Evolution of Urban Guideways

124 Replies to “Evolution of Urban Guideways”

1. Yet another sole-sourced proprietary incompatible Gadgetbahn to absorb resources that could be used to build open industry standard rail. Thank god Sound Transit didn’t get on the Springfield monorail parade. Just wish they would build faster and more efficiently but Seattle process doesn’t seem to allow it.
   Improving governance to lead to better decisions would be a much more fruitful use of our time than getting distracted by more unique technologies.

   1. Yes, relying on a sole source is certainly a concern, but it also has the opportunity to speed up and simplify the process. If you go with a prefabricated /pretested guideway, would we have the kind of guideway delays we experience with Eastlink currently?
      Standard rail requires a lot of custom design and manufacturing. Sometimes I doubt Sound Transit has enough inhouse experience to pull off that kind of engineering or project management which is required to deliver the required complexity. How can you reduce complexity? Prefabrication may be one way to reduce complexity another one is to reduce the number of vendors.

      1. The custom part is mostly due to the fact that the stations are all different shapes, sizes and orientations because Seattle is not a monotonically flat place, that doesn’t change with the technology.

         Single source is maybe more reliable if the single source is reliable, but this technology is not in active use. And if your single source is shit then all bets are off; ask Honolulu how their single source metro solution is going.

      2. The delays for East Link have to do with installing rail on a floating bridge which moves laterally and changes elevation. Coupled with the insane decision to have concrete inspection done by Zoom during Covid. Despite the fact that all the work was outdoors and it became known early in Covid that outdoor transmission was insignificant. Who would have thought that concrete suppliers would cut corners if they knew no one was inspecting?

         I don’t think the prefabricated guideway could have been attached to the floating bridge any more easily.

         Part of the problem in USA is the consulting and engineering companies that make more money the more complex they make their designs. Heck we even engineer extra complexity into our transit agencies by having each agency have their own political board, maintain their own website and scheduling, maintain different fare policies, and then band-aid over that with a prepaid fare card, which of course is incompatible with the prepaid fare card of every other transit agency in the country – so the consultants can create unique fare software for every transit agency.

      3. “The delays for East Link have to do with installing rail on a floating bridge which moves laterally and changes elevation.”

         The delays are due to faulty plinth construction by the contractor between Intl Dist and the Seattle shoreline that have to be replaced. The bridge factors were taken into account in the design. Some wonder if the floating segment will really be reliable, but there’s no particular problem at this point. East Link testing will reveal more.

      4. And the faulty plinth construction was due to the lack of physical inspection because the inspectors worked by Zoom.
         The extensive time to build and then rebuild is due to novelty and caution to accommodate the floating bridge elements.

2. Regarding the wide right of way needed to build elevated structure:

   How was this done 100 years ago? Because Chicago, New York and Boston built lines really close to existing structures.

   1. It’s around aesthetics, sound and construction impacts.

      There’s no real technical blocker why we couldn’t build the second transit tunnel as an elevated guideway through downtown instead. Sure it’ll involve moving utilities and a lot of construction impacts but it’s not impossible

      > How was this done 100 years ago?

      People were a lot more accepting of construction impacts than now.

3. I see the technology awareness here having three different components:

   1. Support structures. Building aerial saves money over tunnels. Depending on terrain and the need for a mezzanine, it also puts station platforms closer to sidewalks. People however think they are ugly or intrusive.

   Monorail offers lower visual intrusion but the structure is still there — albeit thinner. So I don’t see the negative of aerial to some opinions as being abated by building a monorail.

   2. Support structures. The ease of how a vehicle glides and comes into contact with power at first seems possible for both. But still, two underneath rails remains the predominant method because it works so well. It offers smooth rides and decent speeds. It seems more compatible for long distances. Monorails look pretty but their sleek looks don’t necessarily translate to speed. And of course switches are a whole other challenge that slows down a monorail.

   3. Control. The biggest innovation I see these days worldwide is automation. Many if not new lines (not extensions) being built globally seem to be going driverless. The concept used to be more eschewed because of loss of rider jobs and potential safety concerns, but recent labor market shortages and safety features like platform screen doors have put those notions on their head. Automation is possible no matter what the other technology aspects are and it seems eventually likely for most rail lines to some extent.

   So what battles for cost effectiveness are worth fighting? My preference would be to fight for automation first, aerial second and monorail rails third.

   1. “Depending on terrain and the need for a mezzanine…”

      I’m confused as to why any stations have a mezzanine. Seems like a useless layer. When do you need ot and why?

      1. In a case like TIB, the track must be that high in order to clear the surrounding highways without too steep inclines. Since it’s so high, why not have a mezzanine rather than very long escalators? It’s also a workaround for a poor design decision of having side platforms rather than center platforms. Without a mezzanine you’d have to go all the way down to the ground to switch direction or if you got on the wrong escalator.

      2. Mezzanines are typical if the line is elevated in a median. It would be awkward to have separate entrances on opposite sides of a busy wide street for each side platform, or for center platform access only in the middle of a street.

         Of course, I phrased it to highlight its optional inclusion. Places like Mt Baker station don’t need nor have a mezzanine.

         Given how deep these Downtown stations are proposed to be, aerial platforms would be vertically closer to the sidewalk even a mezzanine. I don’t think the mass public understands how deep these stations are proposed (even though most regular posters here do).

4. Adopting pre-fabricated, off the shelf technology has got to be the way forward. We’re still doing the equivalent of NASA in the 90s with custom engineered/designed and custom built solutions for every step along the way. The same way websites were built in the 90s. IIRC even the trains have to be custom built and ordered in small batches! This is one reason transit is so damn expensive to build here in the US. Better to decide on an “off the shelf” technology early and adopt the right of way to it? It’s hard to imagine Sound Transit doing another $50Bn worth of what is is doing now–you’d be getting even less for your $$$ due to inflation. Don’t think out of the box as much as think in terms of using what already comes in a box.

5. Too heavy. Too complicated. Too expensive. Poor design – not good
   Elevated – good
   Autonomous – good
   Maglev- good
   Lighter materials (not concrete) – good
   Smaller vehicles – good

6. Elevated alignments are fine. The larger strategic choice is where the alignment is; stations must be on the alignment; we want stations in pedestrian oriented areas (urban centers); ST has achieved this in downtown Seattle, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, the U District, Roosevelt (they made a conscious choice to shift away from I-5), downtown Bellevue. But too much of the ST alignment and stations are in freeway envelopes. This limits development; it means stations are in auto-oriented areas and not pedestrian-oriented ones. Freeways are to pedestrians as dams are to fish. Strides 1 and 2 will have this same issue. Granted, Link will be great, but it could have been much better. Note that n Vancouver, TransLink uses both tunneled and elevated alignments.

   1. The main TransLink line is elevated nearly everywhere outside downtown Vancouver, but it’s hosted on an old interurban right of way, so it runs diagonally across the roadway grid and it is quite far from freeways. The same is true of Westside MAX west of Beaverton. Both Skytrain (Translink) and Westside MAX have been smashing successes because they used these old interurban rights of way and exploited their development potential to the hilt.

      Sound Transit has the opportunity to do the same by using the Interurban right of way north of Northwest Hospital. Instead they designed the “Aurora option” to be elevated down the middle of the stroadway with all the hideous impacts on pedestrian access that entails, regardless of the platform configuration. The staff propped up an unpleasant straw-man and then proceeded to pummel it into a small haystack.

      They did it because the reps from Snohomish County wanted to minimize the elapsed time between Northgate and Lynnwood instead of participating in developing a “string of pearls” like exist along the original Skytrain line and Westside MAX. True, three of those pearls would have been in King County, but at least one of those pearls would have been in Snohomish County, and two if they were far-sighted enough to allow disturbing a few hundred SFH at each node.

      1. Sound Transit “had”, not “has”. An important “typo” to correct.

      2. Tom, yes, that is what happened. ST staff put forward a SR-99 option designed to fail; it deviated to Mountlake Terrace. Instead, it could have remained on SR-99. We could have had both Link and an express bus option on I-5, Everett to Northgate via Lynnwood and MT, and maybe even NE 185th Street.

7. The Aichi Linimo maglev was built in 2005 for the World’s Fair, mostly just a tech demonstration while the expo was ongoing, but stuck around anyway as a suburban line with day trip amenities–it connects Nagoya residents to a mall, a museum, a theme park, and an Ikea, and that’s about it. However, it’s an extremely high-quality system, with very little noise or visual hindrance, nice development around the stations, and apparently extremely cheap to maintain–it turns a profit off a daily 14,000 ridership, mostly work/school commuters by the Japanese Wikipedia article stats.

   I don’t know about the German company so I can’t say, but the Linimo shows the tech already works long-term and cities should be seriously considering eating the upfront costs and investing in this technology.

   1. The Berlin M-Bahn was probably the first urban maglev system but never extended beyond a trial while the Linimo proofed the advantages of maglev technology. The Linimo guideway and power track are more exposed and therefore requires external protection. It looks like the guideway construction is quite proprietary while the TSB system is a bit faster and more modular due to the prefabrication.

   2. cities should be seriously considering eating the upfront costs and investing in this technology.

      Why? In a world of limited energy resources why in the world would a transit network want to forego the extremely low-energy consumption of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail and instead dump megawatts into supporting trainsets using enormous magnets?

      It’s quite frankly insane.

      1. Yeah, transit sucks down energy like an EV Hummer. Those 1500-volt catenary lines are a climate disaster.

         We should have built elevated BIKEWAYS instead, covered them with solar photovoltaic awnings, and issued an e-bike to every single person in Puget Sound.

         It would be faster than light rail, fare free, and much leas costly.

      2. Was this snark? You should include the proper tags if it was.

      3. “Yeah, transit sucks down energy like an EV Hummer.”

         But not like three million Hummers and SUVs that people drive. One bus typically holds ten to thirty or fifty people, or twice that with standees. One train typically holds 100-200 people, or 400 crushloaded. So the comparison is between that and if all those people were driving SOVs.

         “Those 1500-volt catenary lines are a climate disaster.”

