it is almost empty. That’s what often happens with bunching. On rail, since all the train cars arrive together, passengers can more easily disperse themselves among the train cars. Ask any bus driver or frequent rider about this phenomenon if you still don’t get it.

Buses can drive and stop on any downtown street you say? Well, yes of course they can. Why didn’t New York or Boston or San Francisco or Taipei consider this amazing ability of buses instead of building subway systems!?

Sigh. I don’t know how many times I’ve explained this to you, but here goes: Rail and buses have different strengths. One is not superior to the other in every case.

Here are some advantages of each:

Buses:

•Are more flexible in routing
•Stop more frequently, allowing passengers a short walk to destinations
•Have lower capital costs by using existing road infrastructure
•Are more cost effective on routes with lower ridership/density

Rail transit:

•Operating costs are lower per passenger for routes with high ridership/density
•HIgher ridership due to central location justifies greater frequency than for bus routes
•Smoother, level ride, predictable braking and acceleration
•Faster speed in urban environments
•Grade-separated lines provide reliable, predictable trip durations
•Trains have longer operating life than buses
•Electric power doesn’t pollute city air
•Tourists and “choice” riders feel more comfortable riding rail lines
•Fixed lines and stations give investors the confidence to make big investments near stations

In sum, while you could go to comical lengths to try to use bus to serve ever increasing demand in dense urban locations, such situations signify conditions where rail starts to be an attractive alternative. This is probably why just about every city with population density of greater than 8000 people per square mile in North America seems to have invested in rail transit. Seattle’s density is increasing steadily; are we going to plan for the future?

http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm

Grover wrote:

“Link has far higher operating costs than SWIFT or Metro buses. Not even close. In fact, Link light rail’s operating costs are about double what the operating costs of Metro buses are.

Buses can operate at far shorter headways than 2.5 minutes. The downtown tunnel used to accomodate about 90 buses per hour per direction, which is headways of about 40 seconds. That is far shorter headways than light rail is capable of. And, buses can operate with shorter headways than 40 seconds. Light rail can’t compare to that.

Also, buses can operate on many parallel streets, giving them a multitude of stops. The total number of buses which can pass through downtown on surface streets is far greater than the number of light rail cars which can use the downtown tunnel. Building a new rail tunnel under downtown would be insanely expensive, as the tunnel between downtown and UW is, at about $600 million per mile.

As far as “bunching” is concerned, this is particularly ridiculous, since light rail cars are not only “bunched” — they are physically connected to each other! lol So, it’s bad if two buses are very close together, but it’s great that two light rail cars are actually physically connected to each other? Too funny.

Were you able to comprehend the Community Transit website where it says the average dwell time of SWIFT buses is about 12 seconds? Or, do you need me to draw you a picture, you little glutton for punishment?”

How about a source here…? What are SWIFT’s operating costs?

And are you aware that rail costs drop significantly with scale. For example, with a more mature system like Portland’s MAX, per passenger costs are lower for train than bus. Sound Transit’s operating costs for Link are already lower per rider than for its buses. Imagine how much lower Link’s costs will be when it adds U-Link and North Link, and switches to 4-car trains, while ridership triples or quadruples.

And Grover, this is just getting silly. Buses can operate on shorter than 40 second-headways? Are you crazy? No transit planner would schedule for that. One person on a wheel chair would make a mockery of such planning. Buses would be backed up for miles. As for bunching, most people don’t consider it a wise allocation of resources to have one bus absolutely packed to the gills while the bus behind it is almost empty. That’s what often happens with bunching. On rail, since all the train cars arrive together, passengers can more easily disperse themselves among the train cars. Ask any bus driver or frequent rider about this phenomenon if you still don’t get it.

Buses can drive and stop on any downtown street you say? Well, yes of course they can. Why didn’t New York or Boston or San Francisco or Taipei consider this amazing ability of buses instead of building subway systems!?

Sigh. I don’t know how many times I’ve explained this to you, but here goes: Rail and buses have different strengths. One is not superior to the other in every case.

