CityNerd visits Seattle and discusses Link’s Northgate station area. Bonus: He grew up in the Maple Leaf neighborhood, so this would have been his station.
He also did a recent video on Portland’s multimodal transit network and bicycle infrastructure.
Is the video meant to be RM?
Hmm, fixed, just as I posted this. Didn’t realize I had the power.
I don’t know what you might have gotten; it may have been browser caching.
Isn’t the one parking garage that ST actually owns at Northgate still fee-free?
That’s what the video’s comments say.
Thanks Mike. I don’t typically peruse Youtube content comments so I missed that correction….
From one commenter:
“I regret to inform you that the parking for Northgate, provided by Sound Transit, is, in fact, free. The parking tower you showed was actually owned by the mall and charges cash. However ST is doing a campaign currently about beginning to charge for use of its park-and-ride lots, and almost all the surface lots in the Northgate area are slated for closure and redevelopment soon. King County Metro owns the huge lot directly in front of the old bus loop, and it put out a notice it will be closed to customer use by the end of this year so they can begin upzoning for, um, probably residential mixed use?”
For that specific building more information is at
> King County and the City of Seattle, together with nonprofit partners BRIDGE Housing Corporation and Community Roots Housing (CRH), are transforming King County Metro-owned land into 232 affordable housing units. This development will be strategically situated near the Northgate Link light rail station and Northgate Park & Ride D. The King County Council approved the development agreement in 2021, securing a 75-year lease. The groundbreaking ceremony is set for the fall of 2023.
https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/projects/transit-oriented-communities/northgate
Note, they are only constructing the north half of lot D. I believe they will construct the souther half whenever lynnwood link opens and park and ride lot isn’t as needed. Though they might need to put out another proposal
If the mall parking goes empty now, just wait until Lynnwood Link opens with its massive garages.
I also expect a sizable drop in Northgate station boardings when Lynnwood Link opens as riders transfer upstream. I expect the station boardings to still be decent, but the problems of so much walkable distance taken by I-5 land will become more obvious. I would expect the 9,800 boardings in June 2023 to drop to about half that or 4,900. Roosevelt has about 4,500 boardings in a June 2023 for comparison
I also expect a sizable drop in Northgate station boardings when Lynnwood Link opens as riders transfer upstream.
I agree. That has happened with every one of our stations. Even at SeaTac, the ridership went down considerably when Angle Lake was added (at a time when ridership was generally growing). I call it the “terminus effect” (and I’m sure it is common in various systems).
With Northgate it is a bit tough to gauge. I would guess that a considerable amount of ridership comes from the park and ride lots, but still not that much. Last time I added it up, there just aren’t that many (compared to ridership). I think the big thing is the buses. Right now, it is a regional transit hub. It will become far more local in the future. Depending on the various restructures, riders will switch to using other buses.
In terms of walk-up ridership, there is the college, as well as various clinics nearby. It still isn’t great, but it is something. The folks who take the bus (or walk) from 5th will continue to do so. I expect it to drop, but still be a decent station. When the mall is finished being redeveloped (and they add housing there) my guess is there will be an uptick.
The empty garage is the paid one. Pretty empty except for when there are concerts or games going on in Town. On those afternoons, you can see even the $15 parking on the roof of the ST garage roof fill up. I believe the mall won’t charge you if you’re in before a certain hour (9 AM), but I wouldn’t trust them as long as the Thornton Place garage is free all day. Nowadays you often have to go down to the bottom basement floor to get an orange park-and-ride spot at Thornton Place, so that “secret” is out, but there have still been plenty of spots still open even after 9-10 AM. Thornton Place does put up “No Event Parking 3 hr limit” signs nowadays, but it’s not clear if they enforce it. The 3 hr limit applies in general to the not orange retail spots, I’m guessing they would enforce it for those spots more than the orange spots, because how can they tell if someone is park-and-riding but not going to the game?
Fortunately, most of this parking demand will shift to stations further north up the line, just as the redevelopment really gets in to gear.
Word on the street is that Thornton is moving to a new parking “system” in the near future due to game/event parking that is taking up the residents’ spots. (Residents can pay for “general” parking, in which they park in any white space, or pay more for the “reserved” parking behind the gated area.)
Thornton has started “chalk marking” tires in the retail spots and checking to see if the car has moved in x-amount of time. So the days of free, unfettered parking at Thornton are nearing an end, especially for game/event traffic. I’m guessing the park-and-ride rules will stay the same but with additional enforcement.
There are a lot of lots, and the names are kind of confusing. King County lists them as:
Northgate Mall Park & Ride Garage — 280 slots.
Northgate Park & Ride A, B, D — 443, 139, 448 slots (respectively).
Thornton Place Garage — 350
According to that website, Northgate Park & Ride “A” is operated by Sound Transit. No charge on Levels B1-B4. Rooftop parking is reserved for mall customers and parking rates apply.
