New York’s MTA has uploaded some great photos of construction on the 2nd Avenue Subway and the East Side Access project’s progress. I’ve put a few of my favourites below. All photos courtesy MTA.
This is an open thread.
151 Replies to “Open Thread: New York Subway Tunnelling Photos”
Comments are closed.
Suggest readers go online to “Tunneling Below Second Avenue-The New York Times.” Some good perspective on tunneling, and also how long it can take to get something important done.
Shortly after college, I worked for a year in a stone quarry in Maryland just north of the District line. After a month or two breaking building stone with a sledgehammer- the same rock in the pictures- I drove the truck delivering explosives to construction sites all over the area.
Anyhow, after hitting wrong key, here’s the rest.
A lot of our deliveries went to worksites on the Washington DC subway, which had to go through pretty much the same ancient underground mountain range. Would be great if readers with requisite experience could compare three miles of solid rock with the ground in front of our own machines.
The line in the referenced article that really registered was the tunnelworker’s comment that he knew that a life underground could be a short one, but it that he loved the work so much it was worth it.
Same seems to go for logging, quarrying and coal mining- a political consideration that those of us opposed to current coal-export plans would do well to keep in mind as we try to persuade union people to join us.
Like the Tennessee Ernie Ford song went: “Like a fiend for his dope, and a drunkard his wine, a man will have lust for the lure of the mine.” Also for full-time transit driving, especially with wire overhead.
Mark Dublin
Like the Tennessee Ernie Ford song went: “Like a fiend for his dope, and a drunkard his wine, a man will have lust for the lure of the mine.” Also for full-time transit driving, especially with wire overhead.
Indeed.
I loved driving transit; it was a wonderful job, and on some level I wish I still did it. But the real trolley veterans who picked nothing but Atlantic for 15 years had something I didn’t. I tolerated trolley work when it allowed me to pick 4/40s or start at 6:30 p.m., but I didn’t want to do it for the rest of my working life.
So, I’m been dreaming up in my head ideas about a restructuring around Queen Anne that found finally provide service connecting upper Queen Anne to places other than downtown. Here is what I am thinking:
1) Extend the 13 north beyond it’s current terminus at SPU to take Nickerson to the Fremont Bridge, then continue east to the U-district, following the path of existing route 32.
2) Delete route 32. With the extension of the 13, the entire route 32 is now redundant with either the 13 or the D-line. There is one tiny section of Nickerson between 3rd Ave. and the Ballard bridge that would lose all-day coverage, but everyone in that segment would be within a half mile walk of either the 13 or the D-line, so it’s not like they would be left without service. During the peak, this section of Nickerson would still be covered by the 62.
3) Break the thru-routing between the 2 and the 13 in downtown. If the 13 is going to be extended northeast, this is necessary to keep the route somewhat reliable. Route 2 trips will still provide a one seat ride between Madrona and Queen Anne and get within a few blocks of SPU.
By eliminating service on the portion of the 32 that runs up 15th, duplicating the D-line, this restructured Queen Anne service should cost less to operate than the existing service, assuming headways remain the same. Lower Queen Anne would retain its existing connection to Fremont, and Upper Queen Anne would finally become connected all-day to Fremont and the U-district, not just to downtown. The only obvious tradeoff I can see is that off-peak, residents along a small corner of Nickerson might need to walk an additional 1/4 mile to the bus. What do you guys think?
This would need new wire or dieselizing the 13.
a) I don’t think Metro has anywhere near the amount of money for running that much wire, especially for the engineering of going over the Fremont bridge.
b) I doubt Metro would dieselize the 13 because they don’t want the wear on the bus that going up the hill would put on the buses, and residents on the slope and on top of the hill would object due to noise/pollution reasons. Except for the weekend, every bus that goes up there currently is electric except the 29.
But if there ever is a new bridge built to Fremont there may be a case for extending the 13 to, at least, the Fremont neighborhood.
It seems a little early to talk about deleting the 32, but it doesn’t seem to be generating great ridership thru Interbay. Also, Metro is now running its smallest buses on the 50. I guess ridership has been underperforming predictions on that route, too. How are the other new routes performing, (other than C and D, please)?
I think that putting wire up Yesler to 8th/9th Ave to Jefferson (moving the 3/4 off of James St.) would be a more pressing need than extending wire for the 13 to Fremont to the UDistrict
The 50 has switched to 30′ coaches due to a tight turn on its new route (it used an interim routing that missed most of Delridge until recently).
As to new routes, the proof of the pudding will be the APC data that Metro has promised to give me once they’ve processed it in March.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that the 40 is going great guns, the 61 is a joke, the 62 and the part of the 29 past the old 2X are both pretty thinly patronized, but the 32 seems to have a decent amount of ridership west of Fremont, at least in the peak.
Presumably due to the loss of the 17, the 13 has noticeably bulked up, with inbound trips coming down Queen Anne Ave with double-digit loads on the weekend and off-peak, which I very rarely saw before.
On Sundays, at least, I have found ridership on the 32 to be very paltry – like less than 10 people on the bus all the way from Seattle Center to the U-district. Maybe weekday ridership is better.
Nevertheless, if the 13 served the 32’s Fremont->U-district segment, everyone riding the 32 from lower Queen Anne to Fremont or beyond would still be served. It is true that if this proposal happened, we would lose the direct connection bewtween 15th Ave. West and the U-district. But 15th Ave. is just a large pipe for moving cars, not anywhere where people actually live or visit. Most of the people boarding the 32 on 15th are probably walking down the hill from Queen Anne for lack of any better options. Most of them would have essentially the same walk to a U-district bound bus (albeit, in the opposite direction) if the extended 13 took over the 32.
I also took a look at Google driving directions to compare the 13’s routing from LQA to 3rd and Nickerson with the 32’s routing. At least according to drive times, the 13’s routing is only one minute longer. (Although the actual time difference may be more than that on a bus due to the need to stop at more bus stops to let people on and off, rather than blowing through them all – I guess that’s the price you have to pay for a bus that actually has riders).
The only people I can think of who would really need the 32’s stops on 15th are people who are walking to 15th from Magnolia on an evening or Sunday when the 31 isn’t running. But if ridership on the 31 is any indicator, the actual number of such people is negligible and the option to go through downtown would still be there.
WRT trolly wires, I do not buy the argument that limited trolly wires makes expanding the 13 impossible. Essentially, this argument says the following:
– All all-day routes serving upper Queen Anne must use trolly buses
– There is no trolly wire that connects upper Queen Anne to anywhere except downtown
– Building new trollywire is too expensive.
– Therefore, Upper Queen Anne can never have any all-day bus connections to anywhere except downtown.
First of all, this argument makes the value judgement that minimizing noise from buses going up the hill trumps building an actual network that handles anywhere-to-anywhere travel, rather than simply a hodge-podge of routes going downtown. I suppose this argument makes sense for someone who drives everywhere and doesn’t give a shit about transit, but I do not believe holding an entire neighborhood’s mobility hostage over noise concerns makes sense. Trucks go up and down Queen Anne hill all the time and Metro buses don’t make anymore noise than a medium sized truck would make.
