Photo by litlnemo

Link ridership continues to decline slightly from its summer peak.

Weekday: 23,007 (down slightly from August)

Saturday: 18,063

Sunday: 16,051

I don’t think there’s anything new to be said about this.

85 Replies to “September 2010 Link Ridership Numbers”

  2. Thanks for the update.
    Any ‘first blush’ news on how RapidRide is interfacing with Link from riders or drivers?
    RapidRide A is supposed to increase ridership on its chunk of the corridor by 50% within 5 years, which should help Link numbers.
    Swift BRT was pretty quick to release initial ridership numbers after its 11/29/09 startup (1526 on 12/1/09).
    https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2009/12/01/first-swift-ridership-numbers/
    Jan-10 had risen to 2367 and Feb-10 to 2660 average weekday, excluding the milk run shadow buses.
    https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2010/03/18/swiftsr99-ridership-bucks-the-trend/
    I hope Metro is as forthcoming with ridership numbers as ST and CT are.

    2. http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archives/225466.asp

      Is it true, as it says here, that “…20 bus routes were revised or eliminated in Southeast Seattle and Tukwila to feed riders to the light rail spine and avoid duplication in transit service.”?

      TWENTY bus routes were altered or eliminated to basically force people to ride Link?

      Have any bus routes been altered to feed riders to SWIFT buses (aside from the buses SWIFT replaced)?

      4. As usual Norman your logic is completely backward. If you were to build a backbone to carry a lot of traffic would you keep buses running along side it or perhaps make sure that connecting buses weren’t timed to utilize it? That’s what we call poor planning. There’s no conspiracy theory here – you build infrastructure then treat everything else as feeders to it.

        Outside of the CT100 bus disappearing nothing was changed for Swift. This is a problem actually. Swift ridership might be higher if the connections were better or had they placed stations better. I ride the Swift to work and the 101 home because the stations going both ways are one block apart.

  3. Anyone have monthly numbers from this period 2009? SoundTransit.org doesn’t seem to have anything I can find.

  4. We’re getting close to having a sample set large enough to begin making some meaningful conclusions, right? August 2010 makes 13 or so months of ridership data. Or, do we make better conclusions by punting to next July, when we’ll have a full trailing 12 months of non-startup-year data (so that seasonal changes can be accounted for)?

    In any event, the raw data continues to nominally say that yes, people are using Link.

    1. Year-over-year data will become meaningful in January (for Airport Link’s opening) or February (for bus re-alignments).

      1. Yep, the first month of truly meaningful year-to-year comparisons would be something like March. March 2009 was the first full month of service with both Airport Link and the bus realignments in place. It’s hard to draw many conclusions until then, except that ridership is definitely up.

        It would be nice however to see a graph of yearly ridership comparing 2009 to 2010 (so far). Even if the levels can’t be compared due to Airport Link and bus realignments, some of the general month-to-month trends might still hold.

    1. I thought all this month you’ve been touting figures saying ridership is up?

      Cite something.

  6. Also, a daily count of 23,007 (Sept weekday average) seems impossibly high.

    The trains hold max…what…200 people?

    That’s 115 full trains per day?

    Can that be right?

    1. That’d be assuming everyone rides the whole length, which isn’t true. If someone rides from SeaTac to Tukwila, and another person rides from Ranier Beach to Sodo, that counts as two trips for example.

      2. That’s a pretty tough metric. Systems like BART and DC Metro can gather them easily since tickets require in-and-out tagging, but systems like ours (or any other pay-as-you-enter system including NYC, Chicago, etc) have a hard time with those metrics. You can do surveys, but those aren’t necessarily representative, and are more expensive than the simple ridership figures.

      3. Funny how you can tell me numbers that support your arguments, but when I ask for equivalent detail that might counter it, suddenly these numbers are “hard to come by”…

    2. 200 per car is a crush load. Sound Transit say max. capacity according to their perfomance metric is 148 per car, or 296 per 2 car train.

  7. There were 12 Mariners games in September. Only 3 in October. None in the winter.

    There were cruise ships every weekend in September. None in October. None in the winter.

    I think it’s possible that weekday ridership on Link will fall to below 20,000/day in the winter months, when the weather is bad. We have had great weather for most of October, so far, and still, ridership seems to be continuing to fall this month, just like last month. It will be a lot less attractive to ride Link in December and January, when it gets dark around 5 pm, and it’s 40 degrees and raining a lot of days.

    That will be more interesting to me — ridership in the winter months when the weather is bad, there are no M’s games, and not many tourists visiting Seattle.

    October numbers will be interesting to see how one-car trains affect weekend ridership.

    1. It will be a lot less attractive to ride Link in December and January, when it gets dark around 5 pm, and it’s 40 degrees and raining a lot of days.

      All transit trips decrease during these periods, probably relating to some of the factors you mention. I believe all transportation modes, including walking and driving, have the same cyclical nature.

      1. Do fewer people work in the winter months than in the summer months? I suspect fewer people commute to and from work by Link in the winter than in the summer. Likewise by walking or bicycling.