         Should we eliminate electricity to homes because those cables also have a loss? Or is it the most efficient and climate-friendly way to serve homes? If you eliminate electric grids, where would people plug in their EVs?

      4. Tom, the TSB system was optimized for sustainable regional transit, not as a high-speed maglev like the Japanese system which uses active magnets to keep it floating. The German transportation department performed a study to compare current tram, U-Bahn, and S-Bahn systems with TSB in 2, 3, and 4 car configurations and concluded that the TSB consumes slightly less or about the same as those state-of-the-art trains.
         Check out table 10 of the study:
         https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/E/magnetschwebebahn-studienergebnisse.html

      5. Well, if you say so, Martin. I’m amazed, but you can read German and I can’t.

         So if they’re not using “active magnets”, they’re using ordinary permanent magnets? How in the world do they make that work with different loads? The train would have a different weight between each pair of stations on every run. Therefore the magnetic flux of the repulsion field would have to vary over time. They HAVE to use electromagnets.

      6. I believe they use a combination. Of course, they use linear motors, too, which also relies on magnetic fields, just like a regular motor does. I’m not an electrical engineer however, I rely on the government study in this case, sorry that they only publish a German version, happy to translate the column names, the numbers speak for themselves.

8. I mean if it was politically acceptable, I’d just build the second Link section elevated instead on 2nd/3rd/4th ave. Much cheaper than a second tunnel and doesn’t have to deal with at-grade crossings.

   Though unfortunately, the Chicago L/ nyc with it’s metal supports has kind of solidified elevated rail reputation has having very loud sound and ‘crime’ associated with it. (Concrete support elevated rail has a lot less sound compared to steel frame)

   > To allow for construction equipment access, Sound Transit usually clears an 80ft corridor around the track.

   It’s what it prefers, but elevated rail construction doesn’t require that much space everytime. Though either way it would be a lot of construction impacts to move all the utilities.

   > rather than surrounding a single track like a monorail or the Transrapid does, it uses two concrete guideways with are both open towards the middle for the propulsion arms of the train to glide through.

   I guess there’s a slight advantage with the elevation changes, but why not just use rubber tyred metros at that point aka like France? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro

   Maglev technology is usually more for high speed, it seems a bit expensive to use that tech for a short urban metro (assuming west seattle to ballard alignment)

   1. Maglev has been used mainly for high-speed rail, but Martin is arguing there’s now a low-speed variant that’s promising and could make it feasible to bring rail to more lower-volume corridors, of which Ballard is typical.

      The biggest issue to contain Ballard’s costs is automation, because an automated system could have smaller stations and trains and higher frequency like Vancouver does. Propulsion technologies is another issue worth looking at. In any case, it’s important to introduce this technology technology to the STB community so that we can evaluate it and see how it might apply to both Ballard and other corridors both inside and outside Pugetopolis. Other cities around the world are doing it with several recent technologies (“recent” meaning within the past thirty years), so we and American transit networks should look at them too.

      1. “Promising” what? Enormous electric bills to hold trains aloft? Yes, their silence is a great feature, but it’s a city, and it’s going to have traffic noise, so the additional sound of rolling train wheels is pretty minimal.

      2. ““Promising” what?”

         Lower cost is my main interest.

         “Enormous electric bills to hold trains aloft?”

         We’d have to quantify that, not use a folk assumption to dismiss a technology. Germany is climate-conscious yet it’s doing it. You also have to look at the total energy consumption of the implied transportation network. If it takes more cars off the road, even EV ones, then it would be a net reduction in energy consumption.

      3. The thing with dismissing technologies that work elsewhere is, that’s how we got into this pickle of inadequate transit and missing features. I’m not so much talking about just this TSB technology, but other technologies in general, some of which are more widespread, and there will doubtless be future in-city maglev technologies that will be better that will be better. We only need to make a short-term decision for this Ballard line. Other lines beyond that the decision will come later, so there will be more time to see how this TSB performs in Berlin, how many other cities follow suit, and whether more promising variations emerge.

      4. I just don’t really see much benefit of these technologies listed at least for Seattle?

         If one really wanted to use more of an elevated alignment, it’s more just of a political/social acceptance of Seattle to allow elevated alignments nearer buildings. For steeper grade changes, there’s tyre metros we could use instead. Or honestly just skip first hill, I doubt we have the money to dig such a station.

         The automated part isn’t really relevant to this technology either, it can be done with steel wheels.

         I mean let’s say we try using this new tech.

         A) Old monorail proposed alignment elevated through Seattle (2/3/4th ave). This really is just slightly less noisy than light rail, and I guess maybe we save one extra car lane, but generally it’s the same construction impact

         B) Some tunneled alignment. Maybe slightly shallower tunnels at westlake station, but it’s still got to be deeper than the 99 tunnel and the existing line 1 tunnel. Generally still same station considerations at CID

         C) Diverting it over to First Hill. I guess it solves this problem making a station here slightly more acceptable to build, but does this resolve the cid station problem or the other station locations in slu?

         Generally I don’t see this solving any problem listed above. This is trying to use technology to solve the problem of the city being unable to accept construction impacts.

   2. Yeah I’d look to rubber tires well before looking at maglev.

      1. I wouldn’t choose rubber tires because of their limited speed.

      2. AJ, yes, rubber tires can climb better than steel tires but ride quality suffers, noise increases, and weather (rain/ice) becomes a challenge. I encourage you to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCyIpIXA4zQ

9. The Transport system Bögl will be the future of urban transportation

   • Lower cost to built ( around 30 of 50 million Euro per kilometer, double-track)
   • Faster to built with pre-fabricated concrete tracks
   • Shorter construction time
   • Smaller footprint
   • Quiet
   • No vibration
   • Fast
   • More flexible route
   • Less disruption to residents during and after construction
   • And more

10. There are no commercially viable mag lev lines in operation anywhere in the world. I’m including the Shanghai Pudong line in that statement. That was built as a demonstration so heavily subsidized and has never been extended or reproduced.

    Something similar is true about every monorail line in the world. They are essentially all unique or custom and therefore sole sourced. And while they are built with great promise, they all become one off and never extended or duplicated. Japan has dozens of them but they are all short single lines and never form a network. If construction costs or other benefits were so great we would be seeing many more lines built.

    One item was glossed over in the original description: you can’t create cross-overs. That creates incredible operational limitations. It makes building networks incredibly difficult. In fact switching is one of the big limitations of these systems.

    It would be great if someone came up with standardized, pre-fab components for elevated light rail. I think we have some of that on Link.

    Elevated does have the issues of blocking light, needing to build supports, etc. Urban areas are generally better for the streetscape without elevated structures.

    One strange practice that Sound Transit has adopted is to put stations onto developable land instead of over streets. That’s seen in the recent Lynnwood plans, and another instance is the NE 8th station in Bellevue – that would have been a natural to have the station span NE 8th Street with entrances on both the north and south sides – the area on the south is ripe for transit-oriented development.

    1. Why can’t you have cross-overs? A scissors cross-over would be difficult because it involved routes crossing at the same level; there can’t be “diamonds” on monorails. However, something that functions as a diamond but is actually a bit of guidebeam as long as a train is wide (plus a few inches) mounted on a turntable would work. But a simple cross-over is simply two same-handed switches facing one other. In right-hand running systems, they’d be left-handed.

       So, did you actually mean “crossings”? Because, that’s correct. One line cannot cross another “at grade” except with the turntable method. But why would one even have a level-crossing on a monorail, which always is supported, even if the supports are only three feet high? Except at something that functioned like a scissors cross-over.

       1. Yes, no diamonds, just switches. Yes, a cross-over (double) switch is possible.
          We already discussed that Sound Transit wouldn’t allow a regular crossing on their network for operational reasons. Therefore this shouldn’t be an issue.

    2. “… natural to have the station span NE 8th Street with entrances on both the north and south sides – the area on the south is ripe for transit-oriented development.“

       This is a major failing of ST for many of the ST2 and ST3 designs.

       It’s scary to think about crossing 320th or KDM Road or 44th Ave in Lynnwood as a pedestrian who just got off a train.

       It’s as if the engineers and designers have never walked these areas.. Unlike designing for an office building or shopping center, transit stations should have pedestrian connectivity as the primary goal.

       1. “It’s as if the engineers and designers have never walked these areas.. Unlike designing for an office building or shopping center, transit stations should have pedestrian connectivity as the primary goal.”

          They’ve never taken a bus there either apparently, or they’d see what it’s like to walk to the transit centers.

          “Unlike designing for an office building or shopping center”

          That’s debatable. I wouldn’t say pedestrian access should be the primary feature for large buildings, but it should be an essential criterion. Cities have reached the point of requiring sidewalks to make it possible to walk, but they haven’t looked at requiring the front door to be facing the sidewalk, which is something that should be obvious. Buildings like Lowe’s in Rainier Valley, Sky Nursery in Shoreline, or the VA hopsital are examples. With Lowe’s and Sky you have to walk past two or three sides of the building to get to the entrance.

    3. > One strange practice that Sound Transit has adopted is to put stations onto developable land instead of over streets. That’s seen in the recent Lynnwood plans, and another instance is the NE 8th station in Bellevue – that would have been a natural to have the station span NE 8th Street with entrances on both the north and south sides – the area on the south is ripe for transit-oriented development.

       It’s not strange at all. If you have the space to build outside of course it’s preferable as then one doesn’t need to spend half the budget moving the utilities under the street. For the NE 8th street, it is right after a sharp 90 degree turn it makes sense to build it north of the NE 8th, plus it was (I think?) just a parking lot there.

       The odd thing is more that Sound Transit/America refuses to use elevated alignments in narrower areas where one is forced to build on the street to avoid knocking down an apartment building. For example the west seattle alignment that called for demolishing an apartment building rather than on the road.

    4. “ One strange practice that Sound Transit has adopted is to put stations onto developable land instead of over streets”

       Ah, that can be explained in exactly one word – “Metro”.