Second, I don’t buy the argument that the construction of new trolly wire is prohibitively expensive. I remember reading somewhere in a previous blog post that the construction cost of new trolly wire runs at about $1 million per mile. SPU to Brookyn and Campus Pkwy via the 32’s routing is 3.3 miles, which translates into about $3.3 million. Throw in some extra money for whatever engineering work is needed to get the wires across the Fremont bridge (which must be doable since trolly wire already exists on the Eastlake and Montlake bridges) and you’re looking at a total of about $5 million. Yes, it’s a lot now, given the impending 20% service cuts, but there is nothing to stop Metro from deselizing the 13 to provide better connections now while they save up for building the wire later. In fact, extending the 13 now would provide valuable ridership data that would justify whether or not the capitol investment of trolly wire in the corridor is warranted.
“It seems a little early to talk about deleting the 32…” The point of deleting the 32 is not that we’re giving up on the corridor. It’s that once the 13 is extended to the U-district, the 32 becomes completely redundant and pointless – essentially a whole bus going back and forth to just serve a tiny pocket of riders along 15th who don’t want to transfer or walk a little further to the bus stop.
Well that’s nice :-)
If you think the 32 is paltry try the 31. Every time I’ve ridden it in Magnolia, even at peak, there have been maybe two other people on it. At most.
Come 2016, I’m not sure that the 31 will even offer a time advantage for Magnolia->U-district trips over taking the 24 or 33 to downtown, then hopping on Link the rest of the way, especially if you’re headed to the UW campus itself, rather than the U-district area west of the campus.
Is that the same route 32 that is entirely packed between the UW and Fremont all morning and afternoon? In what was is it redundant of either the 13 or the D Line? The route does not just serve Queen Anne, although it connects Queen Anne.
Given his extension of the 13 over the UW-Fremont portion, it would be redundant.
The portion of the 32 between Fremont and UW would be expensive and technically difficult to electrify. You’ve got the Fremont Bridge; complicated turns at 35/Fremont, 40/Stone (with the 40th hill), and 40th/Northlake/Pacific; and the need for a UW terminal of some sort. Also, you’d be breaking up Metro’s new frequent-service crosstown corridor between Interbay and Children’s Hospital.
I do agree that we need something that goes north out of Queen Anne, but it will be difficult as long as all the Queen Anne routes remain through-routed downtown, and I think it only needs to go far enough to connect with the 44 (and with any future crosstown rail line).
“The portion of the 32 between Fremont and UW would be expensive and technically difficult to electrify.”
Again, electrification between Fremont and the U-district would certainly be nice to have, but it is not a make or break. If you live in Queen Anne and depend on transit, mobility towards the north and east, rather than just downtown, is far, far, more important than whatever impact the noise of diesel buses going by your neighborhood would have. The only way sacrificing such mobility in the name of missing trolly wires makes sense is to start from the premise that nobody in Queen Anne ever uses nor ever will use transit (except, maybe, to go downtown) – thereby, transit options to get to other places doesn’t matter. Queen Anne is not Magnolia – it has a lot more multi-family housing and a lot more transit users. They deserve better service than what they are now getting.
“you’d be breaking up Metro’s new frequent-service crosstown corridor between Interbay and Children’s Hospital.”
On 15th, south of Emerson, there is no frequent service corridor – the 31 is off to Magnolia and the 32 is all that’s left. The only section that would be taken out of this frequent service corridor is a small corner of Nickerson, but they would still have the half-hourly 31, and would still be a short walk away from SPU (where the frequent service corridor would begin) or from the D-line. Considering that there are not huge gobs of people traveling between interbay and the Children’s hospital, I don’t think this is much or a loss.
“but it will be difficult as long as all the Queen Anne routes remain through-routed downtown”
The solution is simple – break the 13’s thru-route downtown. Route 2 and 13 are very similar through Queen Anne, route 2 riders would actually still have a one-seat ride almost everywhere they do today (although SPU would require either transferring or walking a few extra blocks).
Regarding diesel coaches up the counterbalance… it’s not just a noise issue, but also an equipment maintenance issue. Trolleys can operate up those hills all day without suffering any mechanical pain. Diesels suffer rapidly accelerated wear on their transmissions and some extra wear on their engines. That’s certainly not fatal (Metro just deals with it in sending the 29 up the Counterbalance and various peak-hour buses up James Street) but it adds further cost to be considered, particularly on all-day routes with high frequency and long spans of service.
One other point from your reply which I should address… the “Interbay-Children’s Hospital” corridor is really about the stretch from Fremont to U-Village, where it has considerably improved mobility. I don’t think you could realistically through-route today’s 13 with the 65 or 75, so either you’d have to run it to U-Village separately or travelers to and from that area would again have to transfer at Campus Parkway.
I agree that if an extended 13 replaced the 32, the thru-route in the U-district would probably have to be broken to ensure reliabilty. So the question comes to whether there are more people going from Queen Anne to the U-district or from Fremont to Children’s Hospital. My intuition is that, of the two, Queen Anne->U-district is a bigger market than Fremont->Childrens simply because of how big the UW is, transit-wise. And the extended 13 is not just about Queen Anne->U-district but also about Queen Anne->Fremont. It’s also about allowing trips like Queen Anne->Northgate or Greenwood to be accomplished by a relatively direct 2-seat ride, rather than the choice of a 3-seat ride or a 2-seat ride with heavy backtracking.
It is also worth noting that even if the extended 13 ended at the U-district, the one-seat ride from Fremont->Children’s would still be available on the 31 – there would be no reason to break that thru-route.
The Fremont – Children’s corridor is an important step for Metro. Regardless of its shortcomings (interlining four routes in a complex way), it’s both a commitment to frequent service and a marketing investment. The marketing investment helps people understand the value of designated frequent corridors, which is key to a better future. Severing the connection after only a few months (Fremont – Children’s) or years (Fremont – UW) would destroy that investment and make Metro routes look like arbitrary evenly-spread peanut butter, which is what we’re trying to get away from.
Fremont->UW is an important frequent service corridor and my proposal would retain it as such. Fremont to Childrens Hospital, a lot less so. Outside of peak-period commutes to work, a hospital is where you go when you have an unfortunate accident, or need to visit someone who has. No one who is not employed by a hospital plans on visiting a hospital frequently. I do believe frequent service to the Childrens hospital is justified on weekdays during the day because that’s when most of the medical appointments are, but evenings and weekends, no. Fremont and the UW, by contrast, are trip generators all hours of the day, 7 days a week.
It’s a corridor route. People are not just going to the hospital, they’re going to University Village, the businesses in between, and houses. The interlining with the 75 and 65 will also take them to Sand Point or up 35th to 55th or 65th. (Not sure if those areas are part of Ravenna, Hawthorne Hills or Wedgwood.) It’s a respectable east-west grid route with a pair of L’s at the end, continuing to other grid routes.
I like this plan for Queen Anne, and while we’re dreaming, I recommend extending route 3 from upper Queen Anne to Ballard. Then from QA&Boston, frequent routes will connect to NE and NW Seattle.
Replace the 29 with the 3 and run the Ballard connection at all times. The 4 would be deleted, and the 2 would be reduced to hourly outside of peak hours, with perhaps some 2X runs during peak.
To do it right, these extensions of the 13 and 3 require new trolley wire and probably a net increase in service hours. So it won’t happen until Metro has additional funding sources and the budget crunch has passed.