        That would suggest that the percentage of people who drive to work goes up in the winter. Is that what you mean?

      3. Summer jobs are largely agriculture and things like Park Ranger. Note that a lot of Park Rangers though are also school teachers. That said there are definitely more tourism related jobs in Seattle in the summer; Duck drivers for example. On the other side of the equation you have teachers and staff not only at UW but all schools that work the exact opposite schedule (hence school teachers being Park Rangers). Another factor is that the majority of vacations are taken during summer months (with the possible exception of time off between Xmas and New Years).

      4. I ride transit less during the winter. Maybe half of what I use it for is for work and the other half is for personal reasons. One hundred percent of my kids rides of course are for personal reasons. We don’t go as many places in the winter.

    2. “We have had great weather for most of October, so far, and still, ridership seems to be continuing to fall this month” Norman 20/10/2010 0957
      Citation please – what is the source for this assertion?

      1. My own observations, which have accurately predicted ST’s ridership estimate trends in previous months. Do you ever ride Link? What does it look like to you? More, or fewer riders this month than last?

      3. I didn’t ride in September. But, I am taking some trips in October, because I want to see what it looks like with no M’s games and no cruise ships, etc.

  8. I think I already know the answer, but does the fact that 2010-9-6 is listed as a Sunday mean that it is included in the averages for Sunday ridership and not for weekday ridership? I’d guess so, but….

    In any case, months with a holiday typically see reduced weekday ridership.

  9. It’s starting to look like Link will wind up averaging somewhere around 21,000 or 22,000 boardings per weekday for 2010.

    This is a far cry from the 32,600 boardings per weekday ST predicted for 2010 in their Central Link Operations Plan from July 29, 2008.

    Page 33 of 61 (page 38 on acrobat reader):

    http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/SoundTransitCentralLinkOpsPlan.7.29.08.pdf

    If Link ridership for 2010 does come in around 21,500 or so per weekday for all of 2010, that will be about 1/3 less than what ST had predicted just a couple of years ago.

    1. Yeah, Norman, I’m sure if ST had known what kind of recession we would be in after Link opened, they could’ve reduced their ridership estimate by an appropriate amount. They didn’t have a crystal ball. Do you?

      Oh, and this system is designed to last for 100 years or so. Why are some kvetching about ridership numbers only 14 months after the first segment opened up?

      Nobody cares today about how few automobiles drive on the first segment of I-5 when it opened 45 years ago.

      1. Then why does ST bother with ridership projections?

        Oh, yeah. To get voters to vote for huge tax increases for insanely expensive light rail lines, based on huge ridership projections. Which, so far, do not seem to be panning out.

    2. N,

      I wouldn’t read anything into the ST document you cite – it is old and very much out of date.

      The estimates you cite were done before the fare structure was established – which means they totally neglect the fact that the FRZ was maintained for Metro but not for Link. They also don’t include the impact of the Great Recession, which is huge in and of itself.

      ST revised their estimates to account for the impact of the FRZ and the Great Recession, but I suspect that you already know that and are simply choosing to cite the older numbers instead.

      There are better numbers available, please start using them.

      1. So, then, are you saying that ST’s projections for ridership on U-Link in 2016, and North Link and East Link in 2030 are not worth the paper they are written on? Or, what?

        If a 2-year-old projection is “old and very much out of date”, then what will the current projections for 2016 be when we actually get to 2016? Do the current projections for Link riderhip in 2016, let alone 2030, mean anything? Or not?

        ST went to voters in 2008 with projections of riderhip on various Link routes. Are you saying those ridership projections which voters were given in 2008 were meaningless? We should just ignore them, because, obviously, things can change a lot between 2008 and 2010?

        What exactly is your point, if not: “All ST projections for Link ridership should be ignored, because ST has no idea what will happen even two years in the future, let alone 20 years”?

      2. The current ST projection for U-Link is that it will add 70,000 boardings per weekday to Central Link in 2016. Will there be “better numbers available” in 2016, you think? So, we should just laugh at that 70,000 projection, because everyone should know that it will be changed significantly several times before U-Link opens?

      3. Good grief, Norman, are you even being serious? The point of a ridership estimate is just that: it’s an estimate. As a new high-capacity transit line (be it light rail or BRT) gets closer to beginning service, transportation planners have increasingly more data—routing, the number and location of stops, headways, fare structures, revisions to feeder routes, economic development, economic conditions—they can use to make increasingly refined ridership estimates. Of course it only makes sense to use their latest and best estimates. Anything else is just getting your house appraised once in 2006 and not understanding why you can’t sell it for that same value in 2010. LOL.

        One of your other problems is your attempt to claim ST “sold” anything based on a ridership estimate. You live in Queen Anne, and you apparently love to talk to strangers. ST2 passed by something like 70% in Queen Anne. Take a walk to Trader Joe’s or Safeway or Metropolitan Market or Targy’s and ask people what the ridership estimates are for the ST2 lines they approved in ’08. No one will know, because no one cares. They want frequent train service serving major destinations on a dedicated right-of-way, and they’re willing to pay for it. The ridership will follow, and no one in the city besides you and a scurrying teaspoon-full of zealots cares if ridership is up a few thousand or down a few thousand.