       When Metro built the bus tunnel it was an absolute disaster for downtown Seattle businesses. Metro only built 3 in-street stations (PWS, USS, and WLS), but to do so they had to simultaneously shut down parts of 3rd Ave, Pine St and 5th Ave. it was a disaster.

       How bad was it? At one point Metro was forced to put in a temporary cover on Pine St just so downtown retail could have a “normal” Christmas shopping season. Then the surface got torn out afterwards and the permanent surface installed. And of course all the chaos was a big reason CAP passed (the most anti-urban anti-environmental thing this city has done since I-5 was built).

       And it doesn’t really matter that much if the station is under the street or over it. The construction disruption is still there, and it is prodigious.

       So, ya, ST isn’t all that interested in repeating that experience – and for good reason.

       And keeping the streets open adjacent to a construction site also has some construction advantages when it comes to material delivery.

       As per maglev, this proposal is just another gadgetbahn that will go exactly nowhere. We might as well be talking about gondolas, or monorail, or PRT, or flying taxis, or…..

       ST has hit the sweet spot with Link Light Metro. It’s a near perfect combination of frequency, capacity, and reliability. There is exactly no reason to switch techs at this point.

       None.

       1. Carl is asking why didn’t ST at Wilburton Station, for example, span the station over NE 8th, given that in the decades to come, the south side of the street will see massive growth and development.

       2. @Sam,

          ST considers all the factors that other agencies involved in large scale infrastructure development consider – cost, schedule, risk, construction disruption, esthetics. And usually in something like that order.

          The Wilburton Station is a relatively simple, low cost type design. I’d guess that cost was the main driver in its design.

          And people have been crossing streets for at least 2000 years, about sim e the Romans invented the road. I’m not sure it is in ST’s voter approved mandate to change that.

       3. I’m not wondering why ST didn’t have Wilburton Station span NE 8th street, Carl was. I was just clarifying his comment. I think it’s fine to have the station on the north side of the street, esp since there’s a pedestrian bridge connecting it to the other side.

       4. Every time Lazarus bashes Metro, an angel gets its wings.

          Anyway, of course things were messy when they built the tunnel, but that happens in every city. Talk to folks about DC before they put in the metro and they will tell you the same thing. As for downtown, all downtown areas struggled during that era. There was a move towards the mall. This is precisely why Tacoma made the mistake they did, and built I-705. Downtown interests were terrified of losing businesses to malls, and responded by doubling down on the car-centric approach. The City of Seattle even paid for a parking garage downtown. Can you imagine that now? Of course not. Same with I-705. It was a different era.

          The downtown bus tunnel was a huge transit improvement. It was more expensive than planned, but still by far the best value of anything we’ve ever built. It isn’t perfect — they should have had the station at Madison — but it is pretty close. Unlike so much of Link, the station placement is sensible. The time savings when used for buses was enormous, and it serves as the backbone of our rail system. Even the extremely conservative Seattle Times had to admit it was a “qualified success” (which is quite something, coming from them).

          There are always issues when it comes to construction. In my opinion, the big reason that places like the CID and West Seattle are complaining so much is because they feel like they are getting so little. If the station at Ballard was at 20th & Market there might be some griping about the construction, but there would also be great enthusiasm.

          Then there are business interests. It is ironic that Amazon pushed so hard for a South Lake Union alignment, and now they are pushing just as hard against a station, simply because they don’t want Westlake torn up. In some ways that epitomizes the attitude towards a lot of things. They want the improvement, but don’t want the (quite temporary) disruption that comes with it. As ST tries to please everyone, they can end up making bad decisions. Of course you want to listen — construction impact is important — but you don’t want to place too much emphasis on it, otherwise you end up with a very expensive, but not very good system.

       5. “When Metro built the bus tunnel it was an absolute disaster for downtown Seattle businesses.”

          Only if you value temporary construction impacts over long-term transit infrastructure. If we’d built the Bogue subway in 1920 or Forward Thrust in 1968 we wouldn’t have had to build a downtown tunnel in the 1980s. The impacts were larger than otherwise because of cut-and-cover construction. Cities became hostile to cut-and-cover, essentially putting short-term impacts and drivers above long-term transit access. That’s part of the problem with American cities.

       6. @Mike Orr,

          “ Only if you value temporary construction impacts over long-term transit infrastructure.”

          Welcome to the real world. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced, and lord help any transit agency that negatively impacts business.

          But the debacle of having multiple roads closed in the downtown business core for multiple years left a mark on this city. It had a lot to do with why CAP passed, even though CAP wasn’t directly related to transit. People had simply had enough.

          Don’t get me wrong, I actually think there is a place for in-street underground stations, but people don’t want to endure the pain of their construction. And if you suggest speeding up construction by extending construction hours, then they will complain about nighttime noise.

          It’s the world we live in, and it is the world ST needs to navigate while expanding the system.

       7. “Welcome to the real world. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced”

          What about transit riders that are inconvenienced for a hundred years? What about cities in other Western countries all over that manage to do it?

       8. I think people also have this magical idea that deep bore tunnels/mined stations don’t have construction impacts. Even for what people are asking for at denny way they can lessen the impact but it will prolong the construction time. (Extends construction time to 8 years over 4) https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1684320628281683969/photo/1

          I also highly doubt people would actually choose these expensive options if the choice was actually laid out. I have no idea why USA transit agencies always propose alternatives like do you want a 10 mile at-grade or 10 mile elevated or 10 mile underground when it’s actually more like do you want 20 miles at-grade 10 miles elevated or 5 miles underground.

       9. “ST has hit the sweet spot with Link Light Metro. It’s a near perfect combination of frequency, capacity, and reliability.”

          This statement can easily be refuted.

          1. Frequency. The system is limited on frequency because of the MLK segment. ST has artificially declared that no tighter than three minute frequencies are allowed in the tunnel (yet they operate tighter frequencies after games anyway). Automated systems easily have more frequent trains.

          2. Capacity. The double driver cab design of each ST light rail vehicle takes up space. There are plenty of other systems that design vehicles without a large enclosed cab at each end. Open gangway connectors would increase capacity substantially. Just having automated trains with plug in controls for manual operation would easily add 20-25% more train capacity.

          On top of this, the limits on frequency mentioned above reduce system capacity.

          Capacity is the main “justification” ST gives for DSTT2 and its huge cost of several billions. Yet ST has not considered much cheaper ways to significantly add capacity like simply buying a different kind of vehicle.

          Reliability. Reliability is not affected by the type of vehicle. It’s a function off the track layout and train control system as well as whether or not there are places that involve traffic conflicts.

          And let’s not forget about speed. The technology is specified for a 55 mph max speed. Yet many of the extensions underway have stops greater than every 1.5 miles and riders will notice how slow it is compared to freeway buses the further the trains run outside of Seattle.

          So the argument that Link has the optimum design is actually so ridiculous that it’s laughable to make that observation.

    5. Wilburton station does cross NE 8th street. There’s bridge being built as part of Eastrail

       https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/services/parks-recreation/parks/trails/regional-trails/popular-trails/eastrail/ne-8th

       And Lynnwood station spans 46th and connects to Lynnwood transit center. It’d likely be better a little further north/west but I think it’s a fairly reasonable station location

       1. At Wilburton, another agency helped ST out. The poster notion was that the Link station could have provided pedestrians a grade-separated crossing.

          ST did this for Broadway next to the Capitol Hill station. The UW Stadium station was amended by the UW, ST, and Metro.

          In ST3, could the station provide grade separated pedestrian crossings of 35th Avenue SW or Delridge Way SW?

          In Sound Move, could the Mt. Baker station have provided a pedestrian crossing of Rainier Avenue South. The budget was constrained.

          In ST2, the project was scaled back to help the pedestrian crossing of I-5 at NE 185th Street less.

       2. There’s typically a couple million for pedestrian improvements per link station. The current judkins park station budget is being used on the lights for the i90 trail and (if i remember correctly) the mlk bike lane uses some of that as well. These are the current system access fund projects.
          https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/system-access-fund-2019-awards-with-project-descriptions.pdf

          > In Sound Move, could the Mt. Baker station have provided a pedestrian crossing of Rainier Avenue South. The budget was constrained.

          Are you talking about the existing pedestrian bridge? That one existed before Mt. Baker.

          For the at-grade crossing, that’s pretty cheap to add a crosswalk it’s more around impacting car traffic that it didn’t move forward.

          > In ST3, could the station provide grade separated pedestrian crossings of 35th Avenue SW or Delridge Way SW?

          ST3 does have some money. The ballard-west seattle one has 95 million allocated for pedestrian improvements. Around 2~7 million per station.

          https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2023/Presentation%20-%20Station%20Access%20Allowances%20Overview%2005-11-2023.pdf

          Though generally while a station providing across two sides of a street are nice, in general purpose built pedestrian bridges for avenues are seen as a mistake and I agree, it’s a very large hassle to use them versus a regular crosswalk.

       3. 
          > In Sound Move, could the Mt. Baker station have provided a pedestrian crossing of Rainier Avenue South. The budget was constrained.

          Are you talking about the existing pedestrian bridge? That one existed before Mt. Baker.

          Yes, and it is terrible. I think that is the point. When the dust settled, and you spent all this money on a mass transit system, you are left with something that the manager of this blog considers awful: https://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/18/the-awfulness-of-mt-baker-station/. I agree. There is a huge “quantity over quality” attitude with Sound Transit. To a certain extent, it makes sense. It really doesn’t matter which corner you put the Lynnwood or Federal Way Station. Riders will arrive by bus, car and a handful on foot. They will commute to Seattle. In such instances, the trip is long enough that details don’t matter. But with urban trips, they do. Mount Baker Station has underperformed in large part because it is so awful (and it isn’t alone).

          But here is the thing: Urban stations should be the bread and butter of your system. If they fail, then everything else fails with it. Capitol Hill isn’t too far from First Hill, but after riders struggle with the walk (or the transfer) they just throw up their hand and drive (or call a cab). They do so even from Lynnwood, even if Lynnwood has a perfectly good suburban station. Or they beg Metro for an express bus that largely follows the exact same path as the train. It isn’t *just* that most of your rides are within the urban core (and if you screw that up, you lose money, and this becomes justification for running the trains infrequently) it is that if you screw that up, it is bad for the suburban riders as well. Your metro becomes more and more like commuter rail, or the bus system it replaced. Great for getting downtown, but otherwise, wanting.

