Last week German local public transit came to a stop while the union demanded better working conditions for transit operators. They asked for fewer working days and hours, to mitigate increased traffic stress and increase the attractiveness of transit jobs again. Operator availability and pay has put a limit on service recovery and expansion since the pandemic. I have written about automated metro trains and gondola lifts before, to reduce this dependency and offer higher frequency and longer operating hours. In this article I want to focus on automated shuttles and buses and how it may affect Metro’s plans for the next few decades as recently discussed.
On-demand Shuttles
Elon Musk promised autonomous driving long ago, and investors poured billions into that opportunity. While the technology has made incredible progress on dedicated roads such as freeways, the uncertainties of the urban environment have proven to be more challenging, and the necessary technology more costly than anticipated. Many startups used up their funding and got acquired or closed. Rather than focusing on general driving (categorized as level 5), most companies have now focused on driving in well-defined urban areas (level 4) such as Beijing, Phoenix, San Francisco, Singapore, Dubai, or Hamburg. That way the AI can be trained to the local maps, topography, regulations, and challenges. They also added more sophisticated cameras and sensors, compute power, and AI than any of the current car manufacturers (Tesla, Mercedes, Volvo…) have included in their current cars. Waymo taxis can pull to the side if they identify an approaching emergency vehicle. However, there are still traffic situations the AI software cannot handle. If a car gets stuck, a driver can be called for manual rescue. Vay is proposing to use their car’s sophisticated cameras to allow a human operator to take control of the taxi remotely instead. Companies such as Baidu, Zoox, Waymo and Cruise started to offer mobile app based rideshare (robotaxi) services to compete with Uber or Lyft but challenges remain. After blocking intersections and rail tracks, evading police, and accidents, Cruise paused driverless operation recently. Snow and even rain can create insurmountable challenges.
In the meantime, Metro is experimenting with on-demand shuttles with their Metro Flex offering (and Bellevue with Bellhop). Riders can use a phone app to request a trip ahead of time, and the app provides an estimated pickup time and location nearby. The Metro Flex app and service are provided by Via, which operates the minivans on Metro’s behalf. It serves areas in South Seattle, Issaquah, Kent and Juanita, currently underserved by transit routes. The minivans are operated by regular drivers, but Via in partnership with May Mobility and Moia (Volkswagen) are already testing robotaxis for this purpose. Rideshare vehicles may reduce parking needs, but they can clog up tight neighborhoods just as badly as any other vehicle. If a robotaxi gets confused or in an accident, it may require calling a human driver to the scene. In the meantime the taxi may block traffic, even emergency vehicles. This has already happened in San Francisco. Even trams got blocked when taxis blocked tracks.
Uber and Lyft had tried to increase scale by pooling multiple trips into a combined trip. They dropped this effort when the detours created undue delays. Via and Moia are asking riders to request their ride ahead of time so that their software can pool multiple rides along a corridor into a single ride. Instead of picking you up at home, the app instructs you to walk to a “virtual bus stop” close by where it is easier and faster for a shuttle to pick you up. That way the shuttle may also avoid getting stuck in tight little streets with less mapping data and more obstacles. Instead of using small cars or a minivan, they are also considering using slightly larger vans. As long as these shuttles only serve destinations within a small neighborhood, they might become quite useful. If the area also includes a frequent transit connection, this may become a great solution to extend transit services to suburban neighborhoods. Without having to pay drivers, you could run enough of these shuttles to offer a viable alternative to providing parking garages next to a transit station. Adoption would certainly increase if fares would be integrated with regular transit and the app would be integrated into regular transit apps provided by transit agencies or platforms like Google or Apple Maps.
Autonomous Buses
Though buses may encounter similar challenges as shuttles in smaller neighborhoods, in an urban environment bus routes often operate on major arteries, separate bus lanes, or even freeways such as our ST Express or soon Stride buses. The more dedicated and separated the right-of-way, the less challenges for autonomous driving. Companies such as Aurora are already testing autonomous trucks along freeway routes. Right before their destination they meet a driver which operates the truck to its final urban destination. A Stride bus may run autonomously along the freeway and stop at freeway stations. An Express bus may go from downtown to Lynnwood autonomously where it is met by a driver who drives the bus through the adjacent neighborhoods to Mill Creek.
While fully autonomous driving is still being perfected, some agencies are also experimenting with platooning, where a traditionally operated bus is followed by one or more driver-less buses in a convoy. Platooning is being tested in Munich as a more flexible alternative to articulated buses, and in New Jersey to get more buses through the Lincoln tunnel. West Seattle buses (C, H, 21) could form a platoon before the West Seattle bridge and ride with a single driver along Highway 99 to stations downtown and back to West Seattle, where they meet their drivers again to fan out across West Seattle. On a freeway this may work well, but there are limits to the length of a platoon in an urban environment because stations need to provide enough space and signal priority may be a requirement, so that a platoon can safely cross an intersection without the signal turning between buses.