  10. Then why does ST bother with ridership projections?

    Oh, yeah. To get voters to vote for huge tax increases for insanely expensive light rail lines, based on huge ridership projections. Which, so far, do not seem to be panning out.

    Now THAT’s FUNNY !!

    I wonder what the people who voted for the construction of I-5 were told when it was built?

    There was a public vote, wasn’t there?

    Hmmmm…

    1. I-5 is an Interstate highway, built with federal gas tax revenues — not with local sales taxes. Building I-5 did not require a large increase in local sales tax and local MVET. The federal gas tax is not set by a vote of three counties in the state of WA. Is it?

      1. The Federal Gas tax is TAX. Paid by me whenever I purchase gas.

        When have you or I been given the chance to vote for the institution of the Federal Gas Tax?

        When have we been given the chance to vote for the construction of an interstate project?

        Oh, that’s right, NEVER, EVER Question Road Projects.

        That’s the mantra, isn’t it?

      3. “The Federal Gas tax is TAX. Paid by me whenever I purchase gas.”

        You have a problem with the federal gas tax being spent on highways?

        You have a problem with I-5? The people who buy gas paid for I-5. If you didn’t buy gas, you didn’t pay for it.

      4. When have you or I been given the chance to vote for the institution of the Federal Gas Tax?

        Every congressional election since the Eisenhower administration.

      5. Errr, well actually it goes back all the way to 1932. The Federal Gas
        Tax has built interstate highways far longer than the “freeway” system was instituted. Prior to the dominance of the automobile the big push for better roads was from the League of American Wheelmen (bicyclists).

      6. Bernie says:
        October 20, 2010 at 10:06 pm

        “When have you or I been given the chance to vote for the institution of the Federal Gas Tax?” [Cusick’s quote]

        Every congressional election since the Eisenhower administration.

        Then why aren’t we questioning it?

        Actually we are, now that people are learning the price tags of these roadways (e.g. SR520, the AWV), and since we now have to figure out how to pay for it locally, everyone is up in arms.

        Road financing is one subject I wish Mr. Lindblom at the Seattle Times would investigate.

    2. Ridership estimates were hardly a significant part of any rail transit campaign here locally. The majority of voters know that rail transit makes sense if we are to contain urban sprawl and not pave over any more real estate with urban freeway lanes (see defeat of Roads & Transit).

      Not only no public vote for I-5 construction, it came with the destruction of 6,000 private homes in Seattle alone. And local taxpayers DID contribute, Norman the Troll, the feds never paid 100 percent, there was always a local match. In those days 10 percent was local. And it was the state highway department that did the design and construction.

      And to repeat, nobody obsessed about how many or how few cars operated on the damned freeway during its first 14 months of operation. Norman and the others who like to rant on this point are just pushing us OT. I suggest we just ignore this nonsense from here on; I know I will be.

      1. That is wrong. During the last campaign, light rail supporters continually mentioned how many people ST was predicting would ride light rail by 2030 if ST2 passed. Those figures were in the campaign literature.

        I-5 was built for freight and commerce as well as for moving people. I-5, and the rest of the interstate highway system, was also built so the military could move supplies and troops around the country more efficiently.

        Highways do a lot more than move people. They are critical for the nation’s economy. Moving a tiny percentage of people in our area is all Link does.

      2. Oh to have the property taxes from those 6,000 homes today and for the last 50 years. The “true” cost of I-5 and similar monstrosities is immeasurable.

      3. voters know that rail transit makes sense if we are to contain urban sprawl

        Like Sounder doesn’t incentives sprawl all the way out to the South Hill of Puyallup?

        Oh to have the property taxes from those 6,000 homes today

        Versus the property taxes of the commercial property and multi family zoned real estate along the I-5 corridor; really think that’s a winner. Ike’s interstate system, designed to serve as a military backstop, avoided congested urban cores. Seattle, like most other cities was afraid of losing out on economic development if the highway (more cars) diverted around their city.

      4. “I-5 was built for freight and commerce as well as for moving people.”

        Why didn’t the trucking companies pay for their own highway, to compete with the railroads?

      5. Norman, I-5 is so heavily used because it connects with 520, 405, 90, 705, 599/99/509, 16, 18, 512 and indirectly to 522, 167, S. half 509… etc.

        When our rail network reaches that far, it WILL be used more than our super-highways, Rail is an incremental investment in our future.

        Look at cities where the rail networks are as well connected and extensive as the freeways(due to a hundred-twenty years of expansion), (Chicago, New York) The Rail networks carry considerably more people than the freeways in those cities ever will.

        No we aren’t there NOW, but evven in your comment you mention that the figures tout 2030, its 2010, so hold on to your underpants and wait till 2030 to start preaching how terrinble a failure light rail is (except that it isn’t.)

      6. “Why didn’t the trucking companies pay for their own highway, to compete with the railroads?”

        You don’t think trucking companies pay a whole lot of taxes and fees that go to highways? There is no tax on diesel fuel, for example? No tire tax? No weight fees? No license fees?