          I’m not saying our system is quite that bad. I’m saying that little things — things that would not have cost that much money — didn’t happen because we were way too focused on distance. Or folks in charge didn’t know (or care) what they were doing.

       4. @Ross

          Honestly with the UW laundry moving I’m kinda surprised there weren’t any proposals to move the transit center partially there

       5. Actually there is a bit of investigation but not much has moved forward.

          > King County Metro, Seattle Department of Transportation, and Sound Transit have all expressed interest in providing better pedestrian, bicycling, and bus-to-light rail transfer connections to the Mount Baker light rail station for over a decade. A potential relocation of the King County Mount Baker Transit Center and layover to this site has been considered to
          facilitate safer pedestrian bus-to-light rail transfers. Possible use of part of the site for this purpose has been evaluated by the forementioned agencies, but has not advanced beyond high level planning efforts. Relocation of the transit center to the site is challenging from multiple perspectives, and co-locating bus transfer and layover space near a large affordable housing development with ground floor child-care and early learning uses warrants more investigation.

          https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/Housing/Funding%20Opportunities/2023/MountBaker/Mt_Baker_Infrastructure_Study.pdf

          But I guess bringing it slightly back to Carl’s original question of stations on developable land I guess this is a bit tradeoff between building the bus station next to the station or more TOD. Though granted glancing at the zoning and size of the transit center it looks like perhaps maybe just that east lot would need to be used

       6. @WL — What would have made the most sense is to put the station where the transit center is (in the triangle formed by MLK/Rainier/McClellan). It could be just east of Rainier. From the 7 you have an easier transfer. For buses that are truncated there, you have an easier transfer. It is easier to access from the east, although harder to access from the west. But it makes sense to favor the east, since the west is limited (by the greenbelt).

          I believe they considered it, but it cost too much. This gets to the heart of things. It is by no means the worst fault in the system. Maybe it was necessary to have a sub-standard station so that we could afford to go to SeaTac. I don’t buy it, but it is a reasonable argument. But when you look at the system as a whole, you find these sorts of compromises all over the place. No First Hill Station, bad UW station, only two stations in the U-District, etc. It is this fixation on distance over quality. We really should have done it the other way around. It is extremely difficult to backfill stations (unless it was designed for that in the first place). In contrast, if you do it right, it is fairly simple to extend a line.

          For example, assume the original plan is to run a line from downtown to the U-District. This is where you get the most riders per mile. It is where most experts would say you should start. Also assume you want to have a lot of stops. I would go with with around a half dozen. So how about First Hill, Capitol Hill, 23rd & Madison, Montlake Triangle, 40th & Brooklyn, 45th & Brooklyn. (This is after the UW rejected stations in the heart of campus.) Now imagine the engineers say there are potential soil problems with that route. Instead of abandoning key areas (like First Hill) you just don’t go as far. Have the first phase end at 23rd & Madison. Of course it isn’t nearly as good, but it is a good first step, and in the long run, much better.

          Instead, ST did the opposite. They started with a minimal number of stations, and then abandoned one of the few they wanted. It wasn’t an aberration either, it has always been their approach. They assume that a Spine is essential, while quality urban stop spacing is not. They have it backwards.

       7. A potential relocation of the King County Mount Baker Transit Center and layover to this site has been considered to facilitate safer pedestrian bus-to-light rail transfers.

          Which would also delay the buses, while also decreasing coverage. The existing transit center is about as good as you are going to get. There are things the the city should to make access easier, but buses make a minimal number of turns to access it, since it sits in between MLK and Rainier. The problem isn’t that the transit center is in the wrong place, it is that the station is.

       8. No, this is not a comment on the weak pedestrian bridge near Franklin High. With more cost, the Mt. Baker station could have straddled Rainier Avenue South.

          In West Seattle, the stations could straddle Delridge Way SW and 35th Avenue SW.

       9. > @WL — What would have made the most sense is to put the station where the transit center is (in the triangle formed by MLK/Rainier/McClellan). It could be just east of Rainier.

          Checking google maps it’s kind of a tight fit to put the station there since it needs to make a sharp turn to head west into the tunnel.

          > I believe they considered it, but it cost too much. This gets to the heart of things. It is by no means the worst fault in the system. Maybe it was necessary to have a sub-standard station so that we could afford to go to SeaTac. I don’t buy it, but it is a reasonable argument.

          I mean unfortunately I do somewhat agree. They really didn’t have enough money. Also unfortunately Rainier Valley had a lot of opposition to elevated even more than at-grade so they were probably trying to minimize the amount of elevated sections.

          There was the underground alternative, but Link probably wouldn’t exist today if they attempted tunneling such a long section.

          > So how about First Hill, Capitol Hill, 23rd & Madison, Montlake Triangle, 40th & Brooklyn, 45th & Brooklyn.

          This route doesn’t really seem to make much sense. Tunneling to go east to 23rd & madison and then making a turn north to montlake traingle? It seems like a very circuitous route.

          > Have the first phase end at 23rd & Madison. Of course it isn’t nearly as good, but it is a good first step, and in the long run, much better.

          You can’t really always have the phase end at random places. One needs a place to take the TBM out at a tunnel portal or I guess it could be left underground. Then when you dig from the north you’ll need to make the same considerations of where the tunnel exit will be or a large site to take it out.

       10. > No, this is not a comment on the weak pedestrian bridge near Franklin High. With more cost, the Mt. Baker station could have straddled Rainier Avenue South.

           I’m totally pro-elevated, but it wasn’t really the cost that prevented more elevated sections on Rainier/Mlk but community concerns about elevated sections that led the only real options becoming at-grade or underground.

           The reason why I am emphasizing this is that the solution of ‘more money’ wouldn’t have solved it. Aka it’s why Link doesn’t run on Tukwila boulevard elevated and is instead next to i-5 or why Link doesn’t run on Aurora Avenue elevated north of northgate and instead hugs i-5.

           Sure the i5 routes were slightly cheaper but the real reason why they were chosen was to avoid community impacts so that is what needs to be solved to build elevated segments on the avenue.

           > In West Seattle, the stations could straddle Delridge Way SW and 35th Avenue SW.

           If you’re talking about the avalon station, there’s already going to be the alaskan junction station not to far to the west so I think it’s fine that it’s on the east of 35th avenue sw. They could straddle 35th but then they’d have to take a car lane and a whole fight on Fauntleroy, which if Sound Transit did want to fight for straddling I’d recommend doing that for Alaskan junction elevated alignment instead so one doesn’t need to knock down an apartment building.

       11. @WL — It was the money (at least according to Martin, who I’m sure researched it). There was opposition to being elevated the whole way, but being elevated for that little piece wouldn’t have mattered.

           Sure the i5 routes were slightly cheaper but the real reason why they were chosen was to avoid community impacts so that is what needs to be solved to build elevated segments on the avenue.

           Another word for “community impacts” is money. Look at the Roosevelt Station. The original plans were to build it under the freeway, next to the park and ride (ST loves park and rides). The community pushed to move it closer to the neighborhood. Of course this meant a lot more disruption during construction, but they were willing to pay the price (figuratively). Meanwhile, taxpayers paid the price (literally). Was it worth it? In my opinion, yes, absolutely. Keep in mind, this cost way more than it would have to move the Mount Baker Station a little bit to the east.

           I’m sure running on Aurora would have cost more. Property acquisition would have been much higher. There are bound to be trade-offs, but always pursuing the cheapest approach — while simultaneously building a system that is much bigger than it needs to be — is just a bad idea.

           Tunneling to go east to 23rd & Madison and then making a turn north to Montlake triangle? It seems like a very circuitous route.

           The Montlake Triangle is essentially due north of 23rd & Madison. It is really no different than what they have now, except:

           1) The station at Husky Stadium is moved to the triangle (with an existing underground connection to the hospital, and a shorter walk to the campus).

           2) More stations.

           Which, basically is the biggest problem with Link. They don’t have enough stations, and the stations they do have are often in the wrong place. U-District Station is great; UW Station is not. But again, by far the biggest problem is that their aren’t enough stations in the heart of the city. If you just looked at a map, you would be forgiven if you thought there was hardly anything between downtown and the UW, which would explain why they only added one station. You would be wrong. To be fair, density drops off as you go north of Thomas, but between there and downtown is the one of the most densely populated areas in the state. The only areas that come close are downtown Bellevue (which will essentially get one station) and the U-District (which will get two). There just aren’t enough stations. I realize that in some cases you have to weave this way and that, but unless you have serious plans to serve with a later line (and there aren’t any) that is just what you do. Subway lines often do that. If you don’t maximize coverage in the really dense area, you have to ask yourself whether it is even worth bothering to build.

           The other day we were discussing the transit tunnel, which was originally built for buses. It consisted of five stations (Convention Place, Westlake, University, Pioneer Square and ID/C). The original plans were to have six (with the sixth being on Madison). I feel like if ST designed it, they would have planned on three, and settled on two, once they ran into problems. People would have had to walk a lot further to their destination. Transfers would have been more awkward. Metro would have sent buses turning to compensate. The overall transit experience would have been much worse, and more people would drive.

       12. > @WL — It was the money (at least according to Martin, who I’m sure researched it). There was opposition to being elevated the whole way, but being elevated for that little piece wouldn’t have mattered.

           But that’s not what happened. It got narrowed down to an at-grade approach or underground and the elevated option was not discussed much at the end.

           > Another word for “community impacts” is money.
           Lumping together ‘community impacts’ with money isn’t correct.

           > I’m sure running on Aurora would have cost more. Property acquisition would have been much higher. There are bound to be trade-offs, but always pursuing the cheapest approach — while simultaneously building a system that is much bigger than it needs to be — is just a bad idea

           For the lynnwood section sure, the savings were quite large, but for the federal way section the monetary savings weren’t even that large https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/07/24/sound-transit-chooses-i5-fed-way/ But then look at what actually happened. The only section of elevated on an avenue is oddly to reach the Paine Field airport.