Here are some advantages of each:

Buses:

•Are more flexible in routing
•Stop more frequently, allowing passengers a short walk to destinations
•Have lower capital costs by using existing road infrastructure
•Are more cost effective on routes with lower ridership/density

Rail transit:

•Operating costs are lower per passenger for routes with high ridership/density
•HIgher ridership due to central location justifies greater frequency than for bus routes
•Smoother, level ride, predictable braking and acceleration
•Faster speed in urban environments
•Grade-separated lines provide reliable, predictable trip durations
•Trains have longer operating life than buses
•Electric power doesn’t pollute city air
•Tourists and “choice” riders feel more comfortable riding rail lines
•Fixed lines and stations give investors the confidence to make big investments near stations

In sum, while you could go to comical lengths to try to use bus to serve ever increasing demand in dense urban locations, such situations signify conditions where rail starts to be an attractive alternative. This is probably why just about every city with population density of greater than 8000 people per square mile in North America seems to have invested in rail transit. Seattle’s density is increasing steadily; are we going to plan for the future?

http://trimet.org/about/dashboard.htm

But the tunnel money is highway money. It can’t be spent on light rail.

If the money doesn’t go a viaduct replacement, I’m sure the Legislature would be happy to court Eastside voters by moving it to the new SR-520 bridge. The only solution left for the viaduct will be the Orange Cone Solution.

Like the trolley lines over the Granville Bridge in Vancouver, BC?

Just sayin’.

Like the trolley lines over the Granville Bridge in Vancouver, BC?

Just sayin’.

Like the trolley lines over the Granville Bridge in Vancouver, BC?

Just sayin’.

Actually, you are wrong about what BRT costs need to be. To see a well-run BRT, come to Snohomish County. The Swift Buses run mostly on Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Aurora Village to Everett Station–on existing roads.

A Swift Bus has the ability to change traffic lights if it fall behind schedule.

The “Right Turn Only Except Buses” lane over a long stretch of Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Edmonds through Lynnwood works just fine, when coupled with the ability to turn traffic lights green. (Sorry, @Michalep. Those lanes aren’t a problem. Since everyone except buses must turn right at the next intersection, buses are the only through traffic in them.)

The Swift Bus route in Snohomish County is running far ahead of passenger estimates. It is clearly the most popular line for Community Transit. And, those buses are not stuck in traffic.

Actually, you are wrong about what BRT costs need to be. To see a well-run BRT, come to Snohomish County. The Swift Buses run mostly on Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Aurora Village to Everett Station–on existing roads.

A Swift Bus has the ability to change traffic lights if it fall behind schedule.

The “Right Turn Only Except Buses” lane over a long stretch of Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Edmonds through Lynnwood works just fine, when coupled with the ability to turn traffic lights green. (Sorry, @Michalep. Those lanes aren’t a problem. Since everyone except buses must turn right at the next intersection, buses are the only through traffic in them.)

The Swift Bus route in Snohomish County is running far ahead of passenger estimates. It is clearly the most popular line for Community Transit. And, those buses are not stuck in traffic.

Actually, you are wrong about what BRT costs need to be. To see a well-run BRT, come to Snohomish County. The Swift Buses run mostly on Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Aurora Village to Everett Station–on existing roads.

A Swift Bus has the ability to change traffic lights if it fall behind schedule.

The “Right Turn Only Except Buses” lane over a long stretch of Evergreen Way (SR-99) from Edmonds through Lynnwood works just fine, when coupled with the ability to turn traffic lights green. (Sorry, @Michalep. Those lanes aren’t a problem. Since everyone except buses must turn right at the next intersection, buses are the only through traffic in them.)

The Swift Bus route in Snohomish County is running far ahead of passenger estimates. It is clearly the most popular line for Community Transit. And, those buses are not stuck in traffic.

CT runs the Swift Buses on regular traffic lanes without problem. See my comments above.

CT runs the Swift Buses on regular traffic lanes without problem. See my comments above.

All you do is make unsubstantiated claims.