        Central Link is not part of any “rail network” that competes with highways for moving freight. Central Link moves no freight whatsoever.

      7. “You don’t think trucking companies pay a whole lot of taxes and fees that go to highways? There is no tax on diesel fuel, for example? No tire tax? No weight fees? No license fees?”

        Obviously, NOT ENOUGH.

        You’re the one that makes the argument that it’s socially acceptable for everyone to pay excess taxes to support roads such as I-5, because “I-5 was built for freight and commerce …”

        Are you rescinding that portion of the argument now?

        Do like the NJ Turnpike does, and have Commercial and Auto Only lanes.
        Use tolls to pay for it.

      8. Norman, Unless there is something in sound transit’s rules or whatever that specifically prohibits freight from running on central/any future link segments, why can’t it run on those tracks?

        There is precedent for freight running on Mass transit lines See: The red line north of Wilson some time in the past!

        There are cities whose tram networks have freight cars that run deliveries to local businesses, why Can’t Link run freight some day should we deem it a worthwhile endeavor?

        I think I read a while back that Amsterdam was considering a freight specific tram network.

  11. “You have a problem with the federal gas tax being spent on highways?”

    I have a problem with having NO VOTE on whether I wanted to be taxed for it.
    For that matter, I also have a problem with having NO VOTE on where it gets spent.

    But you’re okay with that, as long as it’s highway spending.

    “You have a problem with I-5? The people who buy gas paid for I-5. If you didn’t buy gas, you didn’t pay for it.”

    ALL people who buy gas pay EXCESSIVE gas taxes to fund I-5, and the people using I-5 certainly don’t burn enough to pay for it.

    But, you’re okay with that. You’re okay with EVERYONE paying $300 a year in gas taxes, and having NO SAY as to where it’s spent.

    As long as it’s a highway, it’s NOT A SUBSIDY, but if it’s a rail system, it is?

    Look, don’t waste your time trying to argue with me, since I’ve already proven what you and other rail critics have, and that is, …NO PLAN.

    You’ve never come up with one on this forum.

    For that matter, I’d love to see BRT supporters come up with their own ballot measure. Like that Skehan guy, who said BRT on I-90 will carry more people than Eastide Link. The problem is, he never described what his ‘BRT’ system would look like.

    1. Simmer down Jim. As you suggest, I won’t waste my time trying to argue with you, but let’s show a little respect for different opinions and civil dialog. Norman has his points. Central Link is falling behind ridership projections, and it’s appropriate to question future projections on lines yet to be built.
      As for I-90, a case can be made either way for bus or rail, depending again on through-put, and expectations of ridership by mode. That discussion is now over, as the decision is a done deal. I’ve moved on, and I hope you can too.
      See you at our next meeting :)
      Respectfully Submitted, Mike

      1. Actually, Central Link is pretty close to the current ridership projections. Norman’s ascertains are completely fallacious because he is only using old, out of date estimates and comparing them to current ridership data. He’s making an apples-to-oranges comparison that is completely meaningless.

        But me thinks that no matter what the data actually says, Norman would find a way to make some sort of negative statement – and probably an inaccurate negative statement at that.

        The bottom line is that ridership will fluctuate month-to-month and year-to-year, and ridership will also fluctuate with the economy. It’s no big deal.

        Nobody can draw any meaningful conclusions from the first 14 months of a 100 year system. LR is the direction the voters have put this region on and there is no turning back. The task ahead is to make LR as efficient as possible, but the debate about whether we should build it is long over – the voters have spoken.

      2. “Old, out of date projections”? LOL

        That was from 2008, only two years ago! ST is making projections for lines that won’t onen until 2016 or later. How accurate do you think those projections are?

        Pretty close to “current ridership projections”? lol Have you ever heard the phrase, “moving the goal posts”? Do you have any idea what that means?

        So, ST is now predicting about 70,000 boardings/day added to Central Link in 2016 from U-Link. That is the projection today. So, in a couple of years, will that be “adjusted” down to around 60,000? Then, around 2014, adjusted again down to, say 50,000? Then, a couple months before it actually opens, the projection will be adjusted again, down to say, 40,000? Then, the actual ridership comes in at about 30,000? And lazarus will say, “See? U-Link is actually almost meeting its “current ridership projections” of 40,000 boardings per day! ST was right! U-Link is averaging just about the number of daily boardings ST predicted!

      3. Everyone understands what “moving the goalposts” means, Norm, but it’s not happening. If facts on the ground change, then ridership estimates change. Nothing more. If it was easy to predict the Great Recession John McCain would be POTUS. But that’s not the world we live in, is it? If headways and fare structures change and the economy collapses, ridership estimates change. Pretty simple. You would do well to lose the tinfoil hat. There’s no conspiracy.

      4. So, you are confident that ST will not change the ridership estimate for U-Link from the current 70,000 additional boardings per day on Central Link by 2016? That is a solid estimate, and ST will not be revising it downward as we get closer to 2016?