Currently buses have more route flexibility but higher operating costs per rider than trains because you need more operators and more vehicles to maintain. As electric buses become more standardized, I expect that maintenance cost will be lower as electric motors need less care than a diesel hybrid (neither combustion engine nor gearbox, no oil change) and they last longer. Battery buses are not quite as efficient as trolley buses and we will need more as they will need to stop for charging. Once you have electric motors (powered by battery or overhead) and driver-less operation, bus operation becomes more competitive to automated trains. The main remaining difference is the right-of-way. While buses can share the road, the more interactions the more you need to anticipate disruptions and delays. With dedicated bus lanes and signal priority, speed and reliability increases. With a dedicated busway it reaches similar efficiencies as an automated train. Trains may still provide a bit higher ride quality while buses have more route flexibility.
Conclusion
While I believe autonomous shuttles and buses are on the horizon, it has taken longer than anticipated and nobody knows when they will become generally available. In the meantime we will see some more controlled applications. Once autonomous vehicles, become mainstream our transit network may change. We might see more high frequency/capacity transit along major arteries or freeways with fewer stops and the use of shuttles to get people back and forth from/to those stations. Shuttles may serve the suburbs and replace the current “coverage lines” which currently serve less dense neighborhoods but often operate infrequently. Therefore, Metro’s network in 2050 may look quite different from the lines anticipated by Metro Connects.
[AH]
I, for one, would love to see more autonomy in all forms of transit, but it has to be done with a priority on safety, and we also can’t just ignore the economic displacement of replacing large numbers of drivers with computing.
There would not necessarily be any displacement. You aren’t replacing large numbers of drivers, you are adding a lot more service. For example, software engineering has become easier and easier as they’ve made enhancements in the field. The job it used to take a dozen programmers can down be done with one. Yet employment is still growing — they are just producing a lot more software.
Given KCM has a continual shortage of drivers, any Link driver ‘displaced’ would be able to shift back to driving a KCM bus without even needing to change union locals.
It’s not clear to me that with automation the total number of drivers employed by KCM would go down, because for most regular bus routes a bus drivers does more than “drive” the bus – he or she monitors fare enforcement, ensure safety & comfort of riders, etc. – so even with broad deployment of automation for Link and various shuttle services, automation of KCM’s core bus routes is very far off. Instead, automation would start with routes that have fixed guideways (Link, Streetcar), then perhaps some freeway routes (no risk of pedestrians in the ROW) and then some shuttles in very controlled environments (solving last mile problems, for example within MSFT’s campus or shuttling works to/from Starbucks HQ to the ID transit hub). Better frequency & span of service for these modes will then induce demand on the broader transit network, boosting demand on the routes still operated by in-person drivers.
It is also worth pointing that most public agency bus drivers are unionized. So this is not like some businesses that are clearly designed to circumvent labor laws (like “ride-sharing” and “microtransit”). Labor will have a say in how this progresses, and it is quite likely they will share in the benefits. I see it as similar to the shipping industry. The longshoreman have a strong union, and rather they fighting automation, they worked with the companies to share in the profits. Now it is highly paid, highly skilled work (that isn’t so hard on the body).
Yes, exactly AJ. These things evolve. I think one step in the evolution will be to have drivers monitor the automated buses, in the same way that cashiers monitor the self-checkout lines. If there is a problem, the drivers will be able to operate the buses remotely. If the problem requires someone on the bus, they can send out somebody (i. e. bus drivers will be “on call”). It is likely there will eventually be a shift towards more monitoring. Drivers monitoring the buses and monitoring the bus riders to make sure they aren’t causing trouble and have paid their fare.
Longshoreman up-skilling is a great example. For example, the Tacoma streetcar typically has both a driver and a security guard. The security guard contractor in particular is not a skilled or well paid job. But in the future, the streetcar could be automated but have a “conductor” who is mostly there for security purposes (fare enforcement, give directions to confused tourists, etc.) but will be trained to operate the vehicle if needed (or step out of the vehicle to resolve an obstacle). That combined role is a higher skilled role than what was previously two roles; as a more productive role it would be higher paid.
Does anyone here believe they will see automated Link segment in their lifetime?
Yes.
@Sam.
Yes. And probably in 10 years or less.
“we also can’t just ignore the economic displacement of replacing large numbers of drivers”
That’s putting the interests of a hundred drivers above the hundreds of thousands of people in the Link cachement area. We can’t possibly give the perks and job security of a union government job to all those people. So the hundred should just be lucky? The potential passengers also need to get to work, and have access to more jobs that better transit would allow (further stations, better transfers, more flexible trip times). And automated trains would save money. We could just give that saved money to the former drivers.
There’s a shortage of transit workers across the board, so I don’t see the economic results of automatic train operation being that impactful.