I think we would need to have more density on upper Queen Anne before those connections would succeed, honestly. From lower Queen Anne, the existing 32 and RR D are faster connections to those areas (despite the 32’s geographically indirect routing) than your proposed routes would be, so your plan relies heavily on upper Queen Anne travelers, of whom there just aren’t that many at the moment (other than to downtown).
Remember, we used to have a peak-hour 45 express from upper Queen Anne to the U-District. Ridership was somewhere between bad and mediocre.
I agree that Lower Queen Anne->Ballard would be much faster on the D-line than on an extended 3 (and probably a good deal more frequent too). But Fremont is different than Ballard in that if you go from Lower Queen Anne->Fremont via Upper Queen Anne, you make up for the slower speed limits with a shorter total distance to travel (not going west and back east again). According to Google driving directions, Lower Queen Anne->Fremont is just one minute longer via Upper Queen Anne than via 15th and Nickerson.
I am sure ridership on the old 45 sucked. But one big contributor to this was that it only ran a small number of trips per day, making it difficult to use spontaneously, or for anyone that didn’t work specifically at the UW during normal working hours. I am not proposing bringing back the 45. But I am suggesting that replacing with 32 with an extended 13 would provide a similar benefit to the 45. Only it would provide such service all day, 7 days a week, rather than just the peak AND it would serve Fremont, which the old 45 skipped AND it could be done with a slight decrease in service hours, rather than requiring an increase. The only extra cost would be either the diesel vs. trolly difference or the one-time cost of installing trolly wire along the existing 32’s route.
If the cost of running trolley wire is the problem, the 13 could run up Fremont Ave and connect to the 44 wire at the top of the hill and then run to the U District. That scheme would also create more bus service between Wallingford and the UD.
The 3N should have been reassigned to SPU to make up for the loss of service from the 17.
I thought of that. But the extended 13, combined with the 44 would over-serve the north part of Wallingford with a 15-minute route and the 30-minute route that would be uncoordinated. It would also under-serve the south part of Wallingford which would go from 2 routes operating at a combined 15-minute headway most of the way to one route operating every 30 minutes, with no service at all on evenings and weekends.
Making the extended 13 take the 44’s path into the U-district might require less new trolley wire, but it is still a case of prioritizing the constraints of trolleys over providing the best level of mobility to as many people as possible as our limited budget of service hours can provide. The 32’s Fremont->U-District routing provides a more appropriate levels of service to more areas.
Video excerpt from Ghost Cities of China…tonight on 60 Minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50141927n
The pictures of digging made me wanted to do a little digging of my own. This tunnel is for the Long Island Rail Road, serving commuters up to 60 miles away. I then looked up L.I.R.R. on Wikipedia. This line caught my eye. “A New York Times investigation in 2008 showed that 25% of Long Island Rail Road employees who had retired since 2000 filed for disability payments from the federal Railroad Retirement Board and 97 percent of them were approved to receive disability pension. The total collected was more than $2,500,000 over 8 years.” Let’s look at the bright side. $2.5 million dollars is nothing compared to the $8.24 billion dollars it cost taxpayers to fund the commuter lifestyle of Long Islanders.
Last time I visited LI I noted that the nature of LIRR had changed. It used to be a rush hour to the city and back line, but now the stations have passengers all day long and many are traveling to destinations within LI, not just going to Manhattan. I’ve noticed this a little bit on Sounder where I see people traveling between local stations and not just to end points. With higher frequency it could develop into a true inter-town line.
So now we are going to crucify those who live on Long Island who commute by transit?
Believe it or not, but not everyone can live in a 15 square mile radius.
Some of us like JB and I are happy Long Island has LIRR and Chicagoland has Metra, and wish that all metropolitan areas had similar all-day commuter rail. I was glad to hear that inter-suburb trips on LIRR are increasing. That shows both that people are using transit more, and that they’re using it for trips all along the corridor rather than just when they go to Mahattan. That’s what all-day transit is for. It could also mean they’re choosing destinations along the corridor over alternatives they’d have to drive or bus to, but we’d need more information to determine that (i.e., whether there was a simultaneous decrease in car miles or bus use).
Other STBers, of course, are worried that more commuter rail causes more sprawl and forces urban residents to subsidize suburbanites.
LIRR, alone among the passenger railroads in the US, has managed to retain steam-era rules. It’s not well-run.
Fleet ready hydrogen car in production
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=10868569
Sign and share the Petition to the White House to Build A Hydrogen Economy:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/build-hydrogen-economy/CGJXwTcX
Wow, those 15 cars will certainly ensure that Copenhagen is carbon-free by 2025!
You do understand that this “hydrogen economy” will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the recently merged BigOilAndGas.inc, don’t you?
The hydrogen will be cracked off of methane. They’re not going to be hydrolyzing water.
Why is a newspaper in New Zealand the only source for this stunning announcement?
And, um, why does it need a radiator, again?
Wow, those 15 cars will certainly ensure that Copenhagen is carbon-free by 2025!
This is the first production batch. The estimate is there will be a lot more on the road by then.
You do understand that this “hydrogen economy” will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the recently merged BigOilAndGas.inc, don’t you?
It could be…or you could make it in your backyard. Hydrogen is like the Internet. Any can create, or consume hydrogen. It is not so much a fuel as an energy protocol.
The hydrogen will be cracked off of methane. They’re not going to be hydrolyzing water.
Just one of many examples of the new stations being built in England and Europe.
Solar Hydrogen Station Inaugurated by Fraunhofer ISE
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2012/march/solar-hydrogen-station-inaugurated-by-fraunhofer-ise
Why is a newspaper in New Zealand the only source for this stunning announcement?
Google News Search: q=hyundai+fuel+cell+production
About 494 results (0.24 seconds)
And, um, why does it need a radiator, again?
The article said the radiator grille was redesigned…probably because its a vestige. But at the same time this is a production model that will no doubt use body features in common with ICE cars until numbers take off.
That fueling station in Germany is hopeful, but don’t expect the millions of euros spent on that “research platform” to be replicated by Shell or BP any time soon. In America they oil companies are clear that they intend to make hydrogen by cracking methane.
It’s good that other newspapers are picking up on the story, too.
And, please, please, please, don’t do this in your backyard…..
Because the fuel cell stack produces a tremendous amount of heat. Roughly as much wasted thermal energy as electricity.
Honda Begins Operation of New Solar Hydrogen Station
Los Angeles-based Station to Re-fuel Honda Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=5366-en
@Bernie
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3210/01-car-nf.html
Hydrogen is a horrendously inefficient and wasteful “energy protocol”.
I, meanwhile, am driving an electric car. :-)
@Nathanael
Then you are not qualified to make that judgement.
I have a question for the civil engineering geeks on this board. Is there any logic behind the signal timings and progressions for the intersections that cross Link in Rainier Valley? The crossings at Henderson, Alaska, Graham and Orcas all seem to work well for crossing traffic, but Othello, Holly and the turn onto Renton Ave are becoming notorious for long waits and line-ups. I have a neighbor who frequently, loudly and defiantly claims that he has to wait up to 7 minutes to cross MLK at Othello. I’ve never experienced a 7 minute wait, but Othello does seem to be one of the most difficult places to cross and I always try to avoid it when I’m driving.