      5. I wrote nothing that implied that, Norman. And there’s nothing in my post that could lead you to infer it, as I in fact said the exact opposite: as facts on the ground change, ridership estimates change. Six years is a lot of time for facts on the ground to change, especially since I believe the U-Link estimate is already as least two years old.

        Were peak and non-peak headways set in stone when the estimate was made? Were peak hours—and service hours themselves—set in stone (I could see U-Link running later than Central Link)? Are we 100% sure all buses will be kicked out of the tunnel? What will the economy look like in 2016? Was the estimate made assuming U-Link would participate in the Ride Free Zone? Will the Ride Free Zone exist at all in six years? Will TOD in Rainier Valley have caught up to where it was expected to be when the estimate was made? Will Metro reconfigure bus service to the extent ST is anticipating?

        Any or all of these factors that just came off the top of my head could cause ST to raise or lower the U-Link ridership estimate. That’s why it’s called an estimate and not a guarantee.

  12. Wow, this has remained a very heated topic in Seattle in seems! I’m sure it has been posted and there are reasons that a plainly charted comparison of year-over-year growth isn’t available for Link, but from all available data, has total ridership grown monthly? Something simple like this (provided by ValleyMetro, Phoenix light rail):

    http://www.valleymetro.org/images/uploads/lightrail_publications/METRO-ridership-2010.pdf

    The ridership numbers in Seattle are still of concern, no matter the reasons/excuses.

    1. Click on the first link in the story. It shows monthly averages from the beginning of the year. Weekday ridership grew every month through July, and is down slightly in the two months since. Data from 2009 isn’t really comparable because the Airport segment wasn’t done until December.

    2. I don’t think it is clear yet whether Phoenix LR is out performing Link LR, or whether Link LR is out performing Phoenix LR. The systems are really too different to compare directly:

      1) Metro has been open almost a full year longer than Link.
      2) Metro is 20 miles long, Link only 15 miles long.
      3) Metro has 32 stations, Link has 13.
      4) Metro currently serves the campuses, Link won’t until 2016.

      If you normalized by system size then Link isn’t that far from Metro considering the 1 year head start Metro has in building ridership. And of course Link really outperforms Metro in ridership per station, but I’m not sure that is a very meaningful metric.

      Metro does get a lot of ridership from ASU, but Link won’t get to the UW until 2016 at which point ridership is expected to double (short term) and almost triple eventually (dwarfing Metro ridership).

      The other consideration is that Link is mainly serving the South King area, and that is the part of the county that his been hit hardest by the Great Recession.

      So, yeah, I’d say Link is doing pretty well compared to Phoenix.

      And, “yes”, Link ridership has been growing almost every month.

      1. Wrong on most counts…not to turn this into a Phoenix/Seattle debate, but:

        1)Metro has been open 6/7 months longer than Link (December 28, 2008)

        2)Some of the rail traverses purely industrial areas (virtually no ridership and no stations along this alignment except the airport) and this is nearly a 4-6 mile stretch of “no-man’s land”

        3)Metro has 28 stations, 4 stops really count as 2 stations due to their juxtaposition in one-way streets for East/West alignment in downtown. Maybe more stations in Phoenix due to better planing and the advantage of construction in flat terrain (horrible excuses for a city as dense as Seattle is supposedly compared to Phoenix)

        4)Ridership relies very little on student passengers. By count of Platinum ASU passes and other estimates, university ridership during the academic year varies from 4,000-6,000 on weekdays. Most of the ridership on Metro is from commuters (as evidenced by the high and growing weekday ridership counts) and residents in nearby neighborhoods for “leisure and play” use.

        I think Seattle has an issue with its rail planning. Don’t think it was constructed in the prime location (where rail would have benefited the most people). I’d say, Link is doing horribly compared to Phoenix given that Phoenix is often disparage as been transit UN-friendly and the pre-opening rants that light rail would be a failure in Phoenix.

        Most people expect more from Seattle, not less. Sorry but instead of making excusing you, whomever runs Link should come up with solutions. I was recently in Seattle and must say there are many deterrents to riding, especially for those who fly in to SeaTac.

        The fare system is notoriously confusing, there are always “delays” it seems, and accessibility from the suburbs (especially southern suburbs). Where the hell can you get on this thing and the traffic is a nightmare. These are just a few issues as a “guest” that I noticed right off the bat compared to Phoenix and other systems I’m used to.

      2. “I was recently in Seattle and must say there are many deterrents to riding, especially for those who fly in to SeaTac.”

        What deterrents are you referring to? Those you list in your last paragraph? Or, are there others you noticed on your trip into SeaTac airport?

      3. Norman, I also found the distance to the light rail station from the terminal/airport ridiculous and out of the way really. Others who accompanied me didn’t want to bother “finding” their way to the train. I was also with people from Boston and New York, mind you, who deal with mass transit as a way of life and found the set up unfriendly. It was easier and more convenient for them to take a cab or even rent a car (at least for the Bostonians).

        In Phoenix, walk out any terminal, parking garage, rental car facility, etc and get on a shuttle right out front and be taken directly to the 44th and Washington/Sky Harbor light rail station. In 2012/2013 PHX SkyTrain will connect all eliminating the shuttle buses (an “air station” with a pedestrian bridge directly over the light rail station is in place).