It seems like a lot of the optimism for thinking we’ll see an automated Link segment in the few decade boils down to: Other places are doing it. For me, that isn’t a reason it will happen here. That’s like saying other countries have single payer health care systems, therefore the U.S. will have single payer pretty soon. Real signs that automated might be in our future is hearing our transit agencies are having ongoing discussions about it. Another sign would be that a local transit agency hired someone who ran or developed automation in another city. That’s when you know automation is in our future. Listing other cities that have it doesn’t mean it’s coming here.
@Sam,
It will come here, eventually. But it is going to be a gradual thing, and it won’t be like the automation systems of years past.
It will be a slow phase in. And the pace will be set by the regulators, the manufacturers, and the insurance industry. I think that is the part that many of the commentators on this blog are missing.
I’m not worried about drivers losing their jobs. There are many transit occupations that come about with automation. More remote minoring staff will be needed. Inspections and maintenance will probably need to be more thorough, requiring more employees.
And it’s interesting that I’m not seeing the anti-automation folks talk about how more frequent transit can add transit ridership. A slower automated bus in suburbia every 10 minutes until 10 pm is almost certainly going to pick up more riders than one being driven every 30 minutes or hour that stops at 7 pm. Of course, that also means a much larger transit fleet to maintain and monitor. (I wonder what the “break even” productivity needs to be with automated buses…).
I have friends who are Metro bus drivers. While they love their job, they also have lots of qualms and stresses about driving a bus. Violence, offensive behavior, theft at gunpoint and hitting pedestrians and cars are big concerns. Stress is a reason that few people do it their whole career. Transitioning them to a less stressful job seems like a positive rather than a negative.
@Al S,
“ I’m not worried about drivers losing their jobs”
I’m not either. If automation follows the modern approach of autonomous vehicles operating in mixed fleets then we won’t see sudden shifts of entire lines to automation. It will be a gradual phase-in of operation on a per vehicle basis as the vehicles enter the fleet.
This phase-in of course can offset attrition, or be used to blunt hiring spikes like we see now with ELSL, LLE, full ELE, and soon FWLE. Meaning little to no impact to existing employment if the phase-in is done right.
And Link doesn’t employ near as many operators as Metro anyhow given that one Link operator can move about as many people as 12 bus operators. If the phase-in on the Link side is more rapid, then the Link operators can always go back to the more stressful Metro side. Because Metro will definitely be slower to implement autonomous vehicles than will Link.
But all this is still down the road a bit anyhow. We might see a pilot program in about 10 years, but wholesale automation using autonomous vehicles just isn’t here yet.
Agreed, I see autonomous vehicles starting out in two areas 1) as you mentioned, fast but mainly separated rights-of-way like hov/toll lanes on freeways 2) local circulators that go more mixed areas, but highly limited speed and probably not far.
For the latter, for example college shuttle busses limited to 10~20 mph. Or say a downtown shuttle on alaskan way could go up and down, or between downtown kirkland and the 85th interchange.
> An Express bus may go from downtown to Lynnwood autonomously where it is met by a driver who drives the bus through the adjacent neighborhoods to Mill Creek.
Pretty interesting model, I never thought about it like this. But yeah it works relatively well since the bus incoming from the freeway; the bus driver can wait at the lynnwood transit center. And same for outgoing, the bus after traveling on local roads, the driver will get out at the lynnwood tc and then the bus can get on the freeway.
I guess the complicated part might be the downtown seattle part
The idea occurred to me when I looked at updated plans for Brisbane. Jarrett Walker wrote about Brisbane years ago: https://humantransit.org/2009/11/brisbane-bus-rapid-transit-soars.html. They had building a metro but instead decided to expand the busway. The buses are not closed BRT’s, but open BRT. So basically a bus goes through regular neighborhood streets (with other vehicles, pedestrians, traffic lights, etc.) and then connects to a grade-separated busway. I could definitely see a driver get off the bus at that point, only to get on a bus going the other way a few minutes later. Driver change could be sped up using the same technology as that found in some fancy cars. A driver gets on, taps their security card (maybe taps a security code as well) and then the seat and mirrors adjust for that particular driver, based on what was set before. A change could take a few seconds.
I also think trucking will evolve this way. This would make driving a truck similar to railroad work. Instead of riding across the country, you meet the vehicle in a particular place (outside of town) and then drive it from there. Freeway driving is actually a lot easier to automate that driving around town (there are a lot fewer things to worry about).
Driver doesn’t even need to get off the vehicle – perhaps when on the busway, the drivers switches to “autopilot,” like an commercial airplane pilot does. Labor laws could be adjusted, so that a drivers shift could be extended knowing that (for some routes) the drive gets a 20 minute mental break while on the automated busway. In that case, looks more like an airplane, where the pilot is on the whole route in case there is an issue (like bad weather) but generally is only fully engaged for certain segments.