This source has a nice map. The information is basically the same, except they use some different names:
Northgate Park & Ride A = Northgate Station Garage (operated by ST)
Northgate Park & Ride B = North Seattle Park & Ride
Northgate Park & Ride D = Northgate Transit Center East Park & Ride
Anyway, I pity someone trying to meet someone else in one of the garages. You are probably better off just meeting on a street corner.
I do not park and ride. Do you find the letters helpful?
Despite being from Mapleleaf, the author got the creek name incorrect; it is Thornton Creek. The creek itself is in pipes; there is a water feature south of the Lorig development. As a kid, I played in the swamps downstream from Ronald Bog south of NE 175th Street before I-5 was constructed.
Bruce Lorig was one of the heroes. His firm and King County split the cost of 3rd Avenue NE that SDOT required to allow the NTC to shift to 1st Avenue NE. The agencies had to go through that study twice (e.g., 2002 and 2013), as ST forgot about the first one during their delay. Lorig developed affordable housing.
Yes, ST, in their allegiance to the regional spine has selected freeway alignments several times. My adage: a freeway is to pedestrians as a dam is to fish. As the author points out, it also slows development. ST also chose the upcoming NE 145th Street station to be in a full interchange that will have heavy traffic forever.
There is a shot of the Urban Design framework. That was odd. The governments have moved more slowly than Simon, a conservative Indiana corporation. But of course, malls were in trouble anyway due to increase in online shopping. (Simon owns the Pacers).
The garages at all the stations will be full but will not be cost-effective. The public garages are still not priced; the priced one is owned by Simon. The ST garage was obscenely costly. No ST boardmember challenged the record of decision that included parking despite the long delay.
The author shows how the north half of Mapleleaf lacks sidewalks on the east-west streets and 15th Avenue NE; there are sidewalks on 5th Avenue NE and Roosevelt Way NE. It is not that sidewalks were not invented but that they were not required by zoning. Seattle south of 85th Street has sidewalk for the most part except for local streets in SE Seattle. Seattle annexed its north end in the early 1950s.
“Simon, a conservative Indiana corporation.”
Simon seems to be better than Westfield. Northgate was already more transit-accessible and walkable than most local malls when Simon bought it, and other Simon malls I’ve seen have been smaller and more walkable than average malls. And now they’re voluntarily doing a renovation with housing and more stories and integrating with the Link station. Even if it’s not excellent it’s not the worst either. Some developments have been “transit-adjacent” instead of “transit-oriented:”, meaning the same density but unwalkable (e.g., you have to walk around two or three sides of the building to get to the entrance).
The Westfield malls I’ve seen have all been bad typical American malls. The only good one I’ve seen is Westfield San Francisco Center, which took over a building called the Emporium that’s like the Bon Marche downtown. That’s what more malls should be like.
“Simon, a conservative Indiana corporation.” Incorrect.
I conservative in a development manner; it took them a long time to build housing. But note that Simon is moving faster than Seattle and King County.
meant
“Simon, a conservative Indiana corporation.”
I don’t think that shopping center developers can be classified as “conservative” unless it’s simply describing their avoidance of risk. Simon wants malls open on Sundays as opposed to a company like Chick-Fil-A that closes stores on that day, for example. Simon chose to redevelop Northgate rather than sell it off because they didn’t want to operate in our “liberal” city.
I’m not sure what mentioning Indiana implies either. Midwestern cities are relatively close in distance (within 3 hours drive of Indianapolis are Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus and Louisville) and headquarters state location can’t be viewed as an indicator of good guy/ bad guy leanings.
I occasionally drive to the “Northgate Transit Center East Park & Ride”, and I don’t recall seeing a lettering system for any of the parking lots at Northgate. My guess is that it’s mainly to simplify the paperwork on King County’s side.
Oops, meant to be a reply to eddiew’s commen: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/10/11/citynerd-on-link/#comment-919420
[Reply doesn’t seem to working right now — hopefully this comment nests correctly.]
I don’t recall seeing a lettering system for any of the parking lots at Northgate. My guess is that it’s mainly to simplify the paperwork on King County’s side.
Yeah, I’ve walked around there, and don’t remember any signs. I guess it doesn’t matter much. My most common use of park and ride lots are for meeting up with friends to go hiking. Kenmore is especially handy. It is a big lot, but it isn’t too hard to tell the other person where you are parked (and it is largely deserted on weekends). My guess is folks doing that sort of thing at Northgate would just use the outdoor lot to the east of the station (the obvious one).
Otherwise, it rarely matters. If you are meeting someone coming from a bus or the train, you are probably going to meet them in the station. I just find it odd that they have different names, and the names aren’t obvious. If your car won’t start, or there is a police incident, it would be handy to look around and be able to tell someone at least what lot you are at.
I park at the ST garage several days a week and I have noticed that KCM’s park and ride lots do now have signs identifying the lots by letter. I think this just changed within the last couple of weeks.
Despite being from Mapleleaf, the author got the creek name incorrect; it is Thornton Creek.