           > Critically, the cities of SeaTac, Des Moines, Kent, and Federal Way were unified both in their opposition to SR-99 and their support of I-5. Board Members McCarthy, Butler, Roberts, and Earling all talked at length about pleasing the local jurisdictions, but mentions of the actual utility of light rail service on I-5 vis-à-vis SR 99 were curiously absent.

           Even if federal way had doubled it’s budget Sound Transit would have still chosen the i5 alignment again.

           > Look at the Roosevelt Station. The original plans were to build it under the freeway, next to the park and ride (ST loves park and rides). The community pushed to move it closer to the neighborhood. Of course this meant a lot more disruption during construction, but they were willing to pay the price (figuratively)

           Yes I understand that, but they were willing and that is what I am discussing. If the roosevelt community was against it then the alignment would have been built along i-5 just like what happened in federal way and lynnwood sections whether more or less expensive.

       13. “I’m sure running on Aurora would have cost more.”

           I-5 was chosen for two reasons:

           A) It was four minutes faster to Lynnwood. ST’s ridership projections said the Aurora alternative would lose more riders in Lynnwood than it would gain on Aurora.

           B) It would be less expensive because the I-5 right of way is publicly owned. That turned out not to be the case because I-5 is sixty years old and at the end of its life, so ST had to be very careful not to touch it or ST would have to pay the cost to rebuild it.

           #A was dubious because ST wasn’t allowed to consider uncommitted future upzones, or a future change in attitudes that might make people more willing to take transit and drive less. I believe the latter will emerge in the next couple decades, but the FTA’s criteria wouldn’t allow it. That shows again that the most fundamental problem with American transit is attitudes and priorities.

       14. This topic has certainly bounced all over the region!

           It needs to be mentioned that pedestrian station access is a three dimensional issue. It’s not just what 2D path on a map that a pedestrian must take. Changing elevation to go from the platform to the ground only to have to walk a few feet and change elevation again is a huge hassle. This is what the Mt Baker problem is.

           Let’s look at how the John Lewis Bridge at Northgate feeds into the station mezzanine. If Mt Baker station had a mezzanine like Northgate does then a replacement overpass to connect to a mezzanine would have been a no- brainer to me. A crossover to the transit center and then across to the east side of both Rainier and MLK would have just been amazing. I would even observe that had ST set the vertical location of the platforms higher 10 feet (and there was a mezzanine) or lower 10 feet (and there were 17 fewer stair steps) the connectivity would be better.

           Generally, there is little to no discussion about the path that a riding pedestrian must travel up or down — and this omission is still happening with ST continuing to submit plans for different station locations to this very day. Every elevation change that can’t be offered with a gradual ramp requires an elevator and usually an escalator. ST will even inform the process by stating how deep or high a platform is, but not inform how much elevation change is required. In my opinion, every station discussion needs to inform the process by stating how many steps a rider must possible encounter when reaching the platform from various points in the sidewalk.

           Funny story: When I’ve asked the public involvement staff about how many stair steps different alternatives require, the staff say “good question” but never ever provide an answer. It just goes to illustrate that ST doesn’t care about how riders actually use their system.

           Note for the public involvement staff: A stair step is 7 inches. Do the math and put the resulting number on the display board right next to the estimated platform depth!

11. I’d be interested in seeing how the energy efficiency of TSB maglev compares to conventional steel-on-steel. My intuition is that at low speeds the resistance losses of the electro-magnets used for levitation would exceed the rolling resistance and axle friction losses of rail. As the velocity increases the per mile levitation losses decrease while rolling resistance is constant, axle friction increases slightly, and the aerodynamic drag of wheels and bogies becomes significant (assuming the maglev’s linear motor bogies can be made more aerodynamic), so there is likely a travel speed at which maglevs are more efficient. However, my guess would be that the crossover point is at greater than 100 mph, but I don’t actually know.

    1. Yes, it’s difficult to compare as in real world a transit system has to deal with acceleration and braking more than just top speed. The German transpo dept study I quoted above actually compared scenarios from Munich, Frankfurt, Nuernberg, and Berlin and used trains at half ridership capacity. Again, TSB was slight better or about the same as comparable trains.

       1. Wait a minute. I haven’t been talking about the electrical costs for propulsion. I mean the costs for levitation and guidance. Propulsion would clearly be roughly equal, because steel wheels have little rolling resistance but a “flying” vehicle has almost none. It’s a slight advantage to MagLev.

          But support and guidance are almost “free” for steel wheel vehicles; steel is rigid enough that it barely flexes from the vehicle’s weight and the ogive profile makes guidance losses to friction relatively minor except in “tight” curves.

          However, MagLev needs to dump MegaWatts into the levitation magnets whenever the vehicle is moving. Support is the most expensive use of electricity.

          This is why I asked Martin about his statement that “active” magnets are not used. Since the weight of the cars will vary somewhat due to passenger loads, “passive” permanent magnets simply can’t be used. The supports would be riding through the guideway channels at different heights, making the x-axis guidance repulsion from the guideway more difficult. The LEM magnets would also rise up and down on the blade, making z-axis propulsion and retardation less precise and therefore less reliable.

          How do they claim to solve these alignment problems without “active” [i.e. “electro-“] magnets?

       2. Thanks for the reference, it cleared things up! My hunch was that the only way a low speed maglev train would be so relatively efficient was if it was utilizing an additional energy savings mechanism, such as regenerative braking. While I can’t read German, I did search the document for “bremsen” (braking) and found the relevant passage in 2.5.1.1 Straßen-, U- und S-Bahn:

          Energy recovery during braking was not taken into account. [translated by Google]

          So for the Straßen-, U- und S-Bahn, regenerative braking was not considered. It doesn’t explicitly say for the TSB, but the data for TSB was from a simulation that the company “Max Bögl carried out” and I’d be very surprised if they didn’t include regenerative braking in their modeling. In fairness, a maglev system is intrinsically well suited for regenerative braking: the linear motors are a primary braking mechanism and on board batteries are needed to bring the vehicle safely to a stop in the event of a power outage (recovered energy can also be sent back to the grid if set up properly).

          However, it is fairly easy to equip conventional electric rail for regenerative braking, so the comparison in the study is not entirely fair, if my assumptions are correct.

       3. @ Tom Terrific
          According to this factsheet TSB is an EMS type Maglev that uses steel in the guideways and conventional electromagnets in the trains. So there is resistance loss in levitation and stabilization, but it seems this is small enough to not render the system uncompetitive from an energy efficiency perspective.

          However, I’m guessing the analysis for TSB included regenerative braking whereas the conventional systems did not (see my reply to Martin).

          Doing a back of the envelope calculation, this makes sense. Apparently it generally takes between 1 and 2 kW/ton for levitation (if not using superconductors). Assuming 2 kilometer stations spacing, 1 m/s^2 acceleration/deceleration, and a top speed of 25 m/s (56 mph); the trip between stations would take 105 seconds, use ~312 kJ/ton accelerating (Maglev or conventional) and ~210 kJ/ton levitating (@2 kW/ton). So if the TSB recaptures a significant portion of that 312 kJ/ton used for acceleration and the conventional rail does not, it’s easy to see how the two would end up being roughly equivalent. TSB also apparently rests on the rails when not moving, so it’s not expending energy while in the stations.

       4. Alex, I figured that motionless trains settled onto the safety rails. So by your computation levitation takes less than acceleration? That seems counter-intuitive. A moving train experiences a unvarying and implacable 1G of acceleration downward that constantly has to be balanced by a 1G accleration upward from the support magnets. Regardless how powerful the LIM’s may be, they aren’t going to use a full 1G acceleration or deceleration on the train, except in a “big hole” emergency; people would be bowled over. So I don’t see how acceleration would ever exceed support.

          It’s certainly assumed that regenerative braking would be used on a MagLev. There’s no other way to stop it other than dropping it on the safety rails, and that is a “No, no!” everywhere and everywhen.

          When running at a consistent speed on level ground, either technology requires enough energy to defeat wind drag and, for the steel wheel trains, to overcome rolling friction. You noted that the supports can probably be made more aerodynamically slick than wheeled bogies, so this become a big plus for HSR. Result: on balance MagLev is better for long distances at any relatively constant velocity.

          However, if they didn’t consider dynamic braking for wheeled trains, that’s stacking the deck, but corps do what corps gotta do to sell their products.

          So let’s say that overall, propulsion is slightly favorable to MagLev.

          But every pico-second that the train is in the air it requires a 1G upforce to stay there, and none of that energy expenditure gets recaptured from braking.

          That’s a lot of money to spend on “sex appeal”, which is mostly what MagLev Mania is all about. Yes, they’re quieter, but steel wheel trains running on welded rail are pretty quiet too, except at sharp curves like Third and Pine.

          Thanks for reading the tech specs.

       5. @ Tom Terrific
          Your making a pretty common error in equating force to (work) energy usage, I saw this all the time as a TA for undergraduate physics. Work is force over distance, so if an object is not moving when under balanced forces no energy need be expended.

          For example, a coffee cup sitting on a table the force of gravity is perfectly balanced by the normal force of the table (ultimately electron repulsion) without expending any energy. Similarly, the electromagnets levitate the train without expending any work on the train, and the only losses are via electrical resistance in the windings. If superconducting magnets are used then levitation would not require any energy beyond the initial charging (and obviously the energy required to cool the electromagnets, since all known superconductors require low temperatures).

       6. @ Tom Terrific
          I think people commonly make this mistake because to does not correspond well to the human experience of muscle use. As a result of the biological details of muscle function, muscles (at least skeletal muscles) are quite inefficient at maintaining a constant static force, and so use a lot of energy hold a force even when not doing any work. In contrast consider when you hold weight on the skeleton (such as when standing), the skeletal system can hold a static load without any energy expenditure.

       7. WHAT? How do you think that the balanced force upward is generated??????? By pouring Megawatts through electromagnets, that’s how.