In greater Seattle, the railroad framework could work well for long freeway express routes with non-freeway tails. For example, a bus route would serve Snoqualmie-North Bend and run automated for the express run on I90 to connect to a Link station.
So Brisbane’s “Open BRT” is fundamentally a reincarnation of “Blue Streak”, the universally popular innovation that Seattle pioneered in the 1960’s.
Obviously, the full-BRT style stem instead of freeway express to POBS downtown is a modern variant that’s more reliable, but it still has the local feeder built in.
Blue Steeak was very good transit for its day.
I mean if we had even just automated freeway busses limited to toll/center median lanes it’d still be pretty useful.
* For instance the i-405 brt https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/405-brt-options.jpg besides west of renton all of it is going to be in center median
* Tacoma to federal way to seattle if they converted the hov to toll lanes and added the industrial way flyover would work as well.
* i-90 mercer island, eastgate, issaquah (needs hov ramp)
outside of that it gets a bit trickier to avoid weaving
i-520 https://seattletransitblog.com/2010/05/03/sr-520-high-capacity-transit-plan/ could have busses running frequently between montlake to redmond but this side does require crossing lanes to the right side ramp
i-5 everett side has reversible express lanes a bit complicated
I mean if we had even just automated freeway busses limited to toll/center median lanes it’d still be pretty useful.
Yes. I think the issue is the edges — the places where a driver would leave the vehicle. Same goes for trucking. It would work work to switch at Weigh Stations, but other than that, you run into the same issues. For example, I mentioned Ken’s Truck Stop (at North Bend). It is a favorite layover spot for trucks. But it is still a normal street, with pedestrians here and there. You really need to provide good infrastructure to make it work.
If they did add such things, then I could see it working well for long distance buses as well. Seattle to Spokane, for example. If a driver isn’t on board, you cut the costs immensely.
I guess a second aspect automation could solve is the frequency mismatch off-peak specifically.
Currently while peak times are when most people want to travel/use transit it is also the time with the most traffic. While off-peak it is actually fast to provide transit, but there’s not enough ridership demand to provide frequent service.
Even with slow collector shuttles with capped speeds, if they are automated it’d be a lot better than waiting 30~1 hour.
“Currently while peak times are when most people want to travel/use transit it is also the time with the most traffic. While off-peak it is actually fast to provide transit, but there’s not enough ridership demand to provide frequent service.”
That’s changing. Since 2020 ridership has shifted from huge peak spikes to weekend and off-peak ridership, and Metro has responded by shifting service and suspending peak runs.
However, the shift to off-peak doesn’t get you out of congestion. I-5 north is congested from 1pm to 7pm. I’ve been caught in it regularly, and I see it from the cross streets at Denny Way, 45th, and the Northgate ped bridge. In contrast, I only experience substantial bus slowdowns peak hours on Aurora, 15th Ave W, and Eastlake.
“ We might see more high frequency/capacity transit along major arteries or freeways with fewer stops and the use of shuttles to get people back and forth from/to those stations. Shuttles may serve the suburbs and replace the current “coverage lines” which currently serve less dense neighborhoods but often operate infrequently. Therefore, Metro’s network in 2050 may look quite different from the lines anticipated by Metro Connects.”
I am pretty much on the record that this scenario could happen, especially in the suburbs. I caution that it sounds inefficient in higher density areas, but for areas like Federal Way or Issaquah or Maryville it seems more than reasonable.
The 226/241 was the pilot project for battery-electric buses and has been running them for many years now. It’s a second-tier low-congestion corridor. It would be ironic if these routes become a pilot for autonomous buses too.
One seemingly viable technology would be to improve the curb positioning of buses, even with those operating with drivers. It initially sounds like its benefit would be minor, but it could really improve the time and effort to get on or off a bus, especially for those with wheelchairs, canes, luggage, strollers and perhaps bicycles.
The Vine buses in Vancouver WA have platform placement technology. It already exists.
This is a system they were working with in Eugene in 2014:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_oKsleOocFM
Yeah that is here, now. It is simply a matter of implementing it.
The EmX experiment was (is?) something like 95% autonomous, not just platform positioning. That was some 9 years ago.
Insisting on perfect curb positioning can also slow down a bus. For instance, one reason why the streetcar is so slow is that if a car waiting for a red light is blocking just a few feet of a station platform, the streetcar has to wait for the light to change and the car to move, then inch forward, before it can even open ita doors. Then, after 15 seconds of passenger loading, the light turns red, and the streetcar has to wait again.
Not an issue for buses, which can happily stop a few feet behind the official stop location. It would be a big step backward to make buses insist on being at exactly the right spot to open the doors like the streetcar does.