Yeah, which is odd, given how things are named Thornton this, and Thornton that, in reference to the creek. The watershed for the creek is quite large. Here is a cool map of that: https://thorntoncreekalliance.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Thornton-Creek-Watershed-Poster-Low-Res.png.
The author shows how the north half of Maple Leaf lacks sidewalks on the east-west streets and 15th Avenue NE; there are sidewalks on 5th Avenue NE and Roosevelt Way NE.
Yeah, it goes back to the annexation, which he alluded to. I’m pretty sure the “not invented yet” was a joke. The sidewalks on many of the residential streets in Maple Leaf extend beyond the old annexation. In that sense, they are better than a lot of north end neighborhoods. Here is a nice interactive map of sidewalks put out by the city: https://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e2de3bcaf1a6461fb49984d195be2e49. I suggest selecting just “Sidewalk Conditions” and “Streets”. Brown is basically “no sidewalks”. East and west of Maple Leaf, it is common to lose the sidewalks just as soon as you leave the old city limits (85th). There are sidewalks on arterials, and that’s it. Maple Leaf and Licton Springs are unusual in that they have sidewalks extending farther north (and they have been there for years). For example, here is 12th NE & 92nd NE (both residential streets) and there are sidewalks in every direction: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fuPK1EcYvQjXp6mA9. In contrast, this is 6th NW and NW 90th: https://maps.app.goo.gl/56rhk3XmAxH3554W6. No sidewalks anywhere. Go figure.
Most of the arterials have sidewalks, but many are spotty. 15th is one of those spotty-sidewalk arterials. It is often one side or another. In some places it is definitely low-quality (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kL8hRYAxwMTNUg4x5) but I’m pretty sure there is something on one side or the other through there.
One of the things I noticed as a kid was sidewalks being mandatory for new apartments in the 1980’s. Certain streets in NW Seattle north of 85th would only have sidewalks next these buildings. It used to be very obvoous where old Seattle ended and the annex started. South of 85th, the sidewalks were the same for at least an entire block. Not true north of 85th . Y
ou would be on a sidewalk for 25 feet and then in a 200 foot long dirt puddle. Depending on which building you were walking past. And since the sidewalks did not seem to have very many standards, some did not even line up. One block could have 3 different looking sidewalks made out of diffetent materials and not aligned. Some of that is gone now. But Greenwood Avenue used to be a prime example of this as I remember.
I get a little annoyed when people imply that lack of sidewalks implies lack of quality of life or lack of civilization or something like that.
I like sidewalks when they have some space between the sidewalk and the road, wide enough for people to pass.
But in my neighborhood in Shoreline there are many streets without sidewalks. However walking in the street or grass alongside the street is pretty pleasant and quiet. Drivers are going slow and look out for pedestrians. Wheelchairs can use the road and it’s flat and passable. This works because it’s low density and low traffic in these areas, but so is much of north seattle neighborhoods.
Often times in the seattle area sidewalks are right next to the road so you have cars passing right next to you, very noisy. Or they are broken from tree roots or years of neglect and there is no way a wheelchair could get through. These can be in places where it’s really unsafe for a pedestrian/wheelchair to go in the road because people are flying by.
I think people should update their hierarchy of pedestrian quality of life.
sidewalks > no sidewalks no matter what
to
Good sidewalks > no sidewalks > shitty sidewalks
This is a little simplistic because it depends on traffic and density but all sidewalks are not created equal.
That may be fine during the daytime, but what about at night? A “solution” that you can’t enter or leave your own house after dark except in a car is not a solution.
Fyi that lot in front of the Northgate station is planned to be redeveloped. The “Northgate Transit Center East Park & Ride”. The plans have changed back and forth though and delayed from 2018 construction start all the way to 2024 https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/08/19/northgate-sees-first-highrise-proposal-but-it-rides-on-contract-rezone/
For the northgate mall plan itself, it honestly keeps changing every couple years. But mainly add apartments and retail more like SLU/U village. I will note besides the TOD apartments, the rest of the apartments will be built next to 5th ave NE. It does seem a bit odd that the closest land use items to the station are predominantly parking and offices rather than apartments.
https://www.djc.com/news/re/12116004.html
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/NorthgateStationAreaPlanning/NorthgateTransitUrbanDesign-FinalUrbanDesignStudy2012-03-12.pdf#page=25
For the northgate mall plan itself, it honestly keeps changing every couple years. But mainly add apartments and retail more like SLU/U village.
Yeah, I assume it will look a lot like U-Village, but with even more apartments. I doubt there will be offices — not in this market. My main concern is that they have egress. I want to be able to ride a bike on Third Avenue. It would make an excellent bike path from the north. First and Fifth are going to have plenty of cars (and in the case of Fifth, buses). Having an alternative for bikes would be great. Third continues north as a bike/pedestrian path all the way to 117th (while cars can’t go across 115th). 115th is how you access the overpass (this sort of thing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZuGPRHrofeHzAyuL7). 117th is an official Greenway, as it runs by the school. They are currently working on the 117th crossing of Pinehurst Way/15th, to again make it possible for bikes to go across on 117th, but not cars (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/pedestrian-program/pinehurst-way-ne-and-ne-117th-st-intersection-and-sidewalk-project). This means that lots of bikes (and pedestrians) could funnel into 3rd, and head south, towards the station (and everything around it) as well as the bridge. If you could bike through 3rd, it would be huge.
