Comments on: More on the McGinn Proposal

By: Conlin: Rail to West Seattle, Fremont, Ballard – Soon - Seattle Transit Blog

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:47:24 +0000

[...] This isn’t exactly the McGinn vision, but it would certainly appear that the chances of this kind of thing actually happening just went [...]

By: First Hill Streetcar Funding Agreement Coming - Seattle Transit Blog

First Hill Streetcar Funding Agreement Coming - Seattle Transit Blog — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:03:02 +0000

[...] on the other hand, caused a stir in the transit community last week by promising to hold a vote for in-city light rail expansion in two years [...]

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:33:09 +0000

As with the DSTT, there is simply no room for more trains in the Brooklyn-Northgate segment. After ST2 is built out the downtown trains will fill it to capacity.

By: Cascadian

Cascadian — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:45:14 +0000

A fully-built regional system really needs to connect north and south of Lake Washington, and connecting two lines on either side of the Central Line is the way to do it.

Any way you look at other planned lines it starts to look like the eventual next step. If you’re in Ballard, a connection with the Central Line at Northgate (as imagined in the old monorail expansion plans post-Green Line) is a clear next step. Once there, Lake City’s a station away (then Lake Forest Park/Kenmore/Bothell). To the south, after West Seattle you see Burien, which in turn is close to Seatac (possibly) and Tukwila (connecting with Central Link), and then Renton. From East Link, Bellevue to Renton makes sense, as does Bellevue-Kirkland, then to Bothell. In my mind the two lines would meet at UW Bothell with the Northshore segment continuing on to a terminus in Woodinville and the 405 line continuing on to Canyon Park and then Lynnwood where it would connect with North Link.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:03:22 +0000

It’s not a question of McGinn vs a more experienced pro-transit candidate. It’s a question of McGinn vs a solidly anti-transit candidate (if I read Mallahan right). Even if McGinn muddles along and fails, it’s better than somebody who would definitively turn the switch off and prioritize automobiles and set us back years. The viaduct tunnel we can live with if we have to; it just means money down the drain like the stadiums were. What’s more important is somebody who prioritizes transit overall, even if he’s just doing it in reaction to the polls.

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:55:45 +0000

SF Muni also has a lot of Decidated ROW and grade separation (Long subway form West Portal to Embarcadero).

By: Scott Stidell

Scott Stidell — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:55:26 +0000

Oran’s Canal Line could interline through Brooklyn and Roosevelt stations with the Northgate line, then split and follow the Forward Thrust line through Lake City and onward, eventually becoming a Ballard-Bothell/Woodinville line. You’d have to transfer to get downtown from LC at either Brooklyn or Roosevelt, but the frequency on the Northgate line would be high enough that it would be a very short wait at most times. This transfer would exist from LC and points north anyway at either Roosevelt or Northgate, whether existing bus or HCT.

I do think N’gate should have been served from the Ballard-Greenwood direction, and Lake City from the UW–with decent crosstown bus service this would have given two rail options to much of the North End. Ah, well.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:51:13 +0000

Applause to Tony the Economist. Your first paragraph said what I was going to say only better.

Garrison Bromwell: “How come the most successful light rail systems (Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco Muni) are NOT grade separated entirely?”

Those are examples of what not to do. Downtown Portland takes forever to cross, both because of surface streets and too many stations. Rapid transit is supposed to be rapid. A few surface segments may be acceptable, but not most of the system, and definitely not in the central part. Otherwise you end up with a light rail that’s little more than a streetcar.

The problem is these systems are voted for by people who don’t ride transit: they expect other people to ride transit, and have no concept of what it would really be like to not have a car and use that transit system exclusively.If you’re making several trips a day, a fast efficient system makes a big difference over a slow surface route.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:02:28 +0000

A rectangular route going Ballard – downtown – West Seattle – Burien – Tukwila I.B. – Southcenter – Renton – Bellevue – 520 – UW – Ballard would make a lot of sense and leverage existing proposals. (Burien-Southcenter-Renton has been widely proposed for ST3. Ballard-Burien has gotten some notice, and Ballard-UW-Kirkland has been suggested.)

Even if it can only be built piecemeal, it would be good to not build something incompatible with that, so that it can be extended later.

I’m not sure about going north from Ballard, but clearly Ballard – Northgate would be logical.

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:54:22 +0000

Depends on how you define successful. Zurich has one of the most successful transit systems in the world with a higher modal split than any of the cities you mention, and the core of their system is streetcars and trolleybuses. They achieved the high modal split not by burying trains, but by giving priority to transit over cars on city streets. City life in Zurich is built around easy, street-level access to fast, frequent, and reliable transit lines.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:42:36 +0000

Seattle could really use some way of moving people up and down the hill. A streetcar would be nice, as would a funicular. Hey, maybe just a ski lift?

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:25:35 +0000

Yeah, that’s the line I’d have in mind, give or take.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:56:39 +0000

Wait, was he supposed to read voters’ minds instead of asking them for ideas? I always like my own ideas better than the candidates’ ones.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:55:03 +0000

Another way to do it would be to make a streetcar that can run on Link voltage running in a loop along the waterfront, north end of downtown, through downtown, Pioneer Square, etc. Makes heading downtown a two seat ride, but have center platforms and tranfers are easy. Total fantasyland, but it would help.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:52:37 +0000

Most successful? Don’t forget Moscow, Mexico City and Vienna. Vienna has every conceivable type of rail.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:50:36 +0000

A nice thing about parts of Western is that downtown streets don’t bisect it at every single block where the hill is really steep; four-car stations could fit at the surface of that station.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:49:17 +0000

I think maybe some of us are fantasizing about two different lines; i.e., the McGinn Line continuing northeast via Northgate and Lake City and far beyond, and an east-west canal line that does in fact dead end.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:47:31 +0000

Like Woodinville-Bellevue-Renton-Burien-and let’s not forget White Center? That would be so cool.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:44:16 +0000

Sand Point way seems super-wide, too…

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:25:16 +0000

I, too, have softspot for this corridor. I think the issue is clearer if Ballard goes on to Northgate rather than UW. Then it’s a no-brainer for 522 trains to continue on to Ballard.

If you really want to go far out Lake City Northgate/Ballard/DT/West Seattle could be the Seattle leg of a 405/Lake Washington line.