ST light rail is almost twice as expensive to operate as Metro buses. That is true. Your claims that sometime in the future light rail would be less expensive than buses in our area is just conjecture and fantasy. Across the nation, on average light rail is more expensive to operate than BRT. That is from a national study. And ST’s light rail is among the very most expensive in the entire country. You just make stuff up, with nothing to back it up.

This is not Portland, and ST’s light rail is very much more expensive than Portland’s light rail. To keep talking about Portland as if it is Sound Transit is just ignorant and meaningless. Would you please stop that stupid comparison? Portlands operating cost for light rail has nothing to do with Sound Transit’s operating cost. That argument is just stupid. Stop wasting everyone’s time talking about Portland. This is not Portland, in case you haven’t noticed.

SWIFT’s operating cost is expected to be about $5 million this year, compared to about $50 million for Link light rail. SWIFT is averaging around 3,500 boarding’s/weekday, compared to around 21,000/day for Link. So, LINK’s operating cost is about 10 times as high as SWIFT’s, but LINK’s boardings/weekday is only about 6 times as high. Therefore, LINK’s operating cost per weekday boarding is almost twice that of SWIFT buses.

And the capital cost of LINK light rail is many times more than for SWIFT bus. SWIFT was around $30 million and Link was about $2.6 BILLION. So, Link cost about 86 times as much as SWIFT, and is averaging only about 6 times as many boardings/weekday. So, on a per-boarding basis, the capital cost of LINK light rail was about 14 times that of SWIFT buses. For what?

Buses can easily have 30-second headways. That is exactly what Metro calculates the capacity of the downtown tunnel was before light rail started using it — 120 buses per hour per direction. Metro never had enough buses capable of using the downtown tunnel to operate at that level, which is why the most they every ran was about 90 buses per hour per direction.

Stop comparing Seattle to New York or San Francisco. You only display your ignorance when you compare Seattle to other cities like those. If you like those cities so much, why don’t you move to one of them?

The problem with light rail in our area is that it is just insanely expensive. It is not worth anything close to what it costs. For the same money we could move a lot more people to a lot more places on buses than we can on light rail.

@T_Chen You keep comparing _regular_ buses to light rail. You don’t seem to understand the concept of BRT.

Swift Buses only stop every mile or so, if that frequently. They don’t bunch. If one falls behind, it can change traffic signals to green until it is back on schedule.

Yes, light rail would be faster to ride after you have built it. But, first you have to build it, which takes time and a lot of money. You can implement BRT quicker and cheaper now to give us help now, while we are waiting for light rail.

Swift Buses can change traffic lights if it falls behind in schedule.

Evergreen Way (SR-99) through Edmonds and Lynnwood had its right lane turned into “Right Turn Only Except Transit” at all traffic lights. This means the right lane doesn’t have through traffic in it. (And if the bus is running late, it changes the traffic light.)

BRT is very workable.

The original proposal was to start with light rail from the U-District to Downtown. (How fast they forget.) After ST1 was approved, the engineers discovered they had goofed in their design. They hadn’t figured right for the type of soils under Capitol Hill.

The decision to go from Downtown to go almost to SeaTac was the consolation prize, because that is what they could build with the money they had. (Adding the last stop at the airport came later.)

ST2 had new money for Downtown to the U-District, after the engineers re-did their designs to account for what was actually there.

To add to what @SeaTowner said, the Green and Orange lines in Boston run almost parallel for a few miles going west. It isn’t that far of a walk to go north from the Orange line to get to Fenway Park (if you are used to walking) as it is to take the Green line, which goes very close to Fenway.

You can run buses following each other at about 8 second intervals (what they teach CT drivers to follow when on the freeway). Trains can’t follow near that close.

This site:

http://www.artba.org/about/faqs-transportation–general-public/faqs/#20

claims $1.25 million per mile for four lanes. WA DOT source:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/86DF8F42-BD2A-438A-A216-6AA2C1A42133/0/GrayNotebookDec10.pdf

Says $250,000 per lane-mile for asphalt (page 15) but does not indicate if this just materials or full costs. A FAQ on their webpage claims a 16 year lifespan for hot asphalt but I’m skeptical considering how often I see freeway repaving projects (note that I’m aware that interstates often get modified asphalts that work better for the conditions but I can’t find better information on costs without a lot more searching).