Likewise, it would be nice to have access from the east somewhere. There is a pretty good bike path on 8th, but it essentially fizzles out after you go south of Northgate Way. If they build a good bike path towards the mall area (e. g. 105th, or one of the alley ways to the north) it would make all the difference in the world. The area was clearly built for cars, and there aren’t that many option, but opening up the mall would be huge (in both the short and long term). Right now it is essentially a giant brick standing in the way of everything.
On the west side of the Northgate Mall construction is under way for a hotel. Other than that not much else is going on as far future development and construction.
I understand that the group that owns the Kraken and their facility at Northgate also wants to own the Sonics when the NBA expands which could happen next year. When that happens they will build a practice facility for the Sonics at Northgate which would be on the east side.
When that happens they will build a practice facility for the Sonics at Northgate
Be still my heart. Actually I’m not that big a fan, but my son-in-law is, and he lives fairly close to Northgate. If that happened he would be a regular there (especially if they sold beer).
@Ross B
The Kraken facility has a restaurant, 32 Bar and Grill and they serve liquor so presumable a Sonics facility would have an eating establishment and serve adult drinks.
The one thing about the Kraken is that they know how make money. Just look at the ticket prices for the games and their practice facility brings thousands of people not only to use the skating rinks but to shop at the team store and get their coffee fix at Starbucks that is located inside. There is also a Virginia Mason Medical Clinic.
Forbes magazine in a recent article estimated that the Kraken only in their 3rd year are worth 1.6 billion dollars.
I watched the video. He never said what makes Seattle’s transit amazing.
I’ve said this before in other threads, but I really do wish Sound Transit would allow airport travelers to park overnight in the Angle Lake garage for a fee, especially once Angle Lake is not the terminus anymore.
Unlike the private parking shuttles, Link shows up dependably every 10 minutes and never gets stuck in traffic. Unless you’re getting in at 2 AM or have really excessive amounts of luggage, Link would be so much more convenient.
Sound Transit can even offer deals where the parking fee includes train fare between Angle Lake and SeaTac for up to 4 people.
Agree. I wish Tacoma Dome would allow multi-day for a fee as well, so I could use it for Amtrak.
I mean I guess you could write a comment in. They are currently reevaluating parking policies and taking public input.
I like it, that’s a good out of the box idea.
Ah, this already exists.
There is a massive commercial parking lot exactly adjacent to the Angle Lake Station. It is called SeaTac Park and it is open 24 hrs a day.
And I believe there is another commercial parking operator on the other side of the station and about a half a block south, although I don’t know the details on that one.
Now, if what you really mean by your comment is that you wish ST would provide free, or reduced rate, long term parking, well then good luck with that. Usually government agencies don’t like to be seen as using tax dollars to undercut commercial businesses. And I can fully understand the reasoning behind that. Particularly when social justice and equity issues are not involved.
It should not be free. It should be market rate, the same as what competing private companies in the area would be charging. I do think it’s important that when you’re paying $15-20/day to park your car, that Link fare, both directions, be included in the parking fee, but that’s it.
As to competing with private businesses, the Port of Seattle already does that, by offering up long-term parking in SeaTac’s own garage. If one public agency can do that, why can’t another?
If federal funds were used as part of building the parking structure, it may have odd conditions connected to it, such as it only be used for commuter service.
I don’t like it, but it would not at all surprise me if you are correct. This would be far from the only area where the federal government micromanages transit-related stuff.
For example, how much more bus service could we have if the federal government didn’t force transit agencies to run paratransit?
Or, if paratransit vehicles were allowed to be used on low ridership fixed routes when not needed for paratransit, such as evenings and weekends? But federal funds declare this not possible…
“how much more bus service could we have if the federal government didn’t force transit agencies to run paratransit?”
How much more less expensive housing would there be if the federal government didn’t require elevators? I think there should still be walk-up options. Although I can understand how developers might chase the lowest common denominator and not put elevators in any of them, and then the disabled wouldn’t have any to choose from.
“Or, if paratransit vehicles were allowed to be used on low ridership fixed routes when not needed for paratransit, such as evenings and weekends?”
It may not save anything to run smaller vehicles for a few hours a day. First of all, drivers would have to drive back to the garage meaning that replacement drivers would be needed. Then there would be a bigger maintenance requirement and many of those vehicles aren’t built to run as many years as a full sized bus. With frequency reductions on evenings and weekends there is a much smaller active fleet anyway.
It definitely depends on the situation, but the closest bus to where I live is TriMet 10. It recently got Saturday and Sunday service back. The few times I’ve ridden it on those days, the trips have gotten about 30 passengers over the course of an hour, but never more than 5 at any one time.