I’m no engineer, but from observing the Othello intersection every day for the 9 months or so I lived across from it, I can identify two reasons it’s worse for crossing traffic than the others:
1) Much higher volumes of crossing and left-turning traffic. Othello, alone among the MLK intersections, often just plain doesn’t have enough time to distribute among all the phases, and cars have to wait through an extra cycle. If you miss the first light and then a couple of trains arrive in quick succession, I can see how you might have a 7-minute wait.
2) Trains are moving slower because they are entering or exiting the station, and sometimes the system will hold a light for a southbound train that ends up stuck in the station for a bit. Thus the trains take more time to cross, further compounding #1.
My question/survey is much lower tech:
For those of you who have ridden a 2-zone route during peak since last October, what zone pre-set have you seen on the ORCA reader? … and on what route, going which direction, at what time of day, starting from where? Also, if you tap for one zone, does the operator request that you tap again if you ride beyond the zone boundary? If you request that the zone be re-set, how long does the operation take, including switching it back? (Or if you’ve seen others request the re-set, how long did it take for them?)
For my part, while I rarely have the opportunity to ride during peak, I’ve ridden the 132 a couple times in the past month out of downtown in the PM. The reader was pre-set for one zone, and I only rode one zone.
I’ll ask this same question next Sunday, so if you don’t have data to offer right now, jot it down for next Sunday.
Thanks in advance to everyone who participates, and to STB for the open threads.
My wife rides the 373 from time to time. She rides it from the U-District to Pinehurst. Unfortunately, she often gets charged for two zones. It is very irritating. I’ve had the same thing happen to me. It is understandable when you are going away from downtown, but it really is a system failure when heading towards Seattle. In other words, at the point I got on the bus, I could only be taking a one zone ride (but got charged for two).
Going the opposite direction is tricky. I’m not sure how it is supposed to work. Is it an honor system, and if so, are you supposed to tell the driver? She ends up challenging the charge (via a call I believe) once she sees the charge on her online account.
From http://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p2_002.do?m=42&i=420
Since the ORCA website is unnavigable, here are step-by-step instructions:
Log on to orcacard.com
Click on “My cards”
Click on the card number you wish to set
Click on “My zones”
Click on “Change zone fare presets”
Set the preferred zones for KCM and ST and “Confirm changes”.
With some exceptions (routes which a significant amount of users only take one zone) routes that cover both Seattle and parts outside of it have a zone preset set to two zones. if you are not crossing in or out of Seattle the passenger needs to ask for one zone. also if you are honest and riding one of the routes that always have a one zone preset you should likewise ask for two zones.
@RossB,
When you say she “often” gets charged for two zones, do you mean that the operators are inconsistent in how they pre-set the zones?
@Brent — It is inconsistent, but she doesn’t it ride it that much anymore. She used to work at the UW, and the UW used to cover the cost. So it may have changed and she didn’t notice. When I had a similar commute (taking the 373 on occasion) it was inconsistent, but that was a while ago.
The reason I am trying to gather data on this topic is that Metro seems to be resistant to eliminating zones, based on the presumption that going to a one-zone system would cost a lot of fare revenue.
I’d like to be able to at least make an educated guesstimate of what pricepoint would make the switch to a two-service-type system (local and inter-city express) revenue-positive.
So, this data will give me some idea what the field practice is concerning ORCA reader pre-sets. As we know from the exit-at-the-rear policy and practice, in policy, practice and policy are the same, but in practice, they are not.
I would like to see Metro switch from a zone-based system to a service class-based system, with regular service in one class and long-distance commuter service in one or more separate, higher classes. That would allow each bus to have a single adult fare, which would eliminate any fareset or preset confusion, while continuing to charge more for the service that costs the most to run.
This is how it should be.
The 18X should not cost the same as the 40.
I should mention that I have a $99 pass that covers a $2.75 trip (to make me fine-proof on Link). I haven’t paid enough attention to whether my pass is overriding the zone pre-set.
So, when answering the questions, please mention your pass type (or if you were just using e-purse). Thanks.
Brent,
I keep seeing you make the claim that having a $2.75 PugetPass on your card makes you ‘fine-proof’ on Link.
The problem is, this isn’t true: neither Sound Transit policy nor the actual RCW governing that policy support the logic of ‘I bought a pass, so tapping it is pointless, because they get my money anyhow.’ (I assume this is your logic.)
From RCW 81.112.220:
“Persons traveling on facilities operated by an authority shall pay the fare established by the authority and shall produce proof of payment in accordance with the terms of use established by the authority. (…) The required manner of producing proof of payment specified in the terms of use established by the authority may include, but is not limited to, requiring a person using an electronic fare payment card tovalidate the card by presenting the card to an electronic card reader before or upon entering a public transportation vehicleor a restricted fare paid area.”
Later on, in section 2:
“The following constitute civil infractions punishable according to the schedule of fines and penalties established by the authority under RCW 81.112.210(1): (…) (b) Failure to produce proof of payment in the manner required by the terms of use established by the authority including, but not limited to, the failure to produce a validated fare payment card when requested to do so by a person designated to monitor fare payment;” (emphasis, in both cases, is mine)
The only way to be fine-proof is to validate your card on an ORCA Fare Transaction Processor. Having a pass, in and of itself, isn’t enough. This makes sense, since pass funds are distributed based on how much you use a given Authority’s service. If you don’t tap, the trip isn’t recorded, and the Authority looses out on the share of revenue that trip would have given them.
Practically, this is how it plays out, as well. The one time I was warned by fare enforcement for not paying, I had been traveling up and down Link doing errands all day, and had forgotten to tap-off at Columbia City. Subsequently, every time I was ‘tapping-on’ I was actually tapping-out. When FEO’s checked me at Stadium, they saw the discrepancy and issued a warning. The guy was nice about it, since I clearly had made a mistake, and had a $3.00 PugetPass to boot, but without tapping it doesn’t matter.
Back to the policy is not always the practice: You were issued a warning. Have you seen someone issued a fine despite their having a sufficient pass?
Do you think ST really is in the practice of making riders pay fines when they fail to tap but have a sufficient pass?
It’s TOTAL CRAP that both Metro and ST have made the fare system incomprehensible unless your a lawyer and have memorized all the rules, your a transit geek and get off knowing all the iterations of how the fare system works, you ride the same route everyday and just know what YOU do, or you have a pass/passport to get out of jail if you forget to tap.
Transit sells ‘Time in the Seat’, and mostly at firesale prices (a small fraction of the actual cost of the ride).
If time on the transit coach/car is what were marketing, and many local routes take as much time as many two zone commuter routes, then how can they justify charge a distance based fare, when transit measures costs by the hour.
The difference in revenue is tiny, compared to all the damage to ridership this does.
In a previous thread, I noted LINK has only generated 7200 new daily transit riders in its first 3 years of operation. Each trip on LINK averages about 20 minutes in duration. What’s the average duration of your bus ride? Or the duration of a commuter rail ride from Kent.
There all equal, yet we have fares up the kazoo to cover everything from A to Z.
If the ride cost more to the transit agency for this mode over that mode, then I don’t really give a shit. That’s their mistake for not taking advantage of economy of scale or paying too much for the mode choice.