So, repaving I-5 is at least $1.5 million per mile (the narrower six or so lane areas downtown). And I’m not sure how much of the costs this includes. That’s just repaving. No doubt there are many planned projects that are more than just repaving. There is a list here:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/?s=county-king,funding,location,route-i5#listing

But I haven’t looked at costs yet.

To say “nothing he does makes sense” is nonsense. It is quite sensible to oppose the bored tunnel for a long list of credible reasons. As a candidate, he did promise to at least study light rail to Ballard & West Seattle. Keeping promises is sign of personal integrity.

Downtown Seattle transit for far too long has been poorly arranged. There are more buses roaring through downtown than necessary and not enough buses at the same time. More people are left standing as buses roar by mostly empty. The new “master transit plan” effort is not being conducted by the kind of master the public can trust. I suspect SDOT and Metro is still led by an ‘Old School’ cadre which takes its cues from basic transit designs that date back to the 1950′s.

The Lake Union Streetcar Line SHOULD EXTEND to Pike Place Market with a terminus or turnaround there. One mile of track and 4 or 5 stops, relatively inexpensive and should double ridership overnight.

The Waterfront Streetcar Line should be re-entered into the design for the new Alaskan Way, and it should connect to the First Hill Streetcar Line. The proposed 1st Ave Streetcar Line is probably not going to happen. Trolleybus is more ideal on 1st Ave. And Trolleybus is more ideal for the steep hillclimbs. Yet, the “master planners” plan neglects these ideal applications. oh well.

(bangs head on desk) let me paraphrase: “people will move out of Seattle because there will be too many people living in Seattle.” Is that about right? Sounds logical to me [/sarcasm].

Besides, our urban villages have turned out to be great for single family homes. Every neighborhood now has a lively interesting little town center to shop or eat at, but the NIMBYs can still live in their single family homes, untouched. How is that not a win-win?

@BobChapman

Bob, I don’t think you understand what we’re arguing about, which is understandable since it is a long drawn out battle. I understand the nature of SWIFT, and I support SWIFT.

Grover is in a quixotic battle to convince everyone that a SWIFT-style BRT system is right for every scenario, including in dense urban commutes such as between downtown and Broadway and the U-District. My point is that buses and rail are different tools. Both a hammer and a scalpel are good tools, but they’re not the best tool for every application. SWIFT mostly operates along the highway, not through hilly, narrow, congested urban streets. SWIFT’s route and the U-Link route could hardly be more different.

@BobChapman

Bob, I don’t think you understand what we’re arguing about, which is understandable since it is a long drawn out battle. I understand the nature of SWIFT, and I support SWIFT.

Grover is in a quixotic battle to convince everyone that a SWIFT-style BRT system is right for every scenario, including in dense urban commutes such as between downtown and Broadway and the U-District. My point is that buses and rail are different tools. Both a hammer and a scalpel are good tools, but they’re not the best tool for every application. SWIFT mostly operates along the highway, not through hilly, narrow, congested urban streets. SWIFT’s route and the U-Link route could hardly be more different.

@ Grover

“All you do is make unsubstantiated claims.”

Actually, I provided a Link to the claim about MAX operating costs. I’ve provided a lot more links for my claims than you have.

“ST light rail is almost twice as expensive to operate as Metro buses. That is true. Your claims that sometime in the future light rail would be less expensive than buses in our area is just conjecture and fantasy. Across the nation, on average light rail is more expensive to operate than BRT. That is from a national study. And ST’s light rail is among the very most expensive in the entire country. You just make stuff up, with nothing to back it up.

This is not Portland, and ST’s light rail is very much more expensive than Portland’s light rail. To keep talking about Portland as if it is Sound Transit is just ignorant and meaningless. Would you please stop that stupid comparison? Portlands operating cost for light rail has nothing to do with Sound Transit’s operating cost. That argument is just stupid. Stop wasting everyone’s time talking about Portland. This is not Portland, in case you haven’t noticed.”