        Didn’t go where we needed besides a few stops downtown…no Capitol Hill, Seattle Center, etc…

      4. “Others who accompanied me didn’t want to bother “finding” their way to the train.”

        Were you with the laziest people on the planet? The station is right there. There are parking spots in the garage that are farther away from the terminal. I hope you never land at a distant gate and just give up on finding your way out of terminal. Taking a shuttle to the train like you do in Phoenix must be a much bigger deterrent than walking a few hundred meters.

      5. I’m smelling a lot of B.S. here regarding the airport station.

        “I also found the distance to the light rail station from the terminal/airport ridiculous and out of the way really.”

        Phoenix’s “Airport” light rail station is ridiculously far from the airport. You can’t even walk there. The nearest NYC Subway station from JFK requires taking a shuttle train that costs $5 and 10 minutes in addition to subway fare and wait time for both trains. While Boston has a glorified shuttle bus (Silver Line 1) that takes about 15-25 minutes to the rail station.

        “to take a cab”

        So you made it to the taxi stand and didn’t notice all the signs pointing to Link light rail? To get to the taxi stand from the terminal you must get to the skybridge level, which is the same level as the Link station, then go down another level. There are at least 3 signs pointing to Link light rail on the way from any point in baggage claim.

        “or even rent a car”

        In 2012 that’ll be a little more difficult. The Port will consolidate all rental cars in a facility away from the airport and people renting cars must take shuttle buses to get there.

        If you could figure out how to get a cab or rental car, then you could figure out where the Link station is. Because they’re all grouped on the same sign!

        This photo proves how ridiculous your statement is. There are plenty of these signs throughout the baggage claim and skybridge levels. Or this sign in the garage or this sign before the skybridge or this sign when you walk off the skybridge.

        “In Phoenix, walk out any terminal, parking garage.”

        Same for Seattle’s Link. Walk out of the terminal (we only have one) into the parking garage and you’ll see signs pointing to Link light rail, a few minutes walk to the station. There are signs all over the terminal pointing to the train from baggage claim and ticketing with even a little train symbol. Maybe there’re not enough signs but they’re not non-existant or rare.

        “In 2012/2013 PHX SkyTrain…”

        The first phase of which will cost $625 million dollars. And the entire airport shuttle train is going to cost $1.1 billion dollars. Almost as much as it cost to build the entire METRO line.

        “no Capitol Hill, Seattle Center”

        Capitol Hill and UW extension is under construction will add a lot more riders. Is that the “prime location” you’re talking about? Seattle Center? There’s the monorail at Westlake or plenty of buses that go there. The ST system map even shows the monorail connection to Seattle Center. Final planning and design for the extension to Northgate (which actually was the original terminal for the initial line) is underway.

      6. Phoenix’s “Airport” light rail station is ridiculously far from the airport. You can’t even walk there. The nearest NYC Subway station from JFK requires taking a shuttle train that costs $5 and 10 minutes in addition to subway fare and wait time for both trains. While Boston has a glorified shuttle bus (Silver Line 1) that takes about 15-25 minutes to the rail station.

        1) You can’t walk to the light rail station in Phoenix due to the runways, LOL, that is what the shuttles are for; walk right outside (RIGHT OUTSIDE) the terminal doors and get in the FREE shuttle and dropped off at the light rail station. The others offer the same options even if it costs money in NYC, it is NYC…

        So you made it to the taxi stand and didn’t notice all the signs pointing to Link light rail? To get to the taxi stand from the terminal you must get to the skybridge level, which is the same level as the Link station, then go down another level. There are at least 3 signs pointing to Link light rail on the way from any point in baggage claim.

        2) You must not read very well, I took the light rail but the others decided on a more convenient mode. It was their decision and they had much more luggage and equipment than I.

        If you could figure out how to get a cab or rental car, then you could figure out where the Link station is. Because they’re all grouped on the same sign!

        3) We, or I figured it out, it was a distance to walk (especially for someone with a disability, not me) and we all had equipment and luggage. I DID decide on the light rail, please read carefully next time.

        This photo proves how ridiculous your statement is. There are plenty of these signs throughout the baggage claim and skybridge levels. Or this sign in the garage or this sign before the skybridge or this sign when you walk off the skybridge.

        4) Your point?

        Same for Seattle’s Link. Walk out of the terminal (we only have one) into the parking garage and you’ll see signs pointing to Link light rail, a few minutes walk to the station. There are signs all over the terminal pointing to the train from baggage claim and ticketing with even a little train symbol. Maybe there’re not enough signs but they’re not non-existant or rare.

        5) There more issues than signage and it isn’t “right there.” It is a few minutes walk and not all that convenient. Sorry, just opinions from those of us who’ve had to travel to Seattle often and find the light rail not very useful…

        The first phase of which will cost $625 million dollars. And the entire airport shuttle train is going to cost $1.1 billion dollars. Almost as much as it cost to build the entire METRO line.

