Classy Whale on Seattle’ Streetcars, wondering if they’ll ever connect.
Transit Bandit takes a 10-leg trip from Seattle to Vancouver, BC, using only “local” transit.
This is an Open Thread.
46 Replies to “Sunday Double Feature: Streetcars & Local Transit to BC”
How do Houstonians handle transit in the heat? One commentator said the south is too hot to wait at a bus stop on the hottest summer days so people have to drive, and therefore they have a car year round and drive it instead of taking transit. So what is the situation among transit riders in the south/southwest? Is there a temperature at which they stop using transit? Does transit shut down? How many days a year does that happen? Is there a way to make transit usable year-round, besides just air-conditioned vehicles (which even we have now).
The simplest thing a city can do to make transit usable in hot weather (besides air conditioned buses) is designing the streetscape to provide as much relief from heat as possible for people walking. This means more shade trees and fewer surface parking lots to avoid that urban heat island effect. It is also very important to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, rather than just one, as often, one side of the street has much more shade than the other, and you don’t want to be forced into walking the hotter/sunnier side, just because that’s where the sidewalk is.
Bus shelters are also useful to provide shade for people waiting for the bus, after they get there.
I’ve lived in Phoenix. Once temperatures reach 105 F the heat isn’t based on sun exposure or finding shade. Even under a tree or roof it is like a sauna. Remember temperatures are taken in the shade. So even at night it is too hot to walk very far. Because there is so much concrete temperatures really don’t decline much until after midnight.
Just as oppressive as waiting for transit in that heat is walking to it, and then to your destination. Most of Phoenix is large indoor/outdoor malls with huge parking lots to cross to get there that can be over 130 degrees. People spend a lot of time driving around a parking lot looking for a spot close to their destination because walking for long on that concrete or asphalt is very, very hot. However the air conditioning inside the stores or wherever is like a freezer so at first as the sweat dries you are freezing.
About 7 months/year on the other hand it is dry and pleasant to walk outside or take transit, but the problem then is the transit is not very good and Phoenix sprawls out forever. It can also get really dusty especially when it is windy. When you get off the bus you have very wide streets to cross and long distances to walk and the drivers are very aggressive and not aware of someone crossing a street on foot because so few people do it. Drivers trying to make a left hand turn across heavy traffic are terrifying and about half the drivers are US citizens or carry insurance. I would be hesitant to cross a street on foot at night.
It is car and truck culture so you have to accept it. From mid May to mid September you are driving if you need to go somewhere. The rest of the time getting to transit can be a long walk and the transit is infrequent or doesn’t go where you need to go. Don’t move to Phoenix if you don’t own a car.
I suppose the good news is the huge surface parking lots that are like ovens have free parking. But if you park your car in the Sun you need a windshield screen and it is very easy to burn yourself with the seatbelt when getting in the car wearing shorts. Most people start their car and air conditioning and stand in the super hot parking lot waiting for inside the car to cool down a bit. Cars in Phoenix tend to have very good air conditioning even rental cars.
Best way to make transit usable in inclement weather is to make sure it runs frequently to minimize waits. The upside is that also makes it more usable even when the weather is tolerable.
My understanding is that Houston is unusual in that it is a southern city that actually has a decent amount of frequent transit, with <15 minute headways on a number of bus routes and rail lines. Most other cities in the south are not like that, unfortunately, and I'm sure most of Houston does not have frequent transit either.
Taking the local transit route to Vancouver seems like a lot of fun (except for that walk along the highway near the border). If you had the free time and the energy for it. I’m pretty sure you can go all the way down to Salem, OR on local buses. nearly the entire span of the Amtrak Cascades corridor
If you look closely at the map, it is not necessary to walk along the highway near the border for any significant distance. After crossing into Canada, turn left onto Beach Road, immediately after the duty free shop. Beach Road is a tiny dead-end residential street. Just before the dead end (a bit over a mile in), you will see a pedestrian bridge over the river. Cross the bridge and you’re in the town of White Rock immediately on the other side.
At this point, you have two choices. You can walk an additional couple of miles up the hill and hop on the direct bus to Bridgeport SkyTrain station. Or, you can walk to a closer bus stop and take a bus to the bus, which is less walking, but adds another connection. My personal recommendation is that White Rock is a nice town to explore, so it’s better to just keep on walking to the express bus.