Again, sources please for your claims please! But I’ll concede that I know that Link’s operating costs are higher than METRO buses now, but of course when I consider the benefits of a line that is under construction I am going to look toward the future. Link’s operating costs per passenger have dropped 30% in one year, from $9.40 to $6.44. In that time, boardings grew by roughly 30%. Coincidence? I think not. You see, most of the operating costs of rail are fixed, so adding more riders lowers the cost per passenger. Since Link is expected to see ridership increases of 300-400% in the next decade with U-Link and North Link (but only adding 5 stations, thus limiting operating cost increases), it’s fair to assume that we will see operating costs per passenger drop sharply. Tell me why this is unreaosnable. In fact the onus should be on you: Why would you expect that operating costs should be fixed at early 2011 levels as ridership dramatically expands in the next decade.

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q4_2010.pdf

“SWIFT’s operating cost is expected to be about $5 million this year, compared to about $50 million for Link light rail. SWIFT is averaging around 3,500 boarding’s/weekday, compared to around 21,000/day for Link. So, LINK’s operating cost is about 10 times as high as SWIFT’s, but LINK’s boardings/weekday is only about 6 times as high. Therefore, LINK’s operating cost per weekday boarding is almost twice that of SWIFT buses.”

Sources, please…

“Buses can easily have 30-second headways. That is exactly what Metro calculates the capacity of the downtown tunnel was before light rail started using it — 120 buses per hour per direction. Metro never had enough buses capable of using the downtown tunnel to operate at that level, which is why the most they every ran was about 90 buses per hour per direction.”

When you talk about 30-second headways, I suspect you’re taking, say, 3-4 buses entering the tunnel at the same time, stopping and leaving after 90-120 seconds and dividing that time by the number of buses total in the tunnel. That’s a different story than a bus being schedule to come and go every 30 seconds, which would give absolutely no flex in the scheduling for all sorts of delays that arise.

“Stop comparing Seattle to New York or San Francisco. You only display your ignorance when you compare Seattle to other cities like those. If you like those cities so much, why don’t you move to one of them?”

I compared us to Boston, too. It’s about the size (population) and 50% more dense than Seattle. What cities would you compare Seattle to? Since you dismiss comparisons with some of the most dense US cities, at what population/density would you support rail transit in Seattle?

“The problem with light rail in our area is that it is just insanely expensive. It is not worth anything close to what it costs. For the same money we could move a lot more people to a lot more places on buses than we can on light rail.”

Finally, you make a reasonable argument. For me, supporting light rail is based on my sense of what the future holds. I see a future of increasing energy prices, increasing density in cities, and for me a major investment that allows Seattle to adapt gracefully to that coming day is worth it. Maybe I’m wrong about the future. Maybe in 20-30 years Seattleites will look back and curse us for making these investments in rail. Or maybe it will have been the start towards a more sustainable and energy efficient future for Seattle.

I’m all for extending the LU street car north along Eastlake to tie into U-district and coming Brooklyn Station for LRT.

Also support extending LU street car west along Olive/Stewart to 1st Ave. I don’t think it will reach Pike Place however since the grade between 1st and Pike Place is very steep (10%+). If you turn the line south on 1st, you really have a 1st Ave alignment.

I hear the opposite in regards to 1st Ave street car vs. waterfont street car.

New 1st Ave street car would connect with Lake Union Street car at Stewart, stop at 1st and Pike (Market entrance), Pioneer Square, and could link to King Street Station (and 1st Hill Street car).

Waterfont street car is seen as linking a bunch of destinations, but no origins. Ridership on the old waterfont street car was low.

What is needed in addition to the SLU extensions and 1st Ave line is new east-west transit between the waterfront and downtown core. A funicular (or two) may be a good choice on some of the steeper streets connecting to the waterfront.

“Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

“Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

“Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.”