Weekdays? Definitely a different story. Weekdays are also when the paratransit is the most used, so the timing would work out.
TeiMet, however, says they can’t use the paratransit buses on these low weekend ridership routes because the federal grant for their purchase stipulated as such.
I’m not sure what King County routes would look like that.
The thing to remember for Paratransit is that it is intended for people who have mobility or mental impairments that would make riding regular bus or train ride difficult but still need access to the outside world for work, school, appointments, shopping, etc.
While I think it’s a decent idea and generates revenue, I think it’s something the Port should look into rather than ST. They already have garages on-site and can determine how to set pricing to make the investment worthwhile. The Port could own and operate nearby garages if they had the authority.
ST shouldn’t want to build garages where cars sit for several days. Spots closest to platforms should turn over more frequently.
If for whatever reason those Angle Lake spots sit predictably idle, ST should then look at how to get airport and airline employees to park there next. That seems more consistent with its mission and will generate more use.
Honestly, SeaTac terminal traffic is a mess. SeaTac needs to consider how to lay out things better so air travelers can more easily get picked at at other Link stations rather than the terminal. For example, the airport could offer to help pay for more escalators at ID/ C station.
I was always amazed at how the remote rental car facility was not interfaced with the terminal using Link tracks if not the Link trains.
That’s a good point. For Amtrak Tacoma, there is one small surface Diamond lot that may allow long-term parking. I don’t think so, but there is a chance.
There are two massive parking lots, that are largely empty, serving Amtrak, Greyhound, Sounder and PT/ST Tacoma Dome Station transit center. The first two need long-term parking options.
There are also acres and acres. And acres of surface lots that are exclusively event parking at Tacoma Dome itself. A corner of that could be turned into secured long-term pay parking.
I agree that Angle Lake P&R lots should not be competing with private lots for long-term parking. Short term, on the other hand… if ST lot is free, why would anyone use the pay lot for that? Hopefully they work out some sort of combo deal for the park and rides, that provide a discount if you buy a transit ticket, and charge market rate if you don’t.
I realize most roads are paved with good intentions and that the political limitations of sound transit set by rules mandated upon its creation are largely out of our hands (though have slowly been reformed over the past year or two). I don’t want to brush off or have animosity towards the planners who are penciling these projects out
But with that being said I do wish sound transit went back to the drawing board and reconsidered these suburban rail projects **before** ST3 shovels go into the ground. Online discourse has often revolved around how Seattle extending low floor light rail trains these distances is not good. I think the focus on light rail undermines the other problem with this. That an urban subway system shouldn’t travel these kind of distances either. It hurts the rest of the system.
Case in point. Post ST2 sound transit seems to be accepting 6 minute line frequencies will never come back onto the system. That the vehicles needing to travel these extra distances limit that from happening. That isn’t acceptable and shows that even in the most capital intensive scenario regional travel and urban travel systems should have never been combined
If lawmakers in Olympia actually sign off on a plan to build HSR replacing I-5 between downtown and Lynwood how should this region respond? Should this region plan for a “Sounder RER” and severe link off at Northgate? Maybe to be extended further to lake city? Could the lack of freeway south of lynnwood make TOD more attractive?
I wasn’t old enough to vote when ST3 passed. My voice might as well not exist to my board member. I worry greatly about the limitations our system is setting up for itself. 80% of snohomish subarea revenue is going toward light rail. I genuinely am concerned that this infrastructure paralleling I-5 will become obsolete at some point
Will our new megaproject planning czars weigh in honestly about what our region should be doing? I want to feel hopeful but would also like to hear ideas. Cities like Melbourne have suburban rail that go distances outward like to Everett but generally not adjacent to freeways but on at-grade grade-separated right of ways that have continually existed for over a century. We don’t seem to have a similar situation so what should we doing?
“Post ST2 sound transit seems to be accepting 6 minute line frequencies will never come back onto the system.”
Link originally had 8 minute peaks in 2009. It went to 6 minutes in the mid 2010s for a convergence of reasons including the end of the ride free area and its effect on ridership, and lack of cars until the U Link and Northgate Link ones arrived. It always said the 6 minute peak was temporary and it would revert to 8 minutes in a few years. During ST2 planning it talked about 3 minute peak (two 6-minute lines), but at some point it decided not to have so much.
It’s ultimately just an ST decision. It won’t run 6-minute peaks until it thinks it’s necessary. We’ve told ST frequency is very important, and 6-minute shorter trains are better than 8-10 minute longer trains, but it hasn’t listened. Some have proposed 6 minutes in Rainier Valley all day, which we were told for a long time was the maximum to avoid screwing up signal timings for cross traffic. Now in Ballard scenarios we’re seeing a possibility of 5-minute peaks, so that 6-minute ceiling may not be so absolute after all. But anyway, ST just doesn’t want 6-minute peaks in ST2. It would probably point to the cost of drivers, and wear and tear on trains.