Do you have any actual statistics which show that this is a significant problem, or are you just guessing that it could be a problem, theoretically? Because I ride the streetcar every day, and I don’t see this happening with any frequency. It is certainly less common than, for example, having to wait for a trolleybus driver to clip the poles back onto the wire when they fall off; at least the streetcar never has *that* to deal with.
I only have anecdotes but it happens semi often at the denny way northbound station. Especially since there’s many right-turning cars trying to get to the freeway entrance. It’s probably one of the worst because the station is on the near-side rather than far-side of the intersection.
The one’s on westlake southbound are generally fine as it’s on the far side of the intersection like say mercer one so the cars that passed the intersection will drive a bit more forward.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Westlake+%26+9th-Denny/@47.6181928,-122.3373377,18z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x54901549efbea023:0x16d88c22364a4e8f!8m2!3d47.61827!4d-122.33834!16s%2Fg%2F1w0h_9mn?entry=ttu
I guess in my opinion this is more about far-side versus near-side transit stops, but perhaps asdf2 has a different take
Cars parked on the track or enroaching the track is an occasional problem, not enough reason in itself to categorically dismiss streetcars. Cars lining up at a freeway entrance is another thing. That problem is not the streetcar mode, but the lack of adequate lanes for the streetcar. A bus would be stuck too.
Y’all need to plant your feet on the ground. This is a LONG way off. The tech is not close, and the regulatory framework is non-existent. There will need to be rules at the federal level for communities to permit this activity, insurers to get comfortable covering it, and OEM’s to mainline product development. While this article is narrowly focused on a Tesla POV application, it reflects the risk at present with the state of the technology. No smart transit agency is going to go there outside an operating environment that can guarantee exclusive right of way that eliminates the possibility of comingling with human-operated vehicles of any kind. Or trees and utility poles, for that matter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2024/tesla-full-self-driving-fatal-crash/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/04/self-driving-buses-to-serve-route-in-scotland-in-world-first
> Self-driving buses will begin carrying passengers over the Forth road bridge next month in what is being hailed as a significant milestone for the technology in the UK.
> Five single-decker buses will cover the 14-mile route from 15 May, carrying up to 10,000 passengers every week between the Ferrytoll park and ride in Fife and the Edinburgh Park train and tram interchange.
Of course there’s a caveat:
> However, although the vehicles will use sensors to travel on pre-selected roads at up to 50mph, they will still need to be operated by two members of staff, twice as many as a normal bus.
We have Tesla, Cruise and Waymo as well as many other companies investigating it. While ‘full self driving’ is definitely farther off, some limited form of it is definitely coming along soon. Other countries already have them running, and even in america there’s slow shuttle versions of autonomous with ‘attendants’.
I saw an autonomous vehicle driving on MLk yesterday! There was a monitor in the drivers seat, but it was definitely moving autonomously.
Ive ridden in so many cars that have warnings for lane crossing many times. There are plenty of ads for driver assistance like autonomous emergency braking and parallel parking.
It’s not way off. It’s here on our Seattle streets today.
@Al S,
Excellent. And I once saw a flying car at an air show. Like 20 or 30 years ago now (I must be getting old).
Wake me up when you see the same car operating without a babysitter in the seat, and at night, or in the rain, or in the snow.
“ And I once saw a flying car at an air show.”
Seeing something operating on the street without fanfare is very different than seeing something at a show-off event.
@Al S,
Like I said, wake me up when you see it operating without a babysitter in the driver’s seat. Because until then it is just like any other car on the road with a driver behind the wheel.
@another engineer,
There is a reason that Tesla can put crappy automation products out on the market. Because at the end of the day the automation product isn’t in charge. The driver of a Tesla is still operationally, financially, and legally responsible for everything that car does. Automation or not.
Even in full Self Driving mode the human “driver” is still responsible for everything the car does. Tesla and Musk claim no responsibility when their car gets confused and suddenly takes a hard right off the road.
But that is not the situation with transit agencies.
Will we get there eventually? Yes. But there is a lot of work to be done before we get there. And there will be a lot of baby steps taken before any transit agency is ever allowed to go completely with autonomously self operating vehicles.
That is particularly true for buses.
And there will be a lot of baby steps taken before any transit agency is ever allowed to go completely with autonomously self operating vehicles.
That is particularly true for buses.
Well there are plenty of trains that are fully automated (ask our nearest neighbor) so yeah, the issue is buses. But don’t forget: A fully autonomous bus is now in regular service in Scotland. https://humantransit.org/2023/09/a-next-step-for-autonomous-buses.html
This was approved for use in France in 2021
https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/12/01/france-approves-fully-autonomous-bus-for-driving-on-public-roads-in-a-european-first
However, the self driving shuttle they had going in Paris since 2017 had its issues and got terminated:
https://innovationorigins.com/en/self-driving-buses-paris-ends-experiment-after-two-years/
In terms of making Link driverless (which would be the logical place to start), it’s not just a matter of what technology is capable of, what the company that makes the trains is willing to support. If the specific company that makes the trains and owns the intellectual property for everything that goes on inside of them isn’t on board with making them autonomous, Sound Transit’s hands are tied.