The 1st Ave Streetcar line is proposed to have stations in the middle of the street. Bad idea. Station designwork has hit a major roadblock and is put on hold. Center stations don’t mix well with curbside bus service and they’re not user friendly. Installing the line in the curb lane is better but will back up traffic at stops and cause hazardous lane changes to pass stopped streetcars. Trolleybuses pull out of traffic at their stops, integrates with other buses, affordably operates more vehicles to achieve recommended frequent service. All this means a 1st Ave Streetcar Line won’t operate as well as specially designed trolleybus system there.

The Lake Union Streetcar Line need only reach 1st Ave at a reverse-direction terminus, or return to Westlake on a one-way loop. It’s 1 mile of single-track. Extension to UW is over 4 miles of double-track.
“Yeah man, like, streetcar is like, totally like, cool like, wherever, man. And like, you want to like, run it down Pike Place and back up a 10 degree steep hill, man, and that’s like not cool, like, you know, man?”

The proposed bridge over the RR tracks at Broad St should be viable and could handle the Waterfront Streetcar Line. From there, it’s about 1 mile of double-track to Seattle Center via Elliott, across Western to 3rd Ave W, east on Republican to a terminus at 1st Ave. The Waterfront Streetcar to Seattle Center Line with 5 or 6 stops, an ideal route currently not served with any kind of transit. “Nope, dopedee-doh, nope. Don’t wanna do dat. Me got bettah ideah. Go smart callige place, get brains paper.”

Since you’re into trolleybuses, here’s some things to think about:

The 1st Ave Streetcar line is proposed to have stations in the middle of the street. Bad idea. Station designwork has hit a major roadblock and is put on hold. Center stations don’t mix well with curbside bus service and aren’t user friendly. Installing the line in the curb lane is better but will back up traffic at stops and cause hazardous lane changes to pass stopped streetcars. Trolleybuses pull out of traffic at their stops, integrate with other buses, and can affordably operate more vehicles to achieve recommended frequent service.

This means a 1st Ave Streetcar Line won’t operate as well as specially designed trolleybus system there.

The Lake Union Streetcar Line need only reach 1st Ave at a reverse-direction terminus, or return to Westlake on a one-way loop. It’s 1 mile of single-track. Extension to UW is over 4 miles of double-track.

This relatively inexpensive streetcar extension west would double ridership overnight.

The proposed bridge over the RR tracks at Broad St should be viable and could handle the Waterfront Streetcar Line. From there, it’s about 1 mile of double-track to Seattle Center via Elliott, across Western to 3rd Ave W, east on Republican to a terminus at 1st Ave. A Waterfront Streetcar to Seattle Center Line, an ideal route currently not served with any kind of transit.

This means the Waterfront Streetcar Line should be back in the new Alaskan Way planning.
FWIW, the current SDOT design for Alaskan Way won’t manage traffic adequately even with the DBT.
Go figure.

Bob,

Running buses through multilane highways in sparsely populated suburban areas is a different beast than through narrow streets in dense, urban population centers. SWIFT seems to be well-run, but you can’t just saw that because it works well on a highway route in Snohomish county that it would work well in the densest core areas of Seattle.

The mistakes of the Monorail project were many: governance, financing, and leadership are probably the top three.

Metro and Sound Transit are unlikely to provide Seattle with the transit service we need. Due to our higher density the natural amount of transit in Seattle is just much higher than other parts of the county or the region. Unless the transit agencies deploy capacity based on demand, rather than population, Seattle needs to augment what the regional organizations are doing.

I wrote about this in more detail on my blog
http://www.sustainablewestseattle.org/2010/05/the-energy-blog-by-andy-silber-6/

Not sure who you are quoting when you lapse into your smug “statements” about possible street car lines. Are you flashing back into time, to a young, idealist Wells, pre-paranoid rants, pre-bitter ideologue? Just you and some ‘buds hanging down at the local McMenamins, trying to clear your head from too much “Portlandia”??

If not, you sure do an effective job of undermining any points you are trying to get accross. Funny!