Now that Twin Transit has revived their Olympia-Centralia route, you can go the entire distance to Salem on local buses. In fact, I think the Castle Rock to Chehalis segment is better than it was before the pandemic.
I don’t think you can get further south than Monmouth, at least not in the Willamette Valley. The coast is a different matter.
Using local transit to go long distances is like driving to a far away place without ever getting on a freeway. Sure it can sometimes be done and someone can make an entertaining video about it. But it’s not practical for anyone.
Higher-speed long-distance transit options (including private intercity buses) are much better to use. They exist so people aren’t forced to spend hours on local transit.
Using local transit to go long distances is like driving to a far away place without ever getting on a freeway. Sure it can sometimes be done and someone can make an entertaining video about it. But it’s not practical for anyone.
I think that misses the point. First of all, the fact that it can be done is itself interesting. But as noted at the end, the trip was cheaper than any alternative. That might not mean anything to most people, but to some it could be worthwhile. Personally I would probably hitchhike, but this is an alternative.
But what I found more interesting was the description of each section. In many cases these are expresses. Stringing them together might be silly, but taking the bus from Mount Vernon to Bellingham isn’t. That particular route is especially interesting: One route, two agencies and two sets of buses. Wild. Then there is the frequency. It is a major problem (as you would expect). In other words there is useful information here.
Of course you can get the information in other ways, but that is probably the case with 90% of the videos out there.
“Higher-speed long-distance transit options (including private intercity buses) are much better to use.”
That depends entirely on what you are trying to do.
You can’t visit Peace Arch Park if you take one of the freeway expresses. The only thing you get to see is the inside of the customs house.
You can take the Amtrak Cascades bus on I-5, but if you take Island Transit down the length of Whidbey Island instead you can stop for lunch at a restaurant in Oak Harbor or Coupville or Mukilteo.
More to the point, however: this also illustrates the places local transit is lacking. Eg: everything south of Salem.
That was a great video. I knew SEA to YVR could be done on public transportation but didn’t know the specifics. I learned a lot, especially the border crossing part.
I personally like Flixbus for travel between Seattle and Vancouver BC. The schedule is good, no weird middle of the night hours, and the price is super reasonable.
There’s a nice for that kind of excursion trip, and for reading about it. Washington state has long had people who want to hike in the mountains… or take a chain of local buses just because they can. Sometimes it’s a way of saving money in exchange for a few hours. In this case I don’t think you save that much compared to a $35 Greyhound trip, especially including the long layovers. Still, this is one of the few parts of the country where you can get to a Canadian city in half a day, so there always people doing it.
There are similar statewide local-transit trips like from Seattle to Aberdeen, Port Townsend, Forks, or Whidbey Island. To Eastern Washington I think you have to take Greyhound or Trailways, but its stops over there have connections to other routes.
Buses to the mountains comes up all the time on NWHikers.net. Typically people want to through-hike (backpack from one destination to another). For example, Snoqualmie Pass to Stevens Pass (which is very nice backpacking trip). Usually these involve private operators, but for some trips there is an option is to use public transit. I remember one person who wanted to hike from Snoqualmie Pass to North Bend (and then take a bus). At least that was one of the options they were considering.
I’ve hiked some in Europe and the buses and trains serve a lot of destinations. We made through-hiking trips (hut to hut) as well as day hikes and never rented a car. It would be nice to have more options in this country, but it is expensive, obviously.
A thought: Why do Seattle streetcars need to connect with each other?
Our streetcars were built to be short distance services. Our region has already chosen higher capacity, faster technologies to provide long distance services. Streetcars are faster than walking — but end up being slower than almost every other transit technology except a gondola. And if the streetcar is negotiating lots of signals on wider streets with lots of pedestrians, even a gondola can ultimately be faster.
Certainly connecting can centralize maintenance. They provide flexibility in assigning how many vehicles are running, like when there is vehicle that must be taken out of service for awhile. Those are good things.
Certainly the technology is useful if the connecting corridor itself would gain enough benefit from the service that the installation is worth the cost and years of construction.