Of course, companies like Waymo and Cruise can take off the shelf cars and modify them to operate autonomously. But in doing so, they are voiding the car’s warranty, along with any possibility of help from the manufacturer if they need to service them. I doubt Sound Transit would be willing to do that with Link trains.
@asdf,
I think you get the complexity here. And it’s not just the tech and the manufacturers that have to be ready to go, but also the regulators and insurers.
Stated simply, ST isn’t going to start to implement automation until all parties involved are on board and have signed off on it, and that is still a ways off.
Will we start to see automation on Link? Sure, someday, but not today.
I would think that we might see some baby steps toward implementing automation maybe 10 years from now, but these will be baby steps. Maybe a pilot program between the manufacturer, the regulators, and ST, and with the liability issues covered by the government under the terms of the pilot agreement. And with a babysitter in the operator seat at all times.
But wholesale adoption of autonomous operating Link vehicles just isn’t ready yet. And that isn’t ST’s call to make, the industry just isn’t there yet.
Dude, the outside-security section of the airport people mover has been working without “babysitters” for what, fifty years? Link could be automated north of CID today with no “liability problems”.
With fencing, two overpasses (Lander and Holgate) and one road closure (Lower Royal Brougham) the limitations could be pushed to South Bellevue and Mount Baker.
Operators could board and alight at Beacon Hill and Mercer Island with a small operators-only comfort station added to both platforms at the end away from the elevators.
That would roughly halve the operator demand for the ST2 system.
And that would be the “old-fashioned heavy-rail automation” that’s been running Skytrain for thirty-some of those years.
And, whether you are aware of it or not, Siemens alreadyoffers vehicles with automation as an option. It’s called “Siemens Trainguard”. I can’t say categorically that it works on their LRV’s, but it’s likely that the control systems are the same across all their currently offered vehicles.
And “Yes, the automated stations would have to have platform screens added to keep people off the tracks. That means that the track crossing at Judkins Park would have to be replaced with a new access to the south platform from Rainier. These are relatively trivial one-time costs compared to the permanent labor savings from automation.
@Tom,
Ain’t going to happen. ST is not going to take the time or spend the money to convert Link to some sort of antique version of a People Mover.
People on this blog lost their collective minds when ST implemented 3 weeks of single tracking for needed maintenance in the bus tunnel. Imagine multiple years of interruptions to install old style trackside equipment that someone is probably going to pour their drink into on day one.
Ain’t going to happen. The future is not in the 1970’s.
Lazarus, here you said you expect to see an automated link segment in 10 years or less (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/02/14/autonomous-transit-alternatives/#comment-926571)
Yet here, you say that ST will never convert an existing section of Link to be automated.
10 years is 2034, around when the WSLE stub is slated to open. ST is not studying automation for BLE or WSLE. They haven’t started planning for Issaquah-Kirkland but that won’t be built until the 2040’s at the earliest.
Where do you expect to see an automated Link segment?
@Nathan,
Nope. I do not expect to see a wholly converted Link line in 10 years or less. It I wouldn’t be surprised to see the beginning of automation somewhere in the Link system.
Wholesale conversion of “lines” to automation is the old model of automation that relies on trackside equipment. That is not the direction the technology is going.
One of the key advantages of the newer automation tech is that it is vehicle based and not trackside based. So you can have a few autonomous vehicles operating automatically within a fleet of otherwise fully manual vehicles.
I suspect that is what we will see within 10 years. Probably as part of a joint pilot program with multiple parties involved. And probably with babysitters in the operators chair.
@Nathan,
Sorry. I missed the word “segment” in Sam’s original post.
I was thinking vehicles and not a full segment. That type of conversion is not required when you can simply convert one LRV at a time.
I don’t think they’ll convert existing sections with large portions of at-grade to be automated.
The most likely candidate would be West Seattle to Everett. It’s almost completely grade separated besides the section in sodo. And even there they are planning on reconstructing holgate* as an overpass and possibly lander as an overpass as well.
*Well at least the original EIS, I’m not sure if they are still planning on rebuilding holgate, glancing at current plans.
Anyways, I don’t think reaching for automation is a good target to strive for. I’d rather link run at-grade more often and actually reach more destinations.
“I don’t think reaching for automation is a good target to strive for. I’d rather link run at-grade more often and actually reach more destinations.” Agree here – Link should focus on at-grade running to maximize station access and minimize capital costs. For a new line, is there is an opportunity for a fully grade-separated automated line, that could be a great project, but shouldn’t be Link but new mode to be operated by ST.