Sure, some service is a premium, like few stop express’ from the burbs. Charge a singe fare, but higher than the baseline, or long distance trains that cover multiple counties, but for god sake, simplify this beast. Your driving a lot of choice riders and tourist away.
Brent says:
March 3, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Back to the policy is not always the practice: You were issued a warning. Have you seen someone issued a fine despite their having a sufficient pass?
Do you think ST really is in the practice of making riders pay fines when they fail to tap but have a sufficient pass?
>If you fail to tap, you get one warning from the Fare Enforcement people who will write you up in their little log and take your photo. The second time is automatically a ticket and a court appearance in Shoreline with a very unsympathetic judge who could care less that you had a pass on the card or not. You have to tap or nobody gets paid, period. It’s a $180 something dollar fine (can’t remember exact amt at the moment).
@Mic,
Are you saying a milk run that takes an hour to get from Seattle to Burien should cost twice as much as the express that takes a half hour? Or are you advocating for tap-on/tap-off time-based fares? I’m all for simplicity, but your suggestions point in the opposite direction.
Heavens NO. Sitting on the milk run for an hour is punishment enough, much less charging double for the privilege of doing so.
I’m advocating for a flat fare for all of King County, regardless of the provider. One zone, anytime of the day, bus or rail. Young, Old, and Disabled get a half price ride. All day for 3x the base. Tap on and your good to go for 2 hours, with no tap off required. Simple.
Sell 2 hour tickets at the parking TVM’s, or transit validators or on your cell phone app so you can verify to fare checkers that you paid in advance.
The difference in revenue to our transit agencies could be made small by making the change revenue neutral and let the computers and bean counters figure out what percent of the take each agency is entitled to, or spot check to figure out where people alight, or how many trips are linked. This ‘bean counter’ mentality is what gave us our current system and drives why we can’t change it. It also drives away future transit riders.
One final comment on tap off.
Most of us don’t change address’ each day or week. So if you tap on a train/bus in Kent in the morning and tap on again at KSS in the afternoon, there’s a high probability you got off at KSS in the morning and off at Kent in the evening. Let the computers sort through the data from time to time to re-adjust the ‘Division of Revenue’ formulas.
You can even predict the number of multiple linked trips with enough precision to capture that data.
Bean Counters Beware!
Your days are numbered.
In other words, Mic, one zone, but no difference between local and express.
One of the Metro heads mentioned the possibility of one zone last week, but panned it as losing too much fare revenue. He mentioned nothing about service-type-based fares, or whether the numbers would crunch well for such a system.
I think so Brent. I know the arguments for charging for an express over a local, but it’s a slippery slope once you start down that path. Is the 72 a local or express? It’s both, as most express buses circulate around areas, then haul ass to circulate around a destination area (MT158, etc), and they do a lot of deadheading, so they’re not as efficient as say a full MT2, going both ways. The difference to the bottom line for all the parsing of data and fares is really not that much compared to the total cost of operating the transit system.
The other common argument is that not charging a stiff premium to get from Issaquah Highlands to say Seattle encourages sprawl. Yes, maybe a little, but does anyone think that in deciding to buy a house out there that the fare structure on Metro was the ‘Huge’ deciding factor? Of course not, that’s just silly, as quality of life, housing cost, and a lot of other factors are more prominent, and keep in mind transit is among the least used modes, so for most, it’s not even on the radar scope.
Sprawl is it’s own animal.
Also, Mic, should there be no surcharge for fumbling change, and hence no per-ride incentive to use ORCA product?
No, ORCA speeds the whole system up, just like the Puget Pass and Passport cards did, therefore, good deeds deserve a reward.
The fare would remain flat, but using an electronic media would get the deep discount, say 25% off.
Grocery stores learned long ago it’s the repeat happy customer that keeps the bottom line in the black.
Sign ’em up – by the truckloads, or should I say by the mostly empty SOV loads.
mic, there may be some awkward edge cases, but that doesn’t negate the benefits of service-type-based pricing. Routes most appropriate for service-type-based pricing are those meeting the following criteria:
– Long trip length
– All or most trips run in a single direction
– Most of the trip length is freeway or express
– There is a slower local alternative
The first two criteria are meant to capture the services that cost the most per trip to run. The second two are meant to ensure that people paying the lower fare retain essential mobility.
By these criteria, the 158 would justify a surcharge, but the 72X wouldn’t, and I think that’s the correct result. When it comes to commuter express routes, “we know it when we see it.” The only challenge is routes like the 255 that encompass two completely separate missions, and there aren’t too many of those left (although nearly all of Metro’s all-day suburban network would have fit in that category 20 years ago).
“Have you seen someone issued a fine despite their having a sufficient pass?”
Would you see it though? Every time I’ve seen inspectors question someone and pursue it further than “Don’t do it next time”, they take them off the train.
Okay, have you seen someone say they have a sufficient pass, and still be taken off the train?
On the bus I ride (119X), it’s pre-set to 1 zone on the Seattle side (it depends on the driver though… some drivers have set it to 2 zone). The ORCA reader autochanges to 2 zone once the bus gets on the ferry (I’m assuming it’s the same for the afternoon/evening 118X trips, not sure of the morning trips).
I’m confused. Is it set to 1 zone on the afternoon outbound trip, and then changes to 2 zones in the middle of the trip?
Yes. For this trip (which is in the evening), the ORCA reader is set to 1 zone, but once the bus gets on the ferry it changes to 2 zone w/o driver intervention and the driver has to manually change it back to 1 zone.
It would make sense for the reader to be preset to 2 zones prior to the fare boundary and 1 zone after passing the fare boundary. I don’t see the point of changing from one zone to two zone. People who board after passing the fare boundary can only travel in one zone.
During the past couple weeks, I’ve been using RapidRide C for the the first time, riding between downtown and various stops on or near California Ave during off-peak hours.
I’ve haven’t been impressed by the signal priority it gets. There are times when the bus waits for a couple minutes at a light, even when there’s minimal cross traffic. I haven’t timed the delays, but there are rides where it feels like 20-30% of the trip is spent waiting for the light to change.
Is Metro/SDOT planning on getting more aggressive with signal priority for RapidRide C?
Answers will only come from asking Metro where they have requested signal priority (and how long ago they did so), and if they have, asking SDOT what they plan to do.
I have a hard time believing that Metro would drag their feet on asking for TSP implementation, when Metro is the agency the typical uninformed voter will blame for lack of such. I also have a hard time believing that SDOT would drag their feet once asked, as McGinn’s administration is all about faster transit.
That said, I hope the two agencies get it together, as we need some of those buses for the E Line and F Line come October.
There’s some variation in catching lights and the length of delays at lights. This morning, the trip from West Seattle to downtown was good- the longest wait was about 30 seconds at 2nd Ave. Others days, it seems like there are delays at every light from SW Edmunds St to 2nd Avenue- enough to make me wonder why there’e isn’t better bus/light coordination.
Other comments:
I haven’t used it during rush hour, so I have no idea how it performs at peak usage. This is my first time using the bus in West Seattle, so I don’t know how it compares to pre-RapidRide service.
RapidRide C seems popular: nearly every trip I’ve taken, usage has varied between having about 3/4 of the seats filled to having all the seats full plus the aisle packed with standees.