It’s 100% cost of labor, not wear and tear on the trains. If it were wear and tear on the trains, ST could compensate for increased frequency by reducing length. After all, there is no difference in fleet wear and tear between two car trains every 5 minutes vs. four car trains every 10 minutes. The former is better for riders, but ST prefers the latter, and the reason why is labor – a four car trains every 10 minutes requires half as many train drivers as a two car train every 5 minutes.
In other words, the need for human drivers is the limiting factor in how often the trains can run. Automate the trains, these limitations go away. Jarrett Walker recently did a post discussing this.
asdf2, that would be availability of labor, not cost of labor. The incremental labor cost is immaterial to the ST budget. ST Link drivers are pulled from the KCM driver local, and since Link driving the generally preferred bus driving, an increase in Link driver staffing will reduce bus driver availability for KCM.
But I doubt ST is setting spares ratios based on driver staffing.
ST hasn’t said Link would run more frequently if only it had more drivers. That may not be the reason at all. Link needs only a tiny number of drivers compared to Metro and ST Express, so running or not running trains won’t make much of a difference in bus service. But it would have a large impact on people being able to get around more conveniently without depending on buses that may or may not be running. Very few bus routes run more often than every 15 minutes, while Link runs at 10 and we’re trying to get it up to 6. Buses get stuck in traffic which makes them unreliable, while Link doesn’t have that problem. High frequency means high ridership and more support for transit, so it’s a positive cycle.
The largest factor for (off peak) frequency is train driver salaries. It’s the bottleneck for many other metro systems across america im not sure why it would be any different for sound transit. Especially with these long train trip lengths now.
“It’s the bottleneck for many other metro systems across america im not sure why it would be any different for sound transit.”
Because it’s not that many drivers to add a train. You’re comparing entire multi-line metro networks and their overall problems to the specific impact of adding one Link run or ten Link trains.
“Especially with these long train trip lengths now.”
You (and others) are just throwing out abstractions and claiming that’s why ST can’t increase frequency, when (A) it hasn’t been determined that ST can’t increase frequency, and (B) drivers may not be a showstopper or the primary reason. You’d have to quantify how many drivers a Link train needs from real data, and then see how significant that is. Ten Link drivers is a drop in the bucket compared to I think Metro is down something like a two hundred drivers.
And one Link run can make up for three or more bus runs, so that’s saving drivers right there. The equivalent of one Northgate-Angle Lake Link run is not one bus making the same stops. That would take much longer and not have enough capacity. It’s equivalent to at least the 41, 67 (for U-District), 43 (for UW and Capitol Hill), 7 (representing MLK indirectly), something for Beacon Hill (I won’t add a full 36), 124 (for TIB), and 194 (for Westlake-SeaTac at express speed). And it fills in some gaps that no bus route serves, like Rainier Beach-TIB.
> You (and others) are just throwing out abstractions and claiming that’s why ST can’t increase frequency, when (A) it hasn’t been determined that ST can’t increase frequency, and (B) drivers may not be a showstopper or the primary reason. You’d have to quantify how many drivers a Link train needs from real data, and then see how significant that is. Ten Link drivers is a drop in the bucket compared to I think Metro is down something like a two hundred drivers.
Train drivers are the primary operating cost for all rail systems in America. The length of the route is doubling with the extensions so sound transit would need to double the number of drivers just to maintain the same frequency. I’m kind of surprised you’d assume the opposite.
There’s definitely a bottleneck around peak times from vehicles, but the reason why sound transit runs less frequently off peak is precisely from the train driver salaries not from lack of vehicles.
Got back home and decided to peak at the operations budget. Actually Mike is correct, the driver salary isn’t really such a large limiting factor as I thought it’d be. Out of a total of 240 million in 2023 operational budget the Sound Transit Link Salaries & Benefits for 2023 only cost 24 million (for reference 2020 cost 7 million and 2022 cost 15 milllion though obviously had a lot less trains running). While say Security & Safety costs 30 million annually.
I’m not sure whether it’s because Sound Transit is a young agency or there’s no pension or some other difference. Would need compare against other agencies more to figure out why exactly it is relatively cheap.
Albeit, once we start doing the extensions to Lynnwood and Federal Way and further far flung ones to Tacoma and Everett, then the Salaries & Benefits section will eventually quintuple. I guess using some very very rough napkin math estimating from the number of vehicles (From 92 to 120), S&B would probably be around ~35 million once lynnwood opens up (not including line 2). Once all three Lynnwood, Federal Way and Redmond open up we’d need the vehicle requirements are 214 so roughly S&B around ~60 million.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2022-financial-plan-proposed-budget-book.pdf
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023-financial-plan-proposed-budget-book.pdf
@WL
The Link operator salary and benefits expenses are in the “purchased transportation” bucket which you have neglected to include in your analysis above. Just fyi.