Lazarus makes an important point about Link automation being vehicle oriented and not track orient. Automating SOVs and buses isn’t requiring a rework of the road network, and same will apply for automation of LRT. The timeline for automation will be whenever ST goes to procure a new generation of Link vehicles: could be Series III to go with the OMF-S opening, could be Series IV to go with OMF-N, or could be Series V+ when the Series I (Kinko) & II (Siemens) rolling stock reach end of life.
JFC, you are as bad as Thompson was in your argumentative refusal to listen to a different position.
Thanks for clarifying. I am doubtful ST would be brave enough to mix automated trains with non-automated trains in the next decade, as it would take some extraordinarily imaginative leadership to figure out how to get direction from the Board to seriously explore procuring automation-ready train sets when they have to buy for WSLE or BLE.
I want to agree with AJ that ST should give up on building alignments with zero at-grade crossings, but with the Rainier Valley track record in mind, it’ll be interesting to see how East Link’s at-grade section fares after ELSL opens. One thing that grade separation gives Link is the ability to move faster than ~25-30 mph, which makes it much more competitive with low-traffic driving conditions for sections of upcoming extensions like the Smith Cove/Interbay section of BLE.
@AJ
Thanks. I think we are in the same page now.
“The timeline for automation will be whenever ST goes to procure a new generation of Link vehicles:”
It will be a bit more complicated than that.
The tech will first have to be approved (certified) in general for passenger carrying by the appropriate regulatory agency, but that does not mean ST can just buy it and put it into service on their system.
In all likelihood the regulators (and insurers) are going to require any operator of this tech to be approved to operate the tech on their specific system too. This is not too uncommon in the greater transportation field.
But that is where the pilot programs and the babysitters come into play.
@WL,
“ I’d rather link run at-grade more often and actually reach more destinations.”
The “more destinations” (coverage) part is key. Old style, trackside automation is often very expensive to implement. So if a given transit agency decides to go with such a design, then it often means less coverage. Because budgets are usually finite.
So in such cases traditional automation often runs counter to one of Jarrett Walker’s key principles. Namely that a successful transit system should have good coverage (“ It takes me where I want to go”).
Link is well designed, but it doesn’t yet have good coverage to match. Portland has done better providing coverage, but I think ST will catch up soon.
I think A.I. and automation are general are very good reasons to stop spending on long term transit projects. There wasn’t a big market for the industries that supported the horse and buggy transportation after Henry Ford changed everything.
For Seattle, the big question will be…. can computers program themselves and do we even need that many humans writing code anymore? Or human customer service online? A. I. changes transportation somewhat….but it changes the internet entirely. Amazon cutting thousands of jobs changes the housing and transportation situations much, much more that light rail automation in Greater Seattle.
I’d guess if greater Seattle had automated buses and trains tomorrow, the same payroll would be needed for transit security… not that this wouldn’t improve service. The homeless already treat transit as living space with drivers around.
And we still haven’t seen the final impact from work from home.
The smart money is spending on public transit now… and stop sinking money into systems that won’t be of value in the future.
>Amazon cutting thousands of jobs changes the housing and transportation situations much, much more that light rail automation
Tech has already cut thousands of jobs, and yet housing is still expensive and traffic is still bad. It isn’t the 70’s anymore, and Amazon isn’t Boeing. We have many other valuable industries operating in the Seattle MSA that aren’t reliant on booming tech.
Nathan D.
Like what? What “valuable industry” changed Seattle’s landscape over the last 25 years that wasn’t tech? Tech adding high AMI jobs is story of the Emerald City in my lifetime. Maybe I’m missing something here?
Things change Nathan, Just off the top of my head…. there are maybe 1% of the workforce at the Port of Seattle now than 100 years ago? And that 1% is likely a 100% more productive? The idea that transit could radically change and yet the people and workforce it serves stays the same? That can’t be true, can it? Self driving buses would mean the rest of city would also have changed right? And are we riding those buses much, much less? Or many much, much more?
If I was guessing about the future of Seattle, I’d guess it’s going the way of South and Latin American cities. Big income disparities with the rich living in “15 minute cities” tidy neighborhoods with most everything you need… with private security to keep the wrong sort of people out. (Queen Anne, Wallingford). Other neighborhoods are just overwhelmed with homeless who have no chance of generating enough income not to be homeless. 3rd Ave looks like a place that isn’t going to fixed in 10 years… as more of the down and out pile in and the well-heeled have less reason to ever go there.Green Lake is better than ever now! So if I WFH in Green Lake, how often I’m I going downtown? Maybe, in 10 years, my sweet WFH job is taken over by AI and move out of Seattle entirely? Sorry, but trying to serve the new reality with transit solutions out of the 1970s may not work. Forward Thrust indeed!
“What “valuable industry” changed Seattle’s landscape over the last 25 years that wasn’t tech?”