My biggest problem with the service is frequency. 10 minute (or better) off-peak frequency until at least 10pm would be a huge improvement.
The signal priority was disabled earlier this year due to signal problems at several intersections (either the traffic signal would get stuck on green in one direction or the signal would go into flash mode). There was a story about it in the West Seattle Blog:
http://westseattleblog.com/2013/01/followup-stoplight-problems-traced-to-transit-signal-priority-equipment
Okay, now for some good news.
With Fairview Avenue North re-opening this upcoming Saturday, I am assuming that route 70 will be re-electrified by the summer shakeup. Doesn’t that sound great!
If it means routes 71, 72, and 73 on evenings and Sundays will move from their faster reroute to their slower regular route, I do no consider this so great.
That is bound to happen anyway; Fairview needs service. Of course the through travelers will eventually get relief… in 2021. Sigh.
What if evenings and Sundays, the 66 took over service on Fairview, allowing the 71, 72, and 73 to run express for their full span of service?
Why should 66 riders get a slow bus? Part of the point of the route is the limited stops along Eastlake.
That would require a decision to reduce frequency along Fairview to every half hour nights and Sundays. I think such a decision might be justified; Fairview ridership is insane at weekday peaks but pretty slow the rest of the time. There are far more through 71/72/73 riders inconvenienced by the slow trip now than there are 66 riders who would be inconvenienced by the slow trip later.
My personal experience on 71/72/73 buses running local is that there are tons of thru-riders going all the way from downtown to the U-district, but very few riders getting on or off the bus anywhere along Fairview or Eastlake. IMHO, a reduction of Fairview/Eastlake service to every 30 minutes on the 66 is worth it if it means the 71, 72, and 73 get to run express. Such a change would also reduce operating costs which, given Metro’s budget crisis is good in and of itself.
One possible modification I might suggest, though, is that on evenings and Sundays, the 71, 72, and 73 should only run express when they get to use the I-5 express lanes and should run local (albeit taking Eastlake instead of Fairview) during the hours when the express lanes are closed or running the wrong direction. The reason being is that what eats up all the time is routing, not so much dwell time at bus stops. Fairview/Eastlake is much, much slower than the I-5 express lanes. But Eastlake all the way with stops is only about a minute slower than Eastlake all the way without stops.
This post about transit subsidies at humantransit got me thinking about smart cards and subsidies. I haven’t thought this through so it is probably full of holes, but I’m going to post this anyhow. Right now subsidies come from
– The general populace via taxes (collected & distributed at various levels of government) to support the operating costs and/or capital outlays of transit agencies
– Employers via free/reduced cost passes to their employees
– Companies, consortiums, LIDS or governments paying directly for extra service in a certain area or route
The more we move to using smart cards for all transit trips (if we can ever go cashless), the more targeted these subsidies could be. Subsidies to certain individuals making certain trips and taking part in certain activities.
Some stores and malls will have paid parking but will validate parking for a certain amount of time if you make a purchase. I wonder if we can leverage the power of the smart card (ORCA in our case) to do the same thing to subsidize transit fares? Say I ride the bus to Northgate using the e-purse on my ORCA. When I buy something somewhere, maybe they can credit my card with a free trip. It would probably have to look to see if I had tapped on a route that serves Northgate first to reduce fraud. It seems like this system would work better if we tapped off on buses like we do trains. That way businesses could target their transit subsides more directly.
In this same way, employers could subsidize only their employees trips to their location. This could have a number of advantages. Specific events could subsidize specific bus service on specific dates.
What are some of the other ways we could further leverage the power of our smart cards?
I guess this could go straight into the “don’t track my travel habits” conversation. It might be hard to implement some of these possibilities without infringing heavily on rider privacy.
Here’s one scary quote from Jarrett: “One problem in much of America, and notably in California, is that residents are net consumers of government services while employers are net subsidizers of them; this motivates cities to minimize their populations and maximize their employment. (This explains many odd shapes of city boundaries that seek to include jobs but exclude residents.).”
I’d love to see Jarrett provide more detail how he arrived at this scary conclusion.
This conclusion isn’t so scary. Some government services are shared – such as roads, fire protection, police – its a nuanced analysis to figure out in a particular circumstance if commercial or residential uses more.
What’s clear is schools and social services are nearly exclusively used by residents.
Best situation fiscally for a city? Business and open space.
It is a basic fact of municipal finance, at least on the West Coast. This imbalance is why the state has to bribe cities into annexing unincorporated residential areas (via salex tax exemptions). But the sweeteners weren’t enough for Seattle, which has turned down annexing White Center or Skyway. King County has been promoting incorporation of all unincorporated urban areas for the last few decades in order to reduce their expenses.
Businesses pay more taxes, that’s why cities want them. Especially large businesses like Boeing and Southcenter.
The conclusion isn’t so off the mark. Especially in California, just look at the City of Industry or City of Commerce.
I’m not doubting the conclusion. I’m wondering what the implications are for Seattle. We’ve clearly documented the opposition of a vocal and determined segment of voters to allowing more people to move into Seattle, in their own words, here on this blog. They are even going so far as to do a charter initiative aimed at tipping the balance of the council in their favor.
It’s the possibility that bean counters at City Hall could also be advocating against population growth inside the city that has me troubled.
What’s happening in the Cities of Industry and Commerce?
Seattle wants to annex White Center. The problem is the tighter budget situation since 2008: there’s less money to subsidize WC and increasing city needs.
“King County has been promoting incorporation of all unincorporated urban areas for the last few decades in order to reduce their expenses.”
Specifically, King County wants to provide only rural services. Its role has de facto expanded as unincorporated areas have grown since the 1950s. So it’s trying to get urban areas to incorporate or join adjacent cities.
Likewise, KCLS is a “rural library district”, and Metro was created from Seattle Transit and a rural transit district. Here, the county has accepted its creeping role of running urban regional libraries and buses. But it doesn’t want to do the same for police, park, and other services.
I definitely support the concepts of businesses validating transit fares. It seems completely unfair that a business would pay for your $10 parking fee at a nearby garage, but won’t pay for your $2.50 bus fare.
But in order for that to happen, businesses have to first start treating the possibility of customers arriving by transit seriously. For instance, several months ago, I attended a show at the Paramount Threatre, right across the street from Convention Place Station. They provided a lot of useful information about which exit to take off of I-5, where to park and how 520 tolling was supposedly messing the whole traffic situation up, so leave extra early. But there was not one mention about the downtown bus tunnel right across the street!
Sounds like the Paramount knows how its customers arrive and it isn’t by bus. I attended a show there in January and arrived via LINK but was probably in the minority.
Yeah, it is interesting how much money companies will spend on parking for their employees and how willing retailers are to validate. Yet I’m guessing most companies located outside of downtown Seattle & Bellevue are stingy with bus passes and have plenty of employee parking. And we all know suburban shopping malls are the same way.
I’m not sure that it’s so much that the Paramount “knows it customers” (they run a lot of musical acts there that will attract very different demographics from show to show) but rather that it both makes assumptions about its customers and probably has a lot of relations with the neighboring parking lots and garages that it considers mutually advantageous. What needs to happen is for Metro and Sound Transit to convince places like the Paramount that there is an advantage to having a customer base that can rely on transit options to both arrive and leave. If the answer is a wait of 55 minutes after you leave the show, not so likely.