As for 1st Ave Street car, center, or side running, you are getting hung up on design details – get out of the weeds. Nothing you mention is a fatal flaw, and that couldn’t be ironed out through refinement.

As for Waterfront Street Car, fine with me, I just was reporting what I have heard. If you look at my post, I am not stating a preference.

If you want to run it up the new Elliott-Western connector through Belltown to Seattle Center, fine by me. I have seen a few ot the alternatives for that structure, non that have made accomodations for street car.

My “quoted” smug statements ridicule “your” inability to comprehend simple, straightforward logic. I did not propose running the Lake Union Streetcar on a 10 degree incline, nor on the connector to Elliott and Western. You’re intentionally combative. You compulsively denigrate any viewpoint disagrees with yours.
I recommend you consult a psychologist about your nuerotic behavior. The proposed 1st Ave Streetcar Line is indeed fatally flawed. Nevermind. You’re a lost cause.

Ooh, an angry man behind a keyboard. I’m so frightened, Carlton.

Downtown Seattle needs a better transit design because of its hills, not because of its density. Metro is mired in “Old School” transit theory that simply deposits commuters downtown with no regard for completing trips around the inner-city. With such a system, motorists could (and should) park anywhere and finish trips via transit. Seattle needs a high-frequency downtown transit design that is separate from but integrates into regional transit.

Sure thing “dude”..

There is no “proposed bridge over the RR tracks at Broad St” that is being considered by anyone involved with the waterfront project.

The Elliot-Western connector is the current plan. Right now, there isn’t a plan to put street car on it, but there is nothing that would physically preclude that, so it could happen. (See? I’m not arguing your point, just keeping you informed)

And besides… not including the Elliott-Western connector would jeopardize Port of Seattle funding towards the deep-bore tunnel.

I’m sure that sits well with you.. right?.

Cheers!

Wrong. The main reason the monorail was rejected was its poor engineering and unacceptably high impact. DOT engineers never admit mistakes. They always deflect blame onto the beaurocracy. The DOT engineers knew the project as (they) proposed would ultimately be rejected.

Is Carlton’s use of “Il Duce” considered an example of Godwin’s law?

Is Carlton’s use of “Il Duce” considered an example of Godwin’s law?

Is Carlton’s use of “Il Duce” considered an example of Godwin’s law?

You’re right I didn’t know about the Brooklyn station. Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn’t in plans I heard about years ago, which at the time bypassed the U-District for the stadium. But I’m happy to learn about it.

Not sure where you get the 6 minutes from Westlake to UW info. Not only does Sound Transit’s web site say 8 minutes to UW, but the UW stop mainly serves the Medical Center, stadiums, and for a little extra walk south campus. For a number of folks in the liberal arts, social sciences, professional schools and administration, Brooklyn will be the stop of choice. Either way, that light rail will be faster than the 70 buses during rush hour is to be expected. It would be embarrassing if light rail weren’t faster. But if you ran bus only lanes instead of express lanes that served the UW all day (those buses use express lanes when they can), how much time difference would there be between the two options, and how would the cost compare with light rail? Or try the same thing with a surface street example, perhaps eliminating on-street parking for bus only lanes. That was the point I was trying to make. Not that light rail is terrible. But that its benefits are framed in no small part by ignoring the question of what BRT might be able to accomplish if taken seriously.

I would like Aurora Avenue modernized with Rapit Transit. Modern Avenue Modern Busses a la SWIFT.
I want a streetcar on Greenwood Avenue from North 145th to Holman Road and down 8th Avenue NW to Market Street and across to the Locks.
Light rail seems far too expensive for our transit needs.
Richard L. Dyksterhuis
SAFE WALKS!

Sorry about picking on you. I didn’t mean to be a jerk, I just think there’s a lot of knowledge about local transit systems down here amongst the common folk.

The six minute figure I have seen in print before, but can’t seem to pull it up from a web search right now. I do have a flyer from Sound Transit from May 2010 that is titled “North Link Light Rail” that quotes times of 14 minutes from Downtown Seattle to Northgate, and 8 minutes from Northgate to UW Station. That gives you 6 minutes between UW and Westlake. Considering that Link trains can run at 55+ mph, and the distance between downtown and UW is 3.1 miles, a six-minute time sounds reasonable, even considering a 1 minute pause to decelerate and stop at Capitol Hill.