        6) And paid entirely by Airport Fees, tax from airport concessions, and donations. NO tax payer money was used in its construction. In fact, NO Phoenix, Maricopa, or Arizona taxes are used for Sky Harbor operations. Being one of the busiest Airports in the country and World has its privileges.

        Capitol Hill and UW extension is under construction will add a lot more riders. Is that the “prime location” you’re talking about? Seattle Center? There’s the monorail at Westlake or plenty of buses that go there. The ST system map even shows the monorail connection to Seattle Center. Final planning and design for the extension to Northgate (which actually was the original terminal for the initial line) is underway.

        7)Doesn’t help us out for the next part of what, the decade (6 years), and the monorail is another system to pay for as well as the buses with the weird fare schedule. If you read what I wrote, its complicated. Why can’t there be a system that is streamlined? It is a deterrent to ridership. Sorry, but just my observations. It isn’t like I called your mom fat or something! Calm down don’t take it so personally unless you are the system designer; then I get it.

      7. fcorrales80, So out of curiosity, what is your opinion of O’Hare or Midway’s transit access?

        Link is not a long walk, at least, not for someone who is used to living in a big city and walking everywhere.

        Perhaps it deters lazy people from the suburbs, they could use the exercise though.

        Your New Yorker and Bostonian friends are pretty lazy.

        And being an outsider complaining about where our train goes is unacceptable.

        Our train was built primarily for US. Not (primarily) for tourists. It goes downtown, which is our bus/transit hub, and employment hub. It works well for us. And it is under a series of expansions to go to many places and bring it to being one of the larger light rail systems in the country. (54 ish miles)

        Link’s Fare system is very simple. punch a couple buttons it tells you what to pay, no thinking for yourself necessary at all. I don’t understand how anyone could complain about that.

        Link is a shorter walk than anywhere but Portland to my memory’s experience, and maybe Reagan airport.

      8. Fcorrles80,

        I stand by my post on all counts.

        First, Metro opened in early Dec 2008, Central Link in late July 2009 – that is almost a full 8 months difference. But the Central Link opening was only a partial opening for the system. The full Link system didn’t open until just before Christmas when Airport Link opened – a full year+ after Metro. So, yes, Metro has a large head start on Link in building ridership.

        Link also has a much better Airport Station then Metro. Being required to take a ride on a 20 minute Airport Shuttle to get to the Airport Station is totally unacceptable. This would be equivalent to ST terminating Link at the Tukwila Blvd Station. Link got derided as a “Train to Nowhere” for that boneheaded move – thank goodness ST was able to complete Airport Link.

        And, yes, I understand they are going to add some sort of people mover in Phoenix to help with the Airport Station problem, but there are other improvements in the long-range plan for SeaTac too.

        ASU ridership is huge for Metro, and not just because of the student pass count as you contend, but because of the total transit demand for the surrounding area. ST won’t have a similar situation until U-Link opens, at which point Link ridership should be huge compared to the Phoenix system.

        Don’t get me wrong, I do think Phoenix did some good (and some bad) things with their system, and I would call it a success, but to say it is more successful than Link is totally premature and unsupported by the data.

      9. “You can’t walk to the light rail station in Phoenix due to the runways, LOL, that is what the shuttles are for”

        The fact remains that Phoenix’s station is farther than Seattle’s and the sprawling design of the airport prohibits direct access.

        “You must not read very well”

        You said “Others who accompanied me didn’t want to bother “finding” their way to the train.” I took that as a wayfinding issue not a “I don’t want to walk 5 minutes to the station” issue.

        “It was a distance to walk (especially for someone with a disability, not me)”

        There is a courtesy (free) wheelchair service for people with disabilities with someone helping with baggage.

        “Your point?”

        Finding the station is easy and shouldn’t be a problem.

        “It is a few minutes walk and not all that convenient.”

        How is that less convenient than having to take a shuttle bus/train? Being able to walk less than 10 minutes directly to the station in a covered and lighted path is a feature, not a bug.

        “Doesn’t help us out for the next part of what, the decade”

        Sorry that our politics and topography got in the way. I didn’t expect visitors to know the troubled early history of the project that led to the set up we have today.

        When the grace period of using Metro bus transfers as train fare expired, ridership continued to grow and ORCA card use expanded. Doesn’t look like a deterrent in that aspect. Agreed on the lack of a systemwide day pass, though that helps visitors more than residents. The multi-agency structure of transit in our region makes that politically difficult to implement.

        Unless I can’t get home by transit because my bus stops running after midnight, I take transit. It’s free with my pass ($2.50 total without) and taking the cab costs at least $30. Now that’s a huge deterrent.

        Personally, I like the walk after getting off a cramped airplane, especially off a flight from Asia. Or walking to stimulate your legs before embarking on a long flight.

      10. Let’s not go jumping on visitors when they offer their impressions, it’s valuable input. Especially if they say which other cities they’re used to.

        The SeaTac station location is controversial here too. Both the Port and the TSA refused to allow it closer to the terminal. Hopefully the port will install a moving sidewalk someday to assuage the distance criticisms.