          If you turn them off, the train will drop to the safety rails. And then, indeed, no “work” will be necessary, because the safety rails, the mountings by which they’re supported and the ground beneath the mountings are all dense and rigid enough that they won’t compress or crumble given the gravitational force of the train on the tracks, like the table holding up the coffee cup. The train will sit quietly until the upward force is restored.

          I guess you must know how much EMF it requires to produce negative one G upforce on a matnetic object, but I simply cannot believe that it is LESS than that required to accelerate the same force in a horizontal plane at less than one G.

          TAANSTAFFL.

       8. You may be overlooking the “reluctance” that the electromagnets in the guideway will experience when they are exerting a repulsive force against the electromagnets on the train (ditto those on the train of course). The DC “resistance” might be minimal if you use sufficiently large gauge wire (but then you have trouble getting enough windings), but the overall power required to generate a sufficient field includes that reluctance.

       9. @ Tom Terrific
          It requires no energy to maintain a magnetic field that provides the balancing 1 g-force of upward force. Consider a permanent magnet stuck on the underside of a steel plate, its magnetic field holds it in place against the force of gravity (and the normal force of the plate) without expending any energy. Similarly, electromagnets hold the train up without doing any work on the train. There is no free lunch here, the train isn’t moving up, so it’s not gaining any potential energy, it is just at rest in the stable balance of gravitational and magnetic forces, just as a cup rests on desks has balanced gravitational and normal forces, or a satellite in orbit has balanced gravitational and centrifugal forces.

          Now normal electromagnets do loose energy because their coils are not perfect conductors, but superconducting electromagnets can maintain a magnetic field (and it’s resultant forces) without expending any energy. The only work done on the train is when the field is initialized, but this only rises the train by some 5 centimeters or so, which would require ~0.5 kJ/ton.

          Just to reiterate, force is not equal to work (transfer of energy), work is force along displacement. If the train is not changing its height above the track, then no energy is required to hold up the train as it is not being displaced, it is an object at rest. Note the important difference here with movement along the track (in the horizontal plane) where the force applied is moving the train thereby doing work on the train, and so necessarily requires the transfer of electrical energy via induction motors to the kinetic energy of the train.

          Hope this helps you understand, if you’re still confused I’ll try and look for a YouTube video that explains the concepts better than I can.

       10. @ Tom Terrific
           Sure, if we want to get further into the weeds we could look into eddy currents and the reluctance of the track as the train moves along, which will also be sources of energy loss, but these are certainly second order effects and it doesn’t make sense to compare their magnitude to that of the of the force of gravity or the acceleration of the vehicle along the track. They are more akin to maglev equivalent of rolling resistance. These are very real considerations, but they don’t really follow from your previous line of reasoning, and it is reasonably to assume that the 1-2 kW/ton quoted would be inclusive of such effects.

       11. Alex, the last paragraph in the section with the table explains that the effects of regenerative braking (“Bremsenergie”) was NOT considered in the study as it is difficult to calculate the effects. The study specifically encourages the use of automated train control to maximize the effectiveness of regenerative braking but they were unable to model the savings.

       12. And yet there is current constantly moving through the electromagnets to maintain the field. Now I can see that perhaps the current required to generate the field is less than what I imagine, because I don’t have any electromagnets other than loudspeakers with which I’m familiar.

           You said you computed that a ton could be supported motionless by two Kilowatts, so you are essentially saying that you can hover a thirty-five ton Skytrain railcar some constant few centimeters above an electromagnet-containing “track” for about $7 to $9 per hour? That is very cheap, though probably more than wheel maintenance.

           So what about the sections of the track which do not have a train on them at the moment? I gather that they would have been de-energized after the previous train passed and sit inert until the next one approaches when they’d be “lit up”. Is that correct? Does it require more electricity to establish a field than to maintain it? And does the entry of a field of the same polarity into its zone of influence require a greater flow of electricity in order to maintain the same level of repulsion? IOW, does the field get “squished” by the intrusion?

           If it does NOT require extra energy to establish a field, then that seems to violate conservation of energy, because the field CAN “do work” by attracting or repelling magnetic objects. A magnetic field, permanent or electro, creates a “down” all around it, attracting magnetic things to it like gravity. They “fall” toward it like objects in a gravitational field.

           It takes effort to pull things which have been attracted off it, but in the case of an electro-magnet, one can just switch it off and the items attracted to it fall to the first unyielding surface toward the center of the Earth. Why was
           the creation of that force not “doing work”?

           As an aside, if the idle track is not de-energized between trains then that means $7-9/ hour for each eighty foot section of the entire guideway.

       13. @ Martin
           My understanding it was not taken into account for the Straßen-, U- und S-Bahns. If the translation is correct, for the TSB the numbers are from a modeling study by the company that makes the system, Max Bögl, and I’m guessing Max Bögl included regenerative braking in their modeling. Maybe I’m loosing something in translation though.

       14. @ Tom
           Several things.
           1) My understand is that with this particular technology, the guideway simply has steel components which serve as ferromagnetic attractors for the electromagnets in the vehicles, so the track itself is unpowered. Some maglevs have powered tracks, and in that case it takes energy to power up the relevant section of the track, but most of that energy can be recovered when the track powers back down (see 2), presumably immediately used to power the next section of track.

           2) For electromagnetics generally, it certainly takes energy to establish a field, but this energy is not in principle unrecoverably lost. Electromagnets or inductors essentially store energy in a magnetic field, which can latter be discharged and the energy recovered. Once established the only energy required for maintenance is the result of resistance losses in the windings (so would be zero for a superconductor). If the magnetic field does work on an object it would require energy expenditure on the part of the circuit, but again in the case of maglev the vertical position of the train is stationary relative to the guideway, so the levitation magnets are not doing work.

           3) If you’re curious how the moving electromagnets of maglev trains loss energy through induced currents in the track, this paper does a decent job of explaining the theoretical details, and includes experimental verification on an actual maglev train system.

       15. @alex,
           the study states that regenerative braking was not included in the model study, it specifically states that this applies to ALL the modes. I would expect that includes TSB. The study also states that this they only modeled the power consumption and that there are many more variables in a real-world deployment. If you have a longer train, it may reduce drag and reduce power consumption but makes rider experience worse as you would have to wait longer. Their conclusion was that energy consumption certainly did not appear to be higher than traditional rail systems.

       16. OK, somehow you’re supporting 37 ton train car without expending any energy [“doing work”], but, still, somehow 50 to 75 Kw of electricity is flowing through the coils of a set of electromagnets mounted on the car, impeded only minimally by the resistance in the windings of the magnets. Magically the car’s support structures on which the magnets are mounted are “floating” within a box shaped “ferromagnetic trackway”, attracted to its top with enough force to cancel gravity, but not to its bottom or sides. That implies that they are some non-magnetic material. There are also (presumably) repulsive electromagnets mounted on some other part of the train which keep the car centered horizontally within that trackway. None of these magnets are “doing work” so they’re not expending energy because “equal forces” are holding the car in place at all times.

           There are no wheels to true, no axle bearings to lubricate and replace, no track to wear and no concrete ties to crack and re-seat.

           Oh, and you can “get back” at least some of the energy used to establish the fields that the electro-magnets produce in the first place when they’re turned off.

           If this clever magicianship is real, and MagLev trains have been successfully deployed in several places over the planet so it must be, why are transit systems not building these energy-free systems right and left?

           There does appear, after all, to be a “Free Lunch”.

       17. @ Martin
           It’s not overly important so no worries if you don’t respond to this, but you’ve made me curious. The English translation given by chatGPT of the final paragraph of section 2.5.1.3 is given as:

           In conclusion, it can be generally stated that automated operation in all transportation systems would presumably increase energy efficiency. This is based on the fact that in fully automated driving, individual driver behavior has no influence, and there is also the possibility to locally coordinate the braking and acceleration of trains, thereby efficiently utilizing regenerated braking energy in the network. This technological option was not considered in any of the simulations conducted or presented in the present study.

           Given this translation, I would take the paragraph to mean that none of the studies considered autonomous operation, but that the use of autonomous driving could improve efficiency through coordinating acceleration and deceleration to more efficiently use regenerated braking energy (in a list with other potential efficiency gains). As translated, this paragraph does not imply that none of the studies used regenerative breaking. However, I obviously trust you more than our adolescent AI assistant, so I’m wondering if something is lost in this translation.

       18. @ Tom
           What do you think the free lunch is?

       19. Alex, if you can support a train car for $9/hour and it runs on average 20 hours per day (to allow for cleaning and SOGR inspections), that’s $180/day per car. If we assume trains of four Skytrain-sized cars (capacity about 240 passengers, length about 225 feet to allow for roughly half-sized stations) that’s $36 per train per hour times 20 hours or $720/train/day (plus maintenance and cleaning of course).

           ST would be running trains that hold nearly 500 people when well-loaded without drivers for that amount. Since there wouldn’t be any wheels, the propulsion would have to be LIM, so there would be no “mechanical” maintenance except the doors. Maintenance would be entirely electrical/electronic, which can largely be “off-train” by swapping circuit boards.

           Since automated and fully grade-separated trains with platform doors in the stations to prevent door jamming, can run reliably at 90 second headways. So if BLE ever needed it, it could runs 40 tph. Forty times $720 is $28,800 per day for direct train-service costs, call it $30K in 2023 buckos.

           In the transit world, that’s a Free Lunch.

           So why are ANY new lines being built with wheeled vehicles?

       20. @Tom T,

           “ There does appear, after all, to be a “Free Lunch”.”

           Now you are getting it.

           Yes, multi-ton trains will magically levitate themselves without power loses for years on end, the guideways will be so narrow that people won’t even notice them, construction will be so simple that anyone who has played with tinker toys will be able to do it, a 10% grade will be a game changer over the 7 to 8% capability of LR LRV’s, and a switch that transitions in 15 secs is a marvel of engineering that our current railroad switches that operate in 1 to 2 secs can never match!

           Yes, this is a free lunch! At least when all you are dealing with is concepts. But that isn’t where the real work of brick and mortar engineering gets done.