Tech is more than just Amazon. It’s hundreds of different companies. Some of them are even working on that AI thing you’re talking about. In any case, the issue isn’t whether we’ll have another Amazon-sized growth wave, it’s whether we keep the current number of jobs, plus incrementally more for natural population growth (kids turning 18, people moving to the area for non-job reasons and looking for a job here).
We probably won’t have another one-company Amazon-sized expansion, because what would that company be? In any case, Seattle could have zoned Northgate large enough to accommodate such a company, but didn’t.
Tacomee, it’s pretty obvious you think trains are a waste of money, and that’s probably true in the context of your lived experience building and living in low-density housing. I’m not going to try to change your made-up mind there.
But you should be aware that the information sector in the Seattle MSA is the only one that’s demonstrably shrinking right now: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.wa_seattle_msa.htm
Perhaps you could consider the idea that when we invent tools that automate the less-complicated parts of our jobs and lives, it simply lets us be more productive. When nailguns and circular saws were invented, did half the carpenters lose their jobs, or did they simply build more houses more quickly? When CAD made the drafting table obsolete, did design firms simply lay off and downsize, or did the drafters learn to be creative architects and engineers? If anything, the automation of tech jobs will continue allow folks to spend more time collaborating and problem-solving, rather than combing through millions of lines of code for that missing semicolon.
If we automate transit, we’ll just get more productive transit service, and it’s much easier to automate transit on new fixed guideways.
As a former software engineer I caution you about assuming that improved productivity will result in fewer people being employed. Historically, it has been the opposite. I used to type my code into punch cards, which were then submitted to a mainframe, with the results coming back several hours later. If I want to code something now I use a much more advanced operating system, development environment and programming language. I can ask the IDE (those didn’t exist back then) to rewrite or generate code for me, and have been able to do that for at least a decade.
There are ebbs and flows in software employment. It is largely independent of the overall economy. The Dot-Com implosion was brutal for software engineers. I know a lot of people who were much better than me that were out of work for quite some time. It eventually picked up, but it took a while. There tends to be a gold-rush mentality with software companies which results in these boom/bust cycles. But the overall trend is higher employment.
The point is, I see no reason why employment at Amazon (or any major tech firm) would go down. Imagine telling someone at Microsoft in the late 90s about the future we live in now. Fewer and fewer people own PCs — the main computing device will fit in the palm of your hand. There will be two competing companies when it comes to this device — neither one is Microsoft. They would assume that Microsoft would be a tiny company — a mere shadow of itself. Nope. It has grown quite a bit this last decade.
Will people stop using Amazon for some reason? I don’t see it. They could certainly move jobs around, but that is true of any company. Boeing left — we recovered. Predicting whether there will be more or fewer people living in the Northwest is basically impossible.
What I find interesting about some of the changes that have already occurred is that they really don’t change the fundamentals when it comes to transit. It was never a good idea to spend a huge amount of money on long distance commuters. Cheap commuter rail or cheap express buses — absolutely. But a brand new train based on the expectation that huge numbers of people would commute from Tacoma or Everett to Seattle (or some place in between) is just a waste of money. No one (who knows what they are doing) does that. The situation has become worse because people are working from home more often, but it was always a bad idea.
Likewise with automation. Trains save labor, but that isn’t the only advantage. It would not be easy or cheap to run buses through the NYC Subway, even if they were automated. It would quickly become a huge mess. Between the UW and Downtown we have already reached that level as well.
Of course the opposite is true as well. A train from West Seattle to downtown just isn’t worth the money. It is better to have buses (whether they are automated or not).
In general I see automaton as a big multiplier — similar to a gigantic grant for transit. Spending it on certain things (like running the buses/trains more often) make sense, while spending it on other things (Issaquah Link) just doesn’t.
Or, you know, we could dispense with the unnecessary and probably doomed attempts to modernise the automobile and build rails for automated trains, like they have in Vancouver BC, and Sao Paulo, and Beijing, and Shanghai, and Lahore, and Singapore, and Bulgaria, and Budapest, and Istanbul, and London, and Disneyworld, and the basement of SeaTac Airport, and Lima Peru, and lots of other places as well.
Yeah, but there is no way we will ever have a thorough* rail system in the region. It is just too expensive. The buses will do the heavy lifting. Even Vancouver — which has an excellent (automated) rail system that is much better than ours will ever be — has more bus riders than train riders. We will be far more dependent on buses.
Automating those buses could make a huge difference. Just to be clear, folks on here have repeatedly called for automating rail. We want the Ballard line to be independent, and consist of small stations with small (automated trains). Automating other parts of the line would also be great, but require some of the same advances in automation that are occurring for automobiles, since the pathway is not grade separated.
* By “thorough” I mean carry the bulk of the riders (like the Paris Metro). Our system will be very long, but because of how the system is designed, it will either skip over or simply not come close to the areas that use transit the most. The buses will have to do most of the work.