“Sounds like the Paramount knows how its customers arrive and it isn’t by bus.”
When the show was over and I walked down to Convention Place station for my ride home, I looked around and the station was nearly deserted, in spite of thousands of people just walking out of the theater at the same time I did. I realize the transit system is quite limited at 10 PM, which is when the show ended. But Mariner’s games still draw a lot of people to transit anyway. I recall riding a 358 home from a Mariner’s game at 10:30 at night that was jam packed.
There is also the issue of a more general problem that businesses are far more willing to offer promotions that subsidize car-related expenses than transit-related expenses. For instance, Safeway gives you discounts off gas if you buy a certain amount of groceries, but you don’t own a car and the only driving you do is Zipcar, those discounts become completely worthless. And one of my co-workers was talking about how an apartment in Queen Anne offered him a discount on parking ($50/month vs. $125/month) in exchange for signing a lease right after viewing the apartment. By contrast, the same amount of incentive money could have been used towards a bus pass, but I’m yet to hear of a single apartment complex that subsidizes it’s resident’s bus passes.
In fact, the only businesses I’ve seen willing to subsidize any kind of transit-related expenditures are employers doing it for their employees.
Oh! asdf, Old School Frozen Custard offers a 10% discount for ORCA card holders. I feel like the spirit of the discount would mean it would apply with a transfer or receipt also, but I forgot to ask.
Best situation fiscally for a city? Business and open space.
As exemplified by City of Industry, City of Commerce and pre-annexation Tukwila. No bond defaults there…..
Specific events could subsidizing specific bus service on specific dates is not unprecedented. During the Vancouver Olympics, your event ticket also functioned as your rail ticket, making the SkyTrain a very attractive option to get to the venues. I also believe that the city of Pheonix does a similar program to get its citizens to ride its light rail to Dimondbacks games.
It’s done right here at Husky Stadium, and has been for 25 years.
The back door ORCA tappers during PM peak–do they record the route number or is it just the location?
I’ve watched the assistants re-set the zone sets on the hand-held readers.
Re: rt70 re-electrification and when …
@kcmetrobus: @GordonWerner We’re coordinating with the city’s schedule but haven’t set a firm date. Stay tuned.
Since Island Transit’s plight seems to go ignored, here’s an update: http://www.growlernoise.com/2013/03/sunday-editorial-instead-of-touching.html
Short version: State Rep. Hayes, GOP has promised to make sure in the current transportation budget is funding for the tri-county connector. Stop me if this sounds familiar to Metro users, but we really do not want funding for this connector put at risk by having it shunted to the transportation package vote.
But putting the most popular programs on a tax-raising ballot package, while keeping the mundane and unpopular programs funded out of the general fund, is a time-tested way to get tax packages passed.
Yeah and I think the public is seeing through that.
Like I said, we can’t be putting these economy-generating runs at risk.
Every route is generating somebody’s economy. Why is the connector any more important than any other route that lots of people depend on to get to work?
That route has over 100,000 riders.
Some routes are lucky to have 10,000!
Super fast built 1st ave bus/light rail tunnel. Go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n47ExxV6QY
Could also be used to link the slut to westlake station….
TOMAS assumes that you’re building through greenfield lands. You can’t use its technology on a city street! You have to do the “Market Street Hango” (hang the utilities above the tubes and stations from a lattice of steel beams covered with a wooden structure for vehicles to drive on while you excavate the soil) or bore.
That’s why almost every city subway undertaken for the past twenty-five years since the advent of TBM’s is bored.
That is one enormous station cavern!
The Point Defiance Bypass has gotten its FONSI from the FRA. This means that the Environmental Assessment has been approved and construction can hopefully begin shortly. There should be an announcement coming from WSDOT soon.
It’s about time!
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/pnwrc_ptdefiance/
Design first, then construction starting in 2015.
We can hope that the timeline on this will go faster than predicted. There’s not a hell of a lot of design work to do; if we’re lucky they might be able to start construction in 2014. From Tacoma to Lakewood there is basically no design work left to do, though from Lakewood to Nisqually there’s a matter of deciding exactly which side to widen the ROW on, dealing with drainage. There’s also finalizing the plans for grade crossings, but those are quite highly developed.
T. Boone Pickens and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently unveiled the city’s first mobile food truck fully-powered by compressed natural gas,
Looks like NYC is planning to keep their best city for pizza title well into the future :=
Wake me up when technology improves such that:
1) a CNG bus can carry enough fuel onboard for an 18-hour service day, and
2) either room is somehow found aboard a bus for all the equipment needed for a CNG-electric hybrid propulsion system, or CNG engine performance and efficiency improve enough for a conventional CNG bus to perform like a diesel-electric hybrid.
There are a number of very good reasons that diesel-electric hybrids decisively shoved CNG out of most of the urban transit bus market.
Wake me up when:
Done, from the Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transit Bus Experience Survey (Sep, 2010), “agencies promoted equipping buses with the maximum number of gas-storage cylinders possible … The additional cylinders also allow some of these agencies the possibility of skipping a night’s fueling in the event of a hard station outage.”
Done
CNG buses account for 25% of the current orders from transit agencies. Couldn’t find current data for Diesel Hybrids but back in 2008 it was 22%. Numbers are going to be skewed by government subsidies for some time to come but a major issue with CNG is the reliance on often a single self maintained fueling station. That’s changing as private investment is building out America`s Natural Gas Highway
Even New York is way ahead of Washington when it comes to clean fuel.
Long Island Town Pioneers Closed-Loop, Pollution-Free Wind Power-Hydrogen Fuel System
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/29/long-island-town-pioneers-closed-loop-pollution-free-wind-power-hydrogen-fuel-system/#j866pUmw7CX2OsZK.99
Stop sniffing the Hydrogen John. WA produces 19% of it’s electricity from fossil fuels, NY 46%. WA produces 5% of it’s electricity from wind, NY only 2%. What the idiots are doing creating hydrogen with the wind power instead of putting it back into the grid and reducing the 10% NY still generates from coal make those vehicles the most polluting highest cost examples of government pork imaginable. If only we could capture the methane from the pig shit.
We do, Bernie. We do…
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/wastewater-treatment.php
idiots are doing creating hydrogen with the wind power instead of putting it back into the grid
To understand the grid, you have to understand baseload. Baseload is the steady voltage that generators maintain based on use demand.
The problem with all renewables (except hydropower) is they are variable. Only there when sun or wind is around. And that might not match demand.
Enter hydrogen storage. With hydrogen not only can we management baseload nearly entirely with renewables, but we can create excess and use it in transportation.
No fracking.
John, when was the last time there was so little demand in NY that 2% couldn’t be absorbed and adjusted for? 19% of NY electricity is hydro including numerous micro hydro installations. If you were actually interested in storage of electricity, which isn’t even close to being necessary pumped hydro is far more efficient. In order to understand anything you have to grasp basic physics. Either you don’t our just insist on acting stupid. Try looking at the facts before arriving at conclusions instead of the other way around.
