Comments on: The Cross-Lake Battle That Already Ended http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/ Transit in the Greater Seattle Area Fri, 25 May 2012 21:03:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75847 Martin H. Duke Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:06:26 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75847 Bernie, I don't know if we need a new map or something. The Northgate trains are going to run every 2-3 minutes. Since East Link and Rainier Valley have at-grade segments they're never going to run any faster than 6 minutes. An obvious solution is to have every other southbound train either go East or continue South. Capacity isn't just people per train, it's also number of trains.
Bernie, I don’t know if we need a new map or something.

The Northgate trains are going to run every 2-3 minutes. Since East Link and Rainier Valley have at-grade segments they’re never going to run any faster than 6 minutes. An obvious solution is to have every other southbound train either go East or continue South.

Capacity isn’t just people per train, it’s also number of trains.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75706 Bernie Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:41:11 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75706 But it doesn't matter. All of the eastside trains are going through the tunnel either way. Total number of trains is unaffected irregardless of which route they take. East Link can not add more demand than they supply because all the trains these people arrive on continue to DT. It doesn't matter if they bypass UW, stop at UW and continue directly DT or go north and return to downtown. There's no way the lack of capacity issue holds. In fact (if there is a stop at UW) some number of people will disembark for destinations in the U District and north and easy demand on the DSTT. Now, the connections to Central Link would most certainly be considerably more challenging. There's lots of options and none are easy or cheap. That's a different discussion. But, the options would be entirely different if 520 had been included in the DEIS from the beginning. What we're left with is... it's impossible but 520 is rail compatible. I have common sense disconnect with that.
But it doesn’t matter. All of the eastside trains are going through the tunnel either way. Total number of trains is unaffected irregardless of which route they take. East Link can not add more demand than they supply because all the trains these people arrive on continue to DT. It doesn’t matter if they bypass UW, stop at UW and continue directly DT or go north and return to downtown. There’s no way the lack of capacity issue holds. In fact (if there is a stop at UW) some number of people will disembark for destinations in the U District and north and easy demand on the DSTT.

Now, the connections to Central Link would most certainly be considerably more challenging. There’s lots of options and none are easy or cheap. That’s a different discussion. But, the options would be entirely different if 520 had been included in the DEIS from the beginning. What we’re left with is… it’s impossible but 520 is rail compatible. I have common sense disconnect with that.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75670 Martin H. Duke Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:03:01 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75670 Bernie, It's true that the Eastside people to into the DSTT either way, but the point is they're sharing capacity with the South Link people instead of North Link. South Link is using less capacity, if for no other reason than it runs partially at-grade. That's the whole point we've been making.
Bernie,

It’s true that the Eastside people to into the DSTT either way, but the point is they’re sharing capacity with the South Link people instead of North Link. South Link is using less capacity, if for no other reason than it runs partially at-grade. That’s the whole point we’ve been making.

]]> By: John Jensen http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75647 John Jensen Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:44:05 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75647 Really, things are not bidirectional. Comparing car traffic to transit traffic isn't scientific. Things are spread out on the Eastside -- and harder to reach efficiently via transit. Things are not spread out Downtown. It is much easier, in other words, to take trains and buses into Downtown than to use them to exit the city toward your job. That's why you have the capacity limitations at the UW stadium stop. I think the burden of proof is on you to illustrate why Sound Transit is wrong through more concrete evidence rather than anecdotal examples of what you feel would happen. I mean, are we really supposed to take "common sense" over an actual analysis of ridership patterns? Forcing a transfer to reach the primary destination of East Link riders would be frustrating. Reaching the station from the 520's height would be a serious technical challenge. A route that reaches Downtown Bellevue is not going to have the speed of the 545. 520 makes sense for an eventual line that goes toward Wallingford/Fremont/Ballard, sure. But at that point you're going to have East Link serving a lot of riders heading into Downtown, avoiding the serious congestion issues we're discussing in this thread.
Really, things are not bidirectional. Comparing car traffic to transit traffic isn’t scientific. Things are spread out on the Eastside — and harder to reach efficiently via transit. Things are not spread out Downtown. It is much easier, in other words, to take trains and buses into Downtown than to use them to exit the city toward your job. That’s why you have the capacity limitations at the UW stadium stop.

I think the burden of proof is on you to illustrate why Sound Transit is wrong through more concrete evidence rather than anecdotal examples of what you feel would happen. I mean, are we really supposed to take “common sense” over an actual analysis of ridership patterns?

Forcing a transfer to reach the primary destination of East Link riders would be frustrating. Reaching the station from the 520′s height would be a serious technical challenge. A route that reaches Downtown Bellevue is not going to have the speed of the 545.