> @WL
The Link operator salary and benefits expenses are in the “purchased transportation” bucket which you have neglected to include in your analysis above. Just fyi.
thanks for the call out, can’t believe I forgot that the operators are from king county metro so of course it’d be considered a purchased transportation from outside itself. Okay yeah these numbers make a lot more sense 15 million S&B + 75 million purchased services for 90 million in 2022. And 23 million S&B + 87 million for 110 million in 2023 out of 230 million. So the labor cost would make up half the operational costs.
> If lawmakers in Olympia actually sign off on a plan to build HSR replacing I-5 between downtown and Lynwood how should this region respond? Should this region plan for a “Sounder RER” and severe link off at Northgate? Maybe to be extended further to lake city? Could the lack of freeway south of lynnwood make TOD more attractive?
Originally it was more supposed to be much more turnbacks https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/OMSF/OMSF_Task_2.3B_Core_Light_Rail_System_Plan_Review.pdf
Honestly, part of the problem is that the board is mainly made up of the far flung city members. So they would not advocate for turnbacks and prefer really long routes. In reality if ST3 was actually implemented I would be really surprised if they didn’t add some form of turnbacks at SeaTac.
I do find it kind of ironic that the ST3 plan by default has worse frequency for downtown Seattle to SeaTac and on the east link side.
I5 north of Northgate will never go away. At best a few lanes may be repurposed for rail, but in that case the station placement will be much wider – there may be zero stops between Lynnwood and UW – and Link would be continue to be needed to provide service in between RER stations.
“low floor light rail trains these distances is not good”
What does floor height have to do with light rail or distance? I was in Cologne and the trams had stairs right inside the doors. That was inconvenient and would be a problem for wheelchairs. My understanding is that trains were generally high floor and that was the case when the DSTT was built with show rails and Cologne’s system was built, but then in the next twenty years there was a universal shift to low-floor trams for accessibility and convenience, and we’ve seen the same with buses. Metro’s buses used to have stairs, and the wheelchair lift actually lifted, or often got stuck and didn’t lift, which forced it to leave a wheelchair passenger behind until the next bus. Greyhound buses also had stairs when I did most of my riding in the 90s and 00s, but when I took it to Spokane in the 2010s it had low floors too. But what does this have to do with whether Link terminates at Northgate or Everett?
My guess is that it’s a reference to low floor trams being accessible for 70% of the train car due to the height needed to accommodate the bogies while conventional high floor systems are fully accessible when station platforms are built to the same height. There’s also the added benefit of extra capacity.
Without anything more specific it’s hard to say what they’re talking about.
Over What distance?
If the complaint is about long distance, Superliners and Talgos are low floor, and are used over multi-day trips, at speeds far above that of Link.
If the complaint is about short distance, all European makers have 100% low floor cars available, with some Alstom models that will run close to 70 mph.
If the complaint is about operating speed, the trains used on New York City Subway. CTA L, Berlin S Bahn, etc all have 50 mph maximum speed, and are 100% high floor with level platforms.
Stadler has low floor cars available in diesel or electric available with 100 mph operating speeds.
So, it depends on the exact complaint.
> If the complaint is about long distance, Superliners and Talgos are low floor, and are used over multi-day trips, at speeds far above that of Link.
I don’t think it the floor height is the current limiting factor for the speed, rather the track.
But anyways, those “low floor” commuter trains (Talgos) are still much higher than Link’s platform height. The Talgos is at 2.5 feet platform height. While the Link’s low platform height is at 1.2 feet.
Or it’s like Ultra low floor tram (7 inches), low floor trams 12~15 inches, high floor tram ~24 inches, low floor train (for europe 22 or 30 inches the standardized platform height), “regular” train 48/50 inches.
Talgos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_L (76 cm)
We have low floor trains to maintain interoperability with the bus tunnel. But if it wasn’t for that there is no reason to have low floor trains since one could just modify the platform height to be higher and get increased capacity in the train
The low floor design limits max speed to 55mph when it could have been 75+ mph.
I thought the 55 mph limitation was just that ST bought a B-quality train instead of an A-quality train. Again, how does floor height hinder speed?
AFAIK the Siemens S200 is current state of the art for low floor max speed. Nothing to say it can’t be improved on in the future but given ST’s trademark mediocrity it’s likely other parts of the design also limit to 55mph which is simply far too slow for the distances involved.
It’s also possible that low-floor LR (not low-floor heavy rail such as Stadtler mentioned above) will make higher speeds impossible as a fundamental limitation no matter what newer cars are designed.
Already with the center truck (which doesn’t have through-axles) there seems to be a violent side-to-side oscillation (hunting oscillation?) on many stretches of track. The lack of a through-axle removes the self-centering dynamic that standard through-axle trucks provide by nature of the wheels with their conical profile being tied together rigidly, leaving only the flanges to provide centering between the two rails. I presume this is what causes the uncomfortable ride when the LRVs hit 55mph, and it may prevent *any* LF LRV reaching more than 55mph.
Some info I found may confirm my theory: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/14000/chapter/3
Can’t copy/paste as it’s a document scan but a broad introduction in section 1.1 seems to confirm.
Just browsing through Siemen’s brochure both Charlotte and Norfolk’s low floor siemens light rail can travel at 71 mph.