You’re right that BRT could be done better, but that would require political will to remove car lanes that doesn’t seem to exist in this city right now. It also wouldn’t ultimately provide service quite on par with U-Link (especially to Capitol Hill), and wouldn’t have rail’s advantages of lower operating costs with 4-car trains carry 500-800 passengers per driver instead of 80ish passengers per driver.

But if someone proposes special transit only lanes from West Seattle or Ballard to Downtown I’ll certain be supportive of that!

What is sad here, is all of these “supporters of “better bus service”" probably are people who drive everywhere and have actually never stepped foot on a bus or train. On top of that, if you, ANY ONE of you on here had the choice to hop on a bus, or train (both going to same location…..bus traveling on the street (dedicated bus lane), train on it’s own dedicated ROW) you would take the train without a 2nd thought. I guarantee this 100%. And on top of that you would get there faster on the train. (I think everyone here values there time more than anything) Anyone who thinks or “supports bus instead of rail” are actually against mass transit and would much rather see I5 be 20 lanes in each direction paved over all of Seattle.

umm…the old library lasted longer than a generation, as did the Kingdome. I think I get what you’re trying to say, but your examples are poorly chosen.

First, the Publicola question seems somewhat incorrect and unfair. Mayor McGinn would not ask Seattle to go it alone; he would raise funds in Seattle and from the federal government and buy transit capital and service from ST and Metro. When Seattle under Nickels-Drago built the half-baked Seattle Streetcar, SLU Line, they got some federal grants. So, Seattle would get both fiscal help from others and technical and operational cooperation from the transit agencies. Whatever Seattle does to improve transit, it should fit with what the other agencies do.

Second, the Seattle Transit Plan update is still in formation. Several modes are under consideration. Getting through downtown Seattle will have much to say about mode selection. The fiscal demands of transport in Seattle are immense; they include pavement management, bridge retrofit and replacment, sidewalks, a seawall, arterials around the deep bore portals, and transit.

McGinn has several things correct. It is appropriate for Seattle to spend more on transit than the remainder of King County and the remainder of the overly large ST district. Transit, especially high capacity transit, is much more relevant in Seattle with its fairly walkable street grid and greater density. He also is willing to consider devoting more street space to transit. Note that ST and the previous Seattle administrations widened MLK Jr. Way South for south-first Link rather than take lanes for transit, as Portland might have. One of the limits of the ST three-county district is its overly large size and use of the same tax rate throughout. The impatience of Seattle voters for good transit is what led to the monorail. McGinn shares that impatience.

It is odd that both McGinn and Councilmember Bagshaw voice envy over transit in Portland. If Seattle wants to become a resilient and superior transit metropolis, it must look for examples everywhere. Portland is like the little sister; its downtown is smaller, it is flatter, its parking is cheaper and more plentiful. Yes, they have done several things well: use available street rights of way, bike infrastructure, and a frequent transit network. But the journey to work data shows that more folks use transit in Seattle. Seattle should also look to its big sisters: Vancouver BC and San Fransisco. They both have high capacity transit that is grade separated, electric trolleybuses, more density, and a higher transit mode share and fare box recovery. We could also look at Latin American cities that have provided high capacity with buses and provided more bike infrastructure. Europe has many fine examples. It should also look to its own history for authetic solutions true to its geography and community.

The ST Link system between Northgate and Mt Baker will be great. But is not expected to be implemented until 2021. The bonds to pay for it will require a long stream of tax revenue.

It is insufficient to rely on Metro and ST alone. Seattle will have to step up just to maintain current transit. But whatever Seattle does to improve transit, it must be a partner with WSDOT, ST, Metro, and Shoreline. Seattle controls its own lane space, curb space, sidewalks, city light, signal timing, and zoning. But it must be clever and cost-effective.