But without one of these compelling reasons, the need to connect becomes more of an OCD thing. It looks better on a map.
At its core, I think that the lack of strong functionality is why there hasn’t been strong advocacy among First Ave interests and the city as a whole to build the CCC.
Looking at streetcars as merely a short-distance technology choice, what streets should have a streetcar line generically? Where would merchants and property owners along the street prefer it over a bus to the point that they would embrace the years of construction? Has the evolution of low-floor buses and buses with doors on both sides eroded the functional attractiveness of putting in a streetcar?
Unless a clearer technology benefit can be embraced, I can see even FH and SLU lines getting abandoned in a few decades. If just one goes away, there will be nothing to connect.
Why don’t people ever complain about the north ends of the South Lake Union Streetcar and the First Hill Streetcar not connecting to each other?
Sam, I’ve suggested several times here that a Pike-Pine streetcar to connect the lines would be much more useful than a First Ave connection. That’s connecting the south end of one line to the north end of another.
A north-end to north-end connection is obviously too steep to be practical. Of course, an incline or gondola would solve that challenge.
Because there’s no easy way to build one. It’s really really steep.
The only real way I could see it being done is if the slu streetcar goes to u district up Eastlake and the first hill streetcar goes up 10th.
What Al suggested works as well but there’s already the link going from Capitol Hill to Westlake
“ What Al suggested works as well but there’s already the link going from Capitol Hill to Westlake.”
There is already a connection between Westlake and CID too! And there’s two Link stations in between — which Pike / Pine doesn’t have.
@Al
Sigh do I really have to explain it fully why that is different.
Capitol Hill to cid there’s the rest of broadway corridor and little Saigon.
@ WL:
You said Capitol Hill to Westlake, not Capitol Hill to CID. Little Saigon is nowhere near Link between Capitol Hill and Westlake.
If the CCC is built, it would be possible to make that trip on a streetcar. It would take about a 30 minute ride though.
Because they’re not just looking for nonsense comparisons to troll about. The northern ends of the streetcar lines are much further apart, and there’s a steep hill between them that’s way too steep for a streetcar.
Why do Seattle streetcars need to connect with each other?
They don’t.
Just to back up here, the best routes are those that are long and straight. Being straight means that every stop combination makes sense. Being long means you have a lot of combinations. The RapidRide E is a great example. The opposite is a route that is short and/or curves. Short routes (by their very nature) have fewer trip combinations. Routes that form a “U” typically have good alternatives. Routes that zig-zag are often slow. That not only makes alternatives more attractive, but it makes them expensive to operate.
But there is a drawback to extending routes. They are more prone to delays and bus bunching. With all of that in mind, consider the streetcar extension. It is really two extensions. The Capitol Hill Streetcar is extended to Westlake and the South Lake Union Streetcar is extended to Pioneer Square. There is value in the latter. But the former doesn’t get you much. It forms a ‘U’. Making matters worse, it does a back and forth at the south end of Broadway, which delays people headed to downtown. Thus there are not that many new trips that make sense. Basically First Avenue to Jackson and that’s it. The streetcar from Capitol Hill is notoriously unreliable (despite being short). This is bad in its own right, but it means that when you double up service along First, you run the risk of bunching. As for the service along First, it too has value, but it is brand new, and thus expensive.
This is a very important issue which is often ignored. Consider all the various transit projects in the city. This includes Link, but also RapidRide, bus lanes, and off-board payment a stations. They all have one thing in common: They save service hours. You may not be happy with the routes themselves, or which ones get the most frequency, but every change makes the system more efficient.
The streetcar extension is the opposite. It provides a minimal amount of new coverage (on First) and a minimal amount of new trip pairs. Yet it requires brand new service. In contrast, consider what would happen if the 14/1 were moved to First Avenue. Unlike the streetcar extension, every trip pair makes sense. More to the point, there are a lot more of them. You also have coverage along First Avenue. It also wouldn’t cost anything when it comes to service. It might not save much (unlike a lot of other projects) but at least it wouldn’t mean cancelling a coverage route, or running some other bus less often.
The streetcars don’t need to be connected to each other. We gain very little and it costs us a lot — both in capital and service spending. It just isn’t worth it.