> I thought the 55 mph limitation was just that ST bought a B-quality train instead of an A-quality train.
Also the 55 mph is an operational limit, the actual speed limit of the Siemen’s Sound Transit trains are 65 mph. I guess it’s just the track limitation, nothing to do with the train itself. Or at least up to 70 mph.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:3ce5a359-5933-4f0b-8877-6e9aa3df13bd/low-floor-light-rail-vehicle-packet.pdf#page=27
SkyTrain, CTA L, New York City Subway, Berlin S Bahn, etc are all high floor systems and have maximum operating speeds in the 50 mph range.
If you’ve got stations every few miles, there’s no point in operating faster than this.
Again, stub axles are used on Talgos at speeds of 200 mph, with a walkway between the wheels much as you get with low floor light rail cars. It’s not a problem with the use of stub axles, exactly.
It’s more of an implementation problem with specific ways the stub axles are used on certain low floor car designs. If greater stability is desired, it can be overcome as it has in other car designs.
High floor cars with through axles would have the same stability problems if the articulation joints were implemented in the same fashion as they are on the Siemens S700 and similar designs.
In the 1830s, it was discovered that 4 wheel cars had stability issues, and so by the era of the “John Bull” locomotive in the USA, 8 wheel cars with swiveling trucks (bogies in Europe) were adopted in parts of the USA, and the rest of the world adopting this over the next century and a half.
In the 1880s, it was discovered that 4 wheel streetcars / trams etc had the same problem. By 1892, the Manx Electric Railway and many North American operators had abandoned 4 wheel car designs.
The Siemens S700 light rail car design, and derivative designs such as that used by the Kinki-Sharyo Link cars, uses a center section with 4 fixed wheels, just as was proven for the past 190 years to have stability issues.
Put the support structure and axles at the articulation joints, just as everything from low speed Stadler trams to Alstom’s TGV has done, and this stability problem probably goes away.
“other parts of the design also limit to 55mph”
Yes, the curves around TIB. ST decided in the 1990s that 55 mph was enough, and designed the specs around that. Remember that ST originally envisioned Link would be surface from Intl Dist to Tacoma, or after the Beacon Hill tunnel, from Mt Baker to Tacoma. The north end would probably have gotten something similar north of Roosevelt or Northgate, although that was never detailed as precisely. When TIB and SeaTac went through design, ST intended it to be on the surface on Tukwila Intl Blvd and maybe 154th, but Tukwila objected that it had just beautified the boulevard and didn’t want it torn up again. If it had been surface in Tukwila, I’m sure it would have remained surface in Federal Way and Fife. So 55 mph seemed fine because it would only reach that in a small Central/North Seattle segment.
Nobody at ST seems to have calculated what the travel time of a 35 mph surface train from Mt Baker to Tacoma would be. It was just “light rail”, which would solve everything. Hint: The 174 used to travel from downtown Seattle to Federal Way on arterials, and it took 1 1/2 hours.
Light rail can reach 65 mph or probably 85 mph, but it requires higher-quality trains, gentler curves, and more gradual inclines. In the run-up to ST3 the board talked a bit about looking into maybe retrofitting the TIB-area track for higher-speed trains, but nothing came of it.
If the routing of the track is what imposes the limit, that’s not so bad, as new segments can be designed with higher speed limits in mind,.
I hope ST has designed the new track north of Northgate and south of Angle Lake with speeds of 60+mph in mind. These are freeway alignments and it would be a huge shame if they were crippled by slow speeds forever, when future train designs could go faster.
As long as the train is stopping every couple of miles, top speed doesn’t matter that much. Top speed matters more for trains that go a very long distance without stopping, for example, Amtrak.
Do you also say your car doesn’t reach full speed between stoplights?
When you go between Westlake and Capitol Hill, or Capitol Hill and UW, the train doesn’t just keep accelerating until the end and then slow down because it can’t reach top speed: it accelerates at the beginning, then goes steady for most of it, then decelerates at the end, like a car or airplane.
Trains have to have much longer deceleration distances because there isn’t as much friction from a narrow steel wheel than there is from a flatter rubber tire. Of course, the actual distance depends on the weight of the train and slope of the track among other things.
It’s why MLK can be so dangerous! Those crashes from Link trains occur because people crossing the tracks don’t understand this physics fact.
Al, you are right, but the lack of friction isn’t the only problem. It is the lack of train-style gates. Westside MAX T-bones almost no cars, because it has “real” grade-crossing protection [i.e. gates], not just stoplights and flashing “Train” signs.
It’s true that LR trains running under 45 rarely have gates and don’t have many colissions, but it seems that something about the way Martin Luther King Blvd was rebuilt invites bad behavior by drivers.
@Tom
I still don’t understand why they refuse to install crossing gates on mlk way.
I agree with Tom.
MAX Burnside and Holgate are median running and have few collisions (at least now – there was a learning curve in 1985). Something about ML King seems to invite illegal left turns on red.