           Seattle went down this road before. It was called “monorail”. It was supposed to have many of the same benefits that Martin now claims for maglev. My favorite monorail claim was that Falkenbury’s original 40 mile X concept could be built and paid for using just fare revenue and expresso sales from in-station coffee stands! It really would be free to the taxpayer! As long as we drank enough coffee. But monorail became monofail.

           But that magical thinking isn’t even the worst part of Martin’s proposal. No, even if maglev worked economically, the worst part is that maglev is the wrong tech for the job.

           Basically, why spend the money to build a system capable of 100 mph operation if all you are doing is building from DT Seattle to Ballard? Really? A Westlake-SLU-Seattle Center-Ballard route would never get up to 100 mph. It’s just wasted capability.

           Now if Martin was proposing a 100 mph maglev line on the I-5 corridor linking Tacoma-Seattle-Everett without any intermediate, time wasting stops, that at least *might* make transportation sense, but such a concept has an even bigger issue than technology – it’s called economics. I doubt such a proposal would ever generate enough ridership to pencil out, even with generous taxpayer support.

           But hey, everyone loves a free lunch! Monorail! Oh, sorry, Maglev!

       21. Alex,
           unfortunately, the text in the study lacks clarity on the whether they did not consider regenerative energy or automation as the reference is not clear. I think their language can be interpreted either way.

       22. Lazarus,
           one of the TSB lines which is being studied is a people mover circle line at the Munich airport as https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/fully-automated-urban-transport-system-bogl-tsb/ reports. Max Bögl Group said that they focused their design on transit systems all the way from airport people movers to about 100km in length.

       23. @Martin,

           A study is nothing more than that – just a study.

           And often studies are performed for no other reason than to give policy makers a little CYA when they scratch obviously unrealistic options off their list.

           I wouldn’t hold your breath for maglev in Seattle.

    2. “TANSTAAFL”

12. A few comments were questioning how a maglev solution would provide any benefit. Besides being an automated system, which regular trains can also be, construction cost, visual impact, and the ability to climb are the main drivers. A few examples where better climbing abilities would help:
    1. I already mentioned that the First Hill station was never built as it would have been challenging. It might be nice to go from Westlake, under I-5 and up to Boren, but it that would be too steep or require a tight S-curve to climb up the hill.
    2. The Mercer station is planned to be very deep as the Ballard line would need to get under the Hwy99 tunnel. If there is a big event at Seattle Center, access via escalators/elevators will become the bottleneck, not train capacity. A shallower tunnel or an elevated line would be much easier to access.
    3. If we tunnel under the ship canal, then we also need tunnel stations north and south of the canal or push them out far enough to allow the train to come up to the surface. TSB could provide the ability for shallow or above surface stations.

    1. The First Hill Station wasn’t built because of challenging geology, not because of challenging grades.

       And one has to wonder how any elevated line (regardless of grade climbing capability) could have served that route. One of the great things about tunnels is that they free the route from the street grid. They basically can go “cross grid”, which elevated almost never can.

       Of course you can put maglev in a tunnel, but that puts you right back to challenging geology.

       Elevated lines in dense urban cores need to be avoided at all costs, I wouldn’t object to an elevated LR line up Aurora (it’s a giant, barren Stroad), but an elevated maglev line across the middle of Seattle Center?

       I’d go get my pitchfork for sure. And, yes, I do have one.

       1. an elevated maglev line across the middle of Seattle Center?

          We already have one. Not maglev, but monorail. Same basic idea. It was an experiment for the world’s fair. The Linimo (maglev) line is quite similar. It was also built for the world’s fair. In both cases, it didn’t usher in a huge wave of similar systems. There are a handful scattered around, but it wasn’t the trend folks imagined when they visited the fair.

          It is worthwhile to consider alternatives — systems that aren’t that common. But being “cutting edge” often means you are stuck with something less than ideal. The first SkyTrain system — the Expo Line — was built for (you guessed it) the world’s fair. They wanted to demonstrate linear induction motors. It worked out OK, but when they added a largely independent line — Canada Line — they went with conventional motors.

          Our problem is not that we aren’t cutting edge. Our problem is that the choices are rather arbitrary. It shouldn’t even be light rail. Although to be fair, it made sense given the way our system evolved. It hurts us more than the induction motors in Vancouver, but it isn’t the end of the world.

          Our biggest problems have little to do with technology, and everything to do with design. Replace the light rail with heavy rail and very little changes. Serve places like First Hill with light rail and everything does.

          The one place where technology is quite relevant is with the expansion and automation. Automated trains aren’t a novelty anymore. They are basically becoming the standard. Toronto redesigned their system at the 11th hour to automate their new line. The result will save them money in construction as well as operations, while also making things better for riders. It is quite likely we would get the same benefit, if not more (given our challenging geography) if we did the same.

       2. Lazarus, my understanding of the First Hill Station challenge was that the station had to be deep AND the soil was bad, therefore the problem got compounded. If the train could go steep enough uphill, you could even build it cut and cover along Boren with much lower risk involved.

       3. @Ross B,

          “ an elevated maglev line across the middle of Seattle Center?

          We already have one. Not maglev, but monorail.”

          Ah, last I knew monorail terminated on the east side of Center House and did not travel “across the middle of Seattle Center”, and had terminated there for at least 60 years. But hey, what do I know.

          And Vancouver didn’t select LIM to demonstrate the technology, no transit agency worth its salt would do such a thing. That is the role of the government and the labs. And LIMS have been around for over a century anyhow.

          No, Vancouver selected the LIM to save money. Basically they had a pre-existing railroad tunnel under downtown that they wanted to repurpose for transit, but it was only a single track tunnel.

          So how do you put two transit tracks in a single track tunnel?

          You stack them! But that means the new rail vehicles need to be short and squat, and that implies short and squat trucks and propulsion systems too. And that means normal electric motors won’t meet the design constraints.

          Enter the LIM! But it was only there to allow short, squat, stackable LRV’s so that two lines could fit in a single track tunnel. Not as a demonstration of technology or of hubris.

          This is why the transit agencies all employ design engineers.

       4. “And Vancouver didn’t select LIM to demonstrate the technology, no transit agency worth its salt would do such a thing. That is the role of the government and the labs.”

          The government selected it to promote a Canadian company’s technology. Y’know, what World’s Fairs are for. Which part of government made the decision is splitting hairs.

       5. @Mike Orr,

          LIM is an old tech, and nobody really cared what was powering SkyTrain anyhow. It’s invisible to the casual traveler.

          But what you say is not correct. LIM was selected so they could double stack two Skytrain lines in the pre-existing, single track Dunsmuir Tunnel. This is well known.

13. Sam, exactly; thank you. ST builds Skycastles and then tries to hide them from view. The left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth.

14. The gondola in LA just got EIR approval. Surprisingly this project seems to be moving forward a lot more seriously than I expected. Not quite an urban guideway, but it is a definitely an ‘new’ technology to usa. Though no idea who would be funding it?

    > Plans for an aerial gondola system which would connect the Dodger Stadium parking lots with Los Angeles Union Station continue to inch forward, with the release of the project’s final environmental impact report.

    > The approximately $500-million project, announced five years ago Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART), is backed in part by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. Plans call for the construction of a roughly 1.2-mile system which would connect to the ballpark via Chinatown… In addition to terminus stations on Alameda Street and at Dodger Stadium, the project would also include a stop next to both L.A. State Historic Park and Chinatown

    https://la.urbanize.city/post/final-eir-released-500m-dodger-stadium-gondola

    1. I think that anyone who follows transit should acquaint themselves with all the different projects at different stages in the Los Angeles area. That includes the discussions about this, the Inglewood Transit Connector, the problematic 405 monorail option, the LAX people mover, the SCORE regional rail plans, the Arrow trains in San Bernardino and high speed rail details (both CAHSR and Brightline West) — on top of the project extensions like the Wilshire/ UCLA extension, the Regional Connector, the Pomona extension, the Crenshaw completion and new operations scenario, the Santa Ana Branch and several other long range corridors like Crenshaw North, San Fernando Valley light rail and Whittier. It’s rather dizzying frankly.

       To me, following the money is particularly curious. The permanent 1 percent sales tax for transit generates lots of revenue — but the way it gets decided involves a better and more honest evaluation than we get because the funding is permanent and the oversight is not the operator board directly.

       It’s not always the best decisions that they make — but it’s certainly more open than our process tainted by urban NIMBY’s and backroom developer-elected official dealing. Like how this Dodger gondola would have just appeared one day out of the blue if it was in Seattle and gotten complete elected official sponsorship before it was made public.

       1. Yeah los angeles is definitely making lots of stride.

          > It’s not always the best decisions that they make — but it’s certainly more open than our process tainted by urban NIMBY’s and backroom developer-elected official dealing. Like how this Dodger gondola would have just appeared one day out of the blue if it was in Seattle and gotten complete elected official sponsorship before it was made public.

          Lol, I’ve been kinda following it and honestly I think the los angeles process is worse than the seattle process, though not by much. They have pulled off the regional light rail subway and are building the purple line subway. But others, the vermont light rail/brt project has basically been cancelled/shelved. Partly due to the street being on the edge of local city boundaries.

          > LAX people mover and Inglewood

          The people mover was added at the last second and originally not integrated with the crenshaw line. That’s why rather than dropping/moving the Aviation/Century station they are building both that one and the LAX metro transit center station which is like 1000 feet north of it. And then the LAX people mover and inglewood one are not planned to be integrated together, even though it practically could go on one route.

          > Crenshaw completion

          The crenshaw line still hasn’t chosen it’s operational pattern, which will then effect which sections need electrification upgrades for 3-car trains.

       2. “The crenshaw line still hasn’t chosen it’s operational pattern, which will then effect which sections need electrification upgrades for 3-car trains.”

          The LAMTA Board selected Alternative C-2 as the Crenshaw operational pattern in June 2023.

          https://la.streetsblog.org/2023/06/23/metro-board-june-2023-recap-policing-405-widening-c-and-k-lines-and-more

          That pattern is to run the K Line from Expo and Crenshaw to Redondo Beach (north-south) and to turn the C Line (east-west) up to the new LAX people mover station as its terminus.