520 makes sense for an eventual line that goes toward Wallingford/Fremont/Ballard, sure. But at that point you’re going to have East Link serving a lot of riders heading into Downtown, avoiding the serious congestion issues we’re discussing in this thread.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75642 Bernie Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:14:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75642 That's a given and why we have so many stations there. But looking at the cross lake traffic "to and from" is very much bidirectional at all times of the day. If it weren't then changing the reversible lanes on I-90 to being bi-directional would be a total disaster. Capital Hill is not a huge jobs destination and people living there more and more are trying to get to jobs on the eastside. The group commuting to down town will still do so but the net effect of moving East Link to 520 would have been to reduce the number of riders on the train in the DSTT. People on the eastside and trying to commute across the lake are largely trying to get to jobs DT but some (and I don't think it insignificant are trying to get to the U District and points north of DT. With East Link on I-90 <i>all</i> of those people come into downtown and <i>all</i> of the trains will move through the DSTT and the tunnel from DT to the U District. If the eastside trains connect at Montlake they would go to Northgate and then return to DT before reversing in SODO . The result is no difference in trains through the DT and Capitol Hill tunnels but you've siphoned of a good portion of the people. And actually, if you maintained a crossover at Montlake you could fine tune the capacity vs demand even more.
That’s a given and why we have so many stations there. But looking at the cross lake traffic “to and from” is very much bidirectional at all times of the day. If it weren’t then changing the reversible lanes on I-90 to being bi-directional would be a total disaster.

Capital Hill is not a huge jobs destination and people living there more and more are trying to get to jobs on the eastside. The group commuting to down town will still do so but the net effect of moving East Link to 520 would have been to reduce the number of riders on the train in the DSTT. People on the eastside and trying to commute across the lake are largely trying to get to jobs DT but some (and I don’t think it insignificant are trying to get to the U District and points north of DT. With East Link on I-90 all of those people come into downtown and all of the trains will move through the DSTT and the tunnel from DT to the U District. If the eastside trains connect at Montlake they would go to Northgate and then return to DT before reversing in SODO . The result is no difference in trains through the DT and Capitol Hill tunnels but you’ve siphoned of a good portion of the people. And actually, if you maintained a crossover at Montlake you could fine tune the capacity vs demand even more.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75625 Martin H. Duke Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:12:09 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75625 My intuition on this is that to/from DT Seattle dwarfs all other flows, so all the mitigating factors you mention don't help the core problem.
My intuition on this is that to/from DT Seattle dwarfs all other flows, so all the mitigating factors you mention don’t help the core problem.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75620 Bernie Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:55:33 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75620 I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to be precise. In the context of adding eastside riders to Link at UW you can't just take Montlake to DT numbers and add all East Link boardings. For instance everyone that lives on Capitol Hill and commutes to Microsoft or Bellevue would be reversing there comute from U-Links peak direction (avoiding the DSTT). Of all the East Link riders crossing the bridge you have to subtract those who's final destination was the U District. Then you also have the people boarding at Montlake and points north who are trying to get to the eastside. I just don't see a huge demand on Link of people trying to commute from the U District and Northgate to points south of I-90. In contrast, by putting the entrance/exit valve north of the area of highest ridership I think it's quite likely that flow would be more evenly balanced because you siphon off all of the eastside trying to get to the U District and points north and all of the U District to Northgate traffic trying to cross the lake.
I’m not being obtuse, I’m trying to be precise. In the context of adding eastside riders to Link at UW you can’t just take Montlake to DT numbers and add all East Link boardings. For instance everyone that lives on Capitol Hill and commutes to Microsoft or Bellevue would be reversing there comute from U-Links peak direction (avoiding the DSTT). Of all the East Link riders crossing the bridge you have to subtract those who’s final destination was the U District. Then you also have the people boarding at Montlake and points north who are trying to get to the eastside.

I just don’t see a huge demand on Link of people trying to commute from the U District and Northgate to points south of I-90. In contrast, by putting the entrance/exit valve north of the area of highest ridership I think it’s quite likely that flow would be more evenly balanced because you siphon off all of the eastside trying to get to the U District and points north and all of the U District to Northgate traffic trying to cross the lake.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75617 Martin H. Duke Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:26:53 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75617 <i>U district to downtown is entirely different than Northgate to downtown</i> I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about this. Clearly it's not "entirely different", but one component of the ng-dt route. The most congested part of the system is UW-Downtown. If you have Eastsiders headed downtown all going via 520 they're adding further load to that part.
U district to downtown is entirely different than Northgate to downtown

I’m not sure why you’re being obtuse about this. Clearly it’s not “entirely different”, but one component of the ng-dt route.