I agree with all of Ross’ operational points, but I would counter that the streetcar has an important advantage over a bus route when it comes to wayfinding and navigability, in particular for new riders, and for placemaking.
This is very much adjacent to the “streetcar as economic development” trope, which in many American downtowns has been done with dubious results, but for Seattle tourism is a very important part of the economy and I don’t think that angle should be dismissed out of hand.
Given the issues with building on 1st I wonder if they’ll use the backup option of the 2nd and 4th avenue couplet
If it were me, I’d build the CCC as a full Link compatible light rail line, and have that be the alternative route to where Link trains should go if the tunnel gets closed, rather than the deep and expensive DSTT2.
You’d have to build it for two car trains rather than four, but it’d be a hell of a lot better than a 10 minute Escalatorpalooza maze to get to DSTT2 or the 20 minute headways of the single tracking tunnel.
How would you connect the alternate route to Link on the north end? They’re two stories vertically apart.
Does anyone know why there was a speed restriction on the 1 Line yesterday? Heat was my first thought, but it wasn’t that hot.
It was an odd non-explanation because ST itself sets speed restrictions. It’s like saying the train didn’t stop because the driver didn’t brake. Yes, but why didn’t the driver brake is what we want to know.
I guess it was nice to have some variation on the daily delays due to “mechanical issues”.
Does anyone know anything about LLE simulated service? Will LLE simulated service be two-car trains every 10 minutes throughout the morning and evening? Someone here said it starts tomorrow.
Here’s the announcement. It’s the real 3-4 car trains, so they’ll kick passengers off at Northgate and continue empty.
How much testing does a newly opened track segment actually need? Obviously, you want to I run some empty trains before carrying passengers, but multiple months of empty trains every 10 minutes all day long feels excessive. Is this about checking some box in order to satisfy some obscure federal rule, or is there a real reason for it.
Highway segments don’t undergo months of testing before cars and trucks are allowed on it, and in other countries, I would expect that rail segments don’t either.
Is this about checking some box in order to satisfy some obscure federal rule
That is my understanding, yes.
The Federal Transportation Administration requires several weeks of full-service testing for all new rail lines. I’m not familiar with the actual regulations, but I assume it has something to do with making sure that the train operators have some familiarity with the route and associated hazards, such as maintaining safe speeds on declines and looking for fallen stuff on the tracks.
I agree it seems onerous but it’s a safety thing, and even though it just looks like red ink after awhile, (almost) all safety regulations are written in blood.
It’s less than two months. The initial segment was nine months of I remember. How long did the 2 Line Starter Line get?
2 months of full simulated service seems pretty standard, based on my occasional read of the monthly ST capital projects update reports.
Highways don’t require the testing that rail transit does because there are many more systems involved like automatic train control. Plus rail vehicles need more safety systems because it takes them much longer to come to a stop than a car with rubber tires does.
We sadly remember the first day of the Cascades service on the Point Defiance bypass. That’s kind of why thorough testing is needed.
.60 days does however strike me as a long time. I would think that 30 would be plenty. But some safety expert might know a reason.
After the mess with Northgate Link tearing up the bottom of train cars, a couple months seems like a good idea.
I think TriMet only did two weeks of full simulated service on the orange line, but they were running a lot of simulated service months before the full service simulation with yellow line trains running through.
Probably a similar amount of time was spent testing everything.
The Apple Cup issue was only discovered by a crush-loaded train with a particularly low-hanging undercarriage cable and an uncut trackway bolt (which was supposed to be cut after tightening), but it did teach ST to do undercarriage fit testing after that.
I think revenue testing is about getting operators comfortable with the route and the time-pressure of staying on schedule.
“The Apple Cup issue was only discovered by a crush-loaded train with a particularly low-hanging undercarriage cable and an uncut trackway bolt”
It was discovered much earlier. One of the items brought out during the investigation was that maintenance workers had been noticing the problem for a while, but couldn’t get any management at SoundTransit to get it taken care of.
Has a new timetable been published?
ST doesn’t show a timetable after August 29. Lynnwood Link opens August 30.
Wouldn’t the simulated service already be operating on the new schedule? Perhaps one reason for the testing is to tweak the schedule (and driver assignments) if needed.