        Capitol Hill and UW stations are on the way. Seattle Center is not in a straight line with them so it can’t be on the same rail line. There was going to be a new monorail that would have served Seattle Center and the west side of the city, but it failed before construction started. Now there are suggestions for a separate Link line to replace it, but nothing official yet.

        When the second phase of Link is completed in 2023, it’ll go from Northgate to Federal Way, and a second line to Bellevue and Redmond. Although the recession may cause some delays or other changes. A further extension to Everett and Tacoma is possible after that.

        The fare system is notoriously confusing if you’re using both Link and buses. There are two bus agencies if you stick to King County (Seattle, SeaTac, Bellevue, Redmond), and three more if you venture to Pierce and Snohomish counties (Tacoma, Lynnwood, Everett). They all have different fares and different zones. This blog is pushing for more incentives to use ORCA (fare discount, day passes), and some kind of convergence on fares. But in a recession where every agency is just scraping by, none of them can afford to risk lowering its fares or losing zone surcharges. ST is simplifying its fare structure next year to two levels, depending on if you cross a county boundary. ST’s and Metro’s fares are getting closer, although each raises them at different times. The train fares will probably always be distance-based, at least in the foreseeable future.

  13. fcorrales80, So out of curiosity, what is your opinion of O’Hare or Midway’s transit access?

    1)Never used those systems transit access actually so couldn’t tell you.

    Link is not a long walk, at least, not for someone who is used to living in a big city and walking everywhere.

    2)It isn’t necessarily the walk, it is the location and problems associated with the interaction of Airport users and Link. It just doesn’t feel very accessible because it is hidden (more a perceived problem and visibility). Walking isn’t an issue but when dealing with the complications of time, travel, jet lag, luggage and baggage and whatever, and the weather it does make hopping into a cab much more attractive.

    Perhaps it deters lazy people from the suburbs, they could use the exercise though.

    3) No suburbanites with me on this trip…

    And being an outsider complaining about where our train goes is unacceptable.

    4) Really, so why even connect it to the Airport? Seems it would have served better to just connect the U or Bellevue first instead. Not a good reason at all. Commerce, including tourist, were probably huge factors for connecting Link to SeaTac.

    Link’s Fare system is very simple. punch a couple buttons it tells you what to pay, no thinking for yourself necessary at all. I don’t understand how anyone could complain about that.

    5) Here in Phoenix, if you buy an all day pass on the bus or a kiosk, that pass gets you on the light rail and any bus in the metro area. The only difference would be having to pay a couple more bucks to get on a RAPID, EXPRESS bus or the LINK in the East Valley.

    1. Connect to the airport for business travelers, people going from Sea-Tac to Downtown for business.

      Our station is not hidden, I’ve been through the airport many times, signage is clear, the skybridges are very easy to get to, and very obvious.

      And Sea-Tac already has a 3-line people mover interconnecting the entire airport. If I’m not mistaken it is one of the oldest people-mover systems in an airport.

  14. First, Metro opened in early Dec 2008, Central Link in late July 2009 – that is almost a full 8 months difference. But the Central Link opening was only a partial opening for the system. The full Link system didn’t open until just before Christmas when Airport Link opened – a full year+ after Metro. So, yes, Metro has a large head start on Link in building ridership.

    1) Metro opened the last days of December (the 28) to ceremony for the first 5 days including free rides during that week. It was more a “Disneyland” attraction than a usable transit mode at that point until all the fanfare wore off.

    Link also has a much better Airport Station then Metro. Being required to take a ride on a 20 minute Airport Shuttle to get to the Airport Station is totally unacceptable. This would be equivalent to ST terminating Link at the Tukwila Blvd Station. Link got derided as a “Train to Nowhere” for that boneheaded move – thank goodness ST was able to complete Airport Link.

    2) 20 minutes, LOL! Where do you think the shuttle takes you, the Mesa light rail stop? Wow, it takes 5 minutes on the Shuttle and with the SkyTrain, even less.

    And, yes, I understand they are going to add some sort of people mover in Phoenix to help with the Airport Station problem, but there are other improvements in the long-range plan for SeaTac too.

    3) Cool I can’t wait will make it much nicer! What kind of improvements will be made? Also, The SkyTrain in Phoenix will have a station as part of each terminal in Phoenix which includes the international concourses at terminal 4. Will this be the type of improvement made at SeaTac?

    ASU ridership is huge for Metro, and not just because of the student pass count as you contend, but because of the total transit demand for the surrounding area. ST won’t have a similar situation until U-Link opens, at which point Link ridership should be huge compared to the Phoenix system.

    4) Actually it is not. The campus and cities are very “autonomous” in their design and little travel is needed for the majority of students on either campus. This can be seen by improving growth and strong growth even when the student populations on campus during the summer and breaks are nearly non-existent.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do think Phoenix did some good (and some bad) things with their system, and I would call it a success, but to say it is more successful than Link is totally premature and unsupported by the data.

    5) The data clearly shows differently. The system in Phoenix, month by month, has grown by double digit percentages since opening, including the hottest months during the year (July-September).

Comments are closed.