          I think it’s probably for the best. That way, riders to and from LAX can go in three directions — and transferring from westbound C to northbound K or southbound K to eastbound C (the predominant transfer pattern) can be made simply by getting off one train and standing in place on the platform until the next train arrives. As a center platform station, the other direction southward can be easily reached by simply walking across the platform.

       3. It helps a lot that the county-level government has the scale and footprint to make these decisions, so the county council and county executive are the right decision makers. Sound Transit exists because King County doesn’t cover enough of the region and KCM is small operator compared to LA Metro, CTA or MTA. KCM should be proud of its trolley bus network and best-in-the-nation commuter bus network, but it simply doesn’t have the capability to manage large capital projects.

    2. Is Dodger Stadium located in a place where it could be a useful P&R intercept at non-game times? Are there bus routes such that it would be viable to take a bus from another neighborhood to the stadium and transfer to the gondola for its stops?

       1. Major LA traffic bottlenecks surround Dodger stadium and the facility itself is inside a large hilltop park. It doesn’t really lend itself to being an effective location for remote parking for Downtown LA (DTLA). For many it would be harder to reach than even Downtown itself.

       2. I think the Dodger stadium gondola would be DOA if it wasn’t for all the buzz to connect the Inglewood sports facilities with transit.

          The Inglewood Transit Connector is to me a terrible project. It’s a case study on how not to design a stadium or arena for transit and how not to fix the problem later. The stops are even on the outer edge of parking. The main redeeming feature is that it is to be automated to allow for high frequencies around sporting events. What ST did is much better — although the proposed severing the 1 Line from easy walk access to our stadiums is a huge step backwards.

       3. Fyi the reason why the dodger gondola is being proposed is because the owner of the parking lots wants to redevelop them but can’t because due to existing obligations to the dodger stadium.

          https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/greater-la/traffic-filipino-protests/dodgers-gondola

          > Critics say what the gondola is really about is McCourt’s real estate dreams, finding ways to create commercial, residential and retail development around Dodger Stadium. The gondola, they say, is primarily important as an amenity and public draw. McCourt has championed the gondola project for years, including bankrolling its journey through the complex permitting and environmental approval process.

          Ironically, it is a better use of the parking lots so I’m not too against it even if it is a bit odd. Though of course my support vanishes if McCourt is expecting the la public to fund a half a billion project for him to develop the property.

       4. How much would a gondola improve the overall transit network? Does it fill a transit hole between Union Station, the state park, and Chinatown? Or is it just to get people to the stadium? Are there parallel bus routes? Would the gondola be faster than them? Would it resolve an overcrowding problem in that there’s only a small number of bus corridors that can do the last mile to the stadium? Has LACMTA or others identified this corridor as a priority to upgrade before the developer suggested it?

          “create commercial, residential and retail development around Dodger Stadium”

          There’s a public benefit in having more housing and retail in an inner neighborhood. In our capitalist system we expect private developers to build that rather than the government building and financing it. However, if it’s in a hilltop location that’s hard to get to, that may not be a great place for it. Portland’s medical complex is isolated on top of a hill and its airtram works well for that, but perhaps the medical complex should have been located elsewhere in the first place.

          Seattle’s precedent for a privately-funded line was the proposal for an elevated train on Union Street between the waterfront Great Wheel and the Covention Place garage for parking. That was something a developer came up with to boost tourism at the waterfront during its reconstruction. They offered to pay for it, but the city said there still wasn’t a sufficient public benefit for an elevated rail corridor along Union Street.

       5. > How much would a gondola improve the overall transit network? Does it fill a transit hole between Union Station, the state park, and Chinatown? Or is it just to get people to the stadium?

          It’s mainly just to get people to the stadium. Sure it adds stop in chinatown, but that stop is already the existing light rail station for Chinatown and both are heading to the same destination Union station so practically no real destination added. Well besides if going to the stadium

       6. “ Sure it adds stop in chinatown, but that stop is already the existing light rail station for Chinatown and both are heading to the same destination Union station so practically no real destination added. ”

          Not only is the light rail nearby, but the light rail runs from Azusa through Downtown (as of 2023) and on to Long Beach. The gondola doesn’t offer better connectivity than that.

       7. >Would it resolve an overcrowding problem in that there’s only a small number of bus corridors that can do the last mile to the stadium? Has LACMTA or others identified this corridor as a priority to upgrade before the developer suggested it?

          There’s a Dodger Stadium Express bus service that’s game-day only and is pretty popular, as folks can park near Union Station (or simply take the train) and then get to the Stadium from there. Parking at Dodger Stadium is $30 on game days, so there’s a financial incentive there, too.

          Fundamentally it’s another gadgetbahn, as folks like to say, but the expensive part (construction) is being privately financed so I don’t really see the harm. Basically every turn-of-the-century streetcar line was built with speculative capital assuming worthwhile return on investment. If the LA-ART enables the construction of car-lite mixed-use development on Dodger Stadium’s 100+ acres of parking lot, then that’s a win for all involved, I think.

          (Except for the former residents of the Chavez Ravine)

       8. I realized I never answered the question(s) I quoted – which is that as far as I’m aware, LA Metro never publicly identified a need to spend public dollars to provide fixed-guideway transit directly to Dodger Stadium. However, I think that’s largely irrelevant.

          In a perfect world, folks under the guideway would get some sort of direct benefit from the line, since it doesn’t improve their transit connectivity directly – maybe they ought to be able to force LA ART to pay to lease their air-rights.

       9. “LA Metro never publicly identified a need to spend public dollars to provide fixed-guideway transit directly to Dodger Stadium. ”

          The way that LACMTA functions is much different from Sound Transit or Metro. The cities get direct say on how transportation sales tax money gets spent. The agency has separste structures for transit operations and funding allocations.

          So I am not sure which “LA Metro” you are referring to.

       10. I’ve walked from downtown to Dodger stadium. It’s pretty much an isolated island of a magnificent stadium and a massive amount of less than magnificent parking lots. A gondola wouldn’t serve much beyond very the stadium. But for 81 days a year….

       11. I think the developer is also hoping to increase the attractiveness of the stadium for other events, training facilities etc beyond the 81 days. Anyways, the area becomes a mess on a game day. If the gondola can help reduce the mess, so be it!

       12. I’ve always viewed this as a real estate play, which as others pointed out is consistent with LA’s original streetcar buildout. The gondola is probably only going to serve 10~15% of a big gameday crowd – so not an “essential” piece of gameday infrastructure like Link or the Monorail in Seattle, but still a mode for thousands of people to get to the game. Instead, the real value is providing a reliable way to move between the stadium and downtown outside of games (which the bus shuttles aren’t running), which will then support hotels, housing, and whatnot to replace the parking lots.

       13. Al, there’s only one LA Metro (shorthand for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; similar to how we call “King County Metro Transit Department” King County Metro or just ‘Metro’).

           LA Metro completes projects for the various municipalities within LA County (and in coordination with adjacent counties, too), but they also do their own planning on behalf of LA County. So, sure, the various cities and their departments of transportation might ask Metro to use their resources on various projects, or might have improvement interests on their own, but that’s not LA Metro’s problem until they ask Metro to start studying it.

           I was living in LA in 2016 and voted on Measure M – I don’t remember there being any interest a major public project to build higher-capacity transit to Dodger Stadium, as opposed to the many other corridors that truly need better throughput.

       14. Here is the “about MTA” from their web site:

           “ The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) was created by the State of California to set policy, coordinate, plan, fund, build, and operate transit services and transportation programs throughout Los Angeles County. Metro supports the transportation improvement programs of the 88 cities and 16 municipal transit operators within Los Angeles County, as well as LA’s paratransit provider, ASI, and its regional commuter rail service provider, Metrolink.”

           In other words it is much broader than just a single transit builder and operator like ST. Those of us that were familiar with LA 30 years ago knew that there were two agencies prior to 1993 — LACTC and SCRTD. It was public uproar related to two different agencies building transit projects without adequate coordination that was a big catalyst for the merger.

           Note that LA Metro also funds transportation programs of cities ( including highway, pedestrian, bicycle and transit projects) as well as supports other transit operators in LA County like Foothill Transit, Santa Monica Transit, Santa Clarita Transit and even the City of Los Angeles’ LADOT transit operations.

           In other words, not all taxes collected by LA Metro are spent on LA Metro transit operations projects unless otherwise stated in a measure. That’s very different than Sound Transit (or even a theoretical Sound Transit + King County Metro operator) where the tax revenue is spent exclusively on their own transit projects unless otherwise stated in a referendum.

           Measure M is an additive measure like ST3. It has identified projects. LA Metro has other tax revenues that they get in addition to Measure M — like Measures A, C and R as well as state transit money (TDA and STA). Even Measure M projects are defined way more broadly (bullet points) than how ST interprets ST3 project definitions. Here is a good summary of their revenue sources and general categories of expenses:

           https://www.metro.net/about/facts-glance/

           So let’s take a broad look how an agency like this would probably work in Seattle in theory with some details:

           1. The sales tax would go to an agency responsible for funding lots more than rail transit construction and operations.

           2. Metro would be part of rail planning, and bus alternatives and connectivity at stations would be elevated in importance when designing items like ST2 and ST3 projects. For example, RapidRides D and E connectivity would be more primary when designing a Link extension through SLU and Ballard rather than an afterthought.

           3. Municipalities would be pursuing using funds controlled by this larger agency to use of pedestrian, bicycle and highway projects including programs like a freeway service patrol.

           I realize that no system is perfect. However, the LA structure is deliberately more multimodal and better at coordinating all transit operators into a more cogent system for riders. I think ST’s core arrogance problem is that they developed ST3 almost unilaterally (with absurdly and probably deliberately low cost estimates on the big ticket projects) and once it passed they now plan things without first thinking about how what they do affecting the transit system and its riders as a whole.

15. The picture appears to show a guideway section south of 145th Street, so the location should read (North) Seattle rather than Shoreline

    1. Thanks, corrected.

Comments are closed.