The most congested part of the system is UW-Downtown. If you have Eastsiders headed downtown all going via 520 they’re adding further load to that part.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75601 Bernie Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:26:25 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75601 U district to downtown is entirely different than Northgate to downtown. I don't know what you mean by "if all the Eastside traffic to DT Seattle is going in the same direction". Not all of the U District DT Seattle is going in the same direction. I think in both cases it's pretty bidirectional. Hence the so call "reverse commute" that has SR-520 clogged both directions in the mornings and far worse now westbound in the evenings.
U district to downtown is entirely different than Northgate to downtown. I don’t know what you mean by “if all the Eastside traffic to DT Seattle is going in the same direction”. Not all of the U District DT Seattle is going in the same direction. I think in both cases it’s pretty bidirectional. Hence the so call “reverse commute” that has SR-520 clogged both directions in the mornings and far worse now westbound in the evenings.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75599 Martin H. Duke Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:11:27 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75599 I said Northgate-downtown. You have to add all the U-Link segment riders. If all the Eastside to DT Seattle traffic is going in the same direction you'd have crush loads.
I said Northgate-downtown. You have to add all the U-Link segment riders. If all the Eastside to DT Seattle traffic is going in the same direction you’d have crush loads.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75595 Bernie Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:36:47 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75595 What makes you think that? According the SEIS for Northgate projected boardings for 2030 are 21,000 and Bellevue projected boardings are 44,000-48,000. Not all Bellevue boardings are going downtown but a significant amount of Northgate boardings are only going as far as the U District.
What makes you think that? According the SEIS for Northgate projected boardings for 2030 are 21,000 and Bellevue projected boardings are 44,000-48,000. Not all Bellevue boardings are going downtown but a significant amount of Northgate boardings are only going as far as the U District.

]]> By: Martin H. Duke http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75583 Martin H. Duke Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:53:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75583 Volume for Northgate-downtown is much higher than Bellevue-downtown or Seatac-downtown.
Volume for Northgate-downtown is much higher than Bellevue-downtown or Seatac-downtown.

]]> By: Nathan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75561 Nathan Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:24:48 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75561 That map is for morning commutes specifically
That map is for morning commutes specifically

]]> By: Nathan http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75560 Nathan Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75560 The times has a surprisingly OK article on this today http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010120821_execlightrail23m.html
The times has a surprisingly OK article on this today

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010120821_execlightrail23m.html

]]> By: Mike Orr http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75555 Mike Orr Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:13:18 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75555 What does that map mean anyway? It appears to show two lines next to each other, one overcrowded and the other underutilized. But how can that be? Seattle-UW, Seattle-Eastside, and Seattle-Northgate are all high-traffic trips. So where are the underutilized trains? Surely there won't be any trains from Northgate to downtown that don't stop at the UW, as the right line seems to imply.
What does that map mean anyway? It appears to show two lines next to each other, one overcrowded and the other underutilized. But how can that be? Seattle-UW, Seattle-Eastside, and Seattle-Northgate are all high-traffic trips. So where are the underutilized trains? Surely there won’t be any trains from Northgate to downtown that don’t stop at the UW, as the right line seems to imply.

]]> By: Anandakos http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75519 Anandakos Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:08:59 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75519 I should have said "Union Bay". Alex Jonlin implicitly corrected me without making a big deal of it. Thanks.
I should have said “Union Bay”. Alex Jonlin implicitly corrected me without making a big deal of it. Thanks.

]]> By: Eastsider http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75254 Eastsider Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:48:43 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75254 Why 14 traffic lanes on two bridges that are five miles apart but only one light rail crossing? Esp. if the bridge is being built from scratch and that has to be the cheapest time to install rail as part of the same project.
Why 14 traffic lanes on two bridges that are five miles apart but only one light rail crossing? Esp. if the bridge is being built from scratch and that has to be the cheapest time to install rail as part of the same project.

]]> By: Bernie http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75235 Bernie Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:51 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75235 2.) I'd like to see at least one lane each direction connect (probably via a short tunnel) to Eastlake and the elimination of the 520 westbound to I-5 southbound merge. I'd also promote HOV lane access only at Montlake. There's already good access to 10th but it doesn't get used too much now. That would likely change and need to be addressed. Likewise the University Bridge, which is already crowded would see more traffic and something would likely need to be done along that route into the U district.
2.) I’d like to see at least one lane each direction connect (probably via a short tunnel) to Eastlake and the elimination of the 520 westbound to I-5 southbound merge. I’d also promote HOV lane access only at Montlake. There’s already good access to 10th but it doesn’t get used too much now. That would likely change and need to be addressed. Likewise the University Bridge, which is already crowded would see more traffic and something would likely need to be done along that route into the U district.

]]> By: Greg http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75229 Greg Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:13:02 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75229 Presumably I-90 gets shut down for the Blue Angels because of the risk of drivers hitting each other while trying to watch the jets. With Link, you only have one driver who has to pay attention, so it shouldn't be a problem. It seems like it would be simple to close I-90 to cars but not to trains.
Presumably I-90 gets shut down for the Blue Angels because of the risk of drivers hitting each other while trying to watch the jets. With Link, you only have one driver who has to pay attention, so it shouldn’t be a problem. It seems like it would be simple to close I-90 to cars but not to trains.

]]> By: Greg http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/10/21/the-cross-lake-battle-that-already-ended/#comment-75228 Greg Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:10:39 +0000 http://seattletransitblog.com/?p=8804#comment-75228 1. Cars stop quicker than trains. 2. Where would you terminate 520 if not at I-5?
1. Cars stop quicker than trains.
2. Where would you terminate 520 if not at I-5?

]]>