Bernie, I’m quite confident that diesel-electric hybrid numbers have gone way up since 2008. And I don’t know of any recent CNG sales that aren’t to existing CNG operators seeking to amortize already-built CNG infrastructure. Only one of those CE40LFs was ever built, and the reasons were cost, complexity, and weight. It didn’t have the optimal amount of capacity for either battery or fuel; you’re not going to get 18-hour runtime (actually, there are a couple of Metro runs that need closer to 20) out of any CNG-electric hybrid using current technology.
On the other hand, diesel-electrics are proven, and have been a dream come true from an operational perspective with their low maintenance costs and fantastic performance (including both speed and operating range).
@David L. No doubt diesel electric hybrids rule the roost right now. But 25% of existing orders, even if they aren’t signing up new agencies is far from being run out of the market. And like I said much has to be attributed to government subsidies that manipulate markets. The proportion of hybrid buses orders would be zero if it weren’t for subsidies. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong but we do have to make sure it’s not just giveaways like hydrogen fuel cell “incentives” are. Diesels are working off an existing infrastructure. When CNG and LNG infrastructure from the private sector starts to offer alternatives the huge discount in fuel cost and price stability will come into play. I could be hugely wrong but to me the “explosion” in domestic natural gas production and the increasing instability of world crude oil production point to a huge increase in methane as a part of a future transportation solution. As an aside, diesel is not going away. But if the bulk of long haul trucking switches to LNG then the existing diesel refinery capacity will be freed to open a resurgence of passenger car diesels as is the norm in Europe. Highly refined high priced gasoline will become rare and expensive. Bad news for us petrol heads but being able to breath is also an important consideration in the long term enjoyment of my ’65 Mustang.
To be clear, I’m quite confident that you’re right. The point I wanted to make and failed at is that CNG/LNG technology today is where diesel electric hybrid technology was 5 years ago. Of course the existing “big oil” lobbies would be pushing ways to sell diesel back then. Now the energy lobbyist have a huge surplus of natural gas to sell. We just have to be vigilant that they don’t try to do that through wasteful fairy tales like hydrogen powered vehicles run off of wind and seawater.
Thanks for those comments, Bernie. You saved me having to say the same things. :-)
I am currently boying a large percentage of my electricity from landfill methane, which is considered “renewable”. I’m not sure why landfill methane can’t be processed and put into the natural gas distribution grid, but apparently its purity is inconsistent enough that they prefer to burn it for electricity rather than for stoves.
It doesn’t warrant the investment in compressors and new pipelines to put it back into the system. You can’t add pressure just any old where as most lines are very low pressure. And most of the landfills I’ve read about where they are generating electricity are pretty far out in the sticks. Small scale electrical generation is practical and a large percentage of natural gas goes to generation anyway.
Re extending trolley routes, that’s a problem I repeatedly encountered in my Capitol Hill restructure ideas. My suggestions were to delete the 43 and 49, make the 8, 10, and 11 more frequent, and restore the 9-local (UW – Mt Baker via Broadway). Extend the 10 to 19th & Madison to subsume the 12’s tail. Make the 47 go Summit-E Olive Way-Capitol Hill Station, and attach it to a TBD route. In Mt Baker, combine the 14’s and 27’s tails. Delete the 3N and 4S.
The problem with these is the same issue as extending the 13: it would require dieselizing service hours (43->8 and 48, 49->11, 14->27, 4S->48) or installing significant wire. I want more trolleys, not less, so it bums me out that that the trolley routing itself is part of the problem, and that a logical restructure would have to string up so much new wire and abandon other wire.
Obviously, Metro can’t install new wire in its current budget situation. So if we did these changes and the 13 extension, it would lead to dieselization of a significant percentage of the trolley service. At that point some people might say the remaining trolley network is to small to maintain, so let’s dieselize all of it.
*growl*…. Finish the wire down 23rd and a lot of these problems go away. It’s less than 2 miles of wire needed.
I took the 164 up James Street after a bike ride on the Green River Trail. For most of the way, this old truck which was a few feet in front was bellowing diesel fumes and they infused the whole cabin of the bus.
By what law or right do these diesels get to pollute so much more than regular engines (which are also bad, but not like this). And here I include, trucks, trains, buses, school buses and also big rig pick up trucks like the 10-cylinder Rams and all.
I believe it’s the “grandfather clauses”. New diesels are not allowed to pollute significantly more than gasoline engines, but old diesels were. In California, they have a “smog check” law which has been pulling the old diesels off the road. But do you have such a law in Washington State?
I cannot tell you how many times one of these “new diesel” pick up trucks let off a particulate cloud that infused an entire intersection!
In WA gasoline vehicles in select zip codes are smog checked every other year if they are more than 5 years old and newer than 25 years old. Diesels are exempt. I think trucks 3/4 ton and larger are also except. If you don’t meet emissions you can get a wavier by spending $150. They get persnickety after the 2nd and 3rd wavier but there’s really no teeth to get non-conforming cars off the road as there is in CA.
You also have rednecks that modify their lifted diesel 3/4tons for “performance” and end up screwing up the emissions; or they just do it intentionally. There needs to be better enforcement, especially in urban areas.
What Chris I said. A lot of these guys seem to think the size of their manhood is proportionate to the amount of HC their truck belches when they step on it.
Diesel vehicles produced since 2003 or so won’t appreciably pollute if properly maintained and not modified.
How to Live on Minimum Wage
http://www.wikihow.com/Live-on-Minimum-Wage
and how will you get around?
The answer is simple. You may make minimum wage now, but you have a car leftover from when you were making more money earlier, which is fully paid off, so your minimum wage only needs to cover gas an insurance. You can then decide to illegally drive without insurance, leaving your minimum wage income to cover only the gas.
It can be done, at least until the first major repair bill.
A new diesel-electric hybrid micro-bus.
“It can travel 14 miles in all-electric mode.”
So much for renewable…
Long Beach Transit Greening Its Fleet With New CNG Buses
California Crazy! The State is flat out banning diesel electric hybrids with the new particulate emissions systems which they lead the way on. But they can buy gasoline electric hybrids and non-hybrid CNG buses. I read LA has zero diesel use in it’s entire fleet. Instead of government regulations and grants specifying the technology the federal dollars should be used for CO2 bonus points. The amount of the grant is based on the level of CO2 reduction and local agencies can weight that against purchase price, service life, fuel economy, fuel price stability and maintenance/reliability.
So I can’t figure what the Long Beach problem is with diesel. Obvously not a State wide requirement:
Same factory that is building the CNG buses for Long Beach. Some sort of LA area regulations? I remember reading a while back that they forced the railroads to replace all diesel switching locomotives with natural gas. Maybe the state CARB regulations have tighter restrictions based on density sort of like WA only mandates emissions testing in the Seattle Tacoma metro area.
Ah, yep, found it.
South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California has banned the area’s transit systems from buying new diesel buses.
Crazy! You can buy a gas-electric hybrid but not a diesel even if it means forcing agencies to buy non-hybrid CNG buses that pollute more. Meanwhile all of the school districts can buy standard diesel, albeit CARB compliant buses.
That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. It’s the sort of thing that gives environmentalists a bad name. If a modern diesel with a DPF is working correctly, you can rub your finger on the inside of the tailpipe and not find any soot.
Not the [ad hominem] so much as the politicians and the lobbyists that pay them. Some of the lobbyists are likely AstroTurf environmentalist. Also might be chalked up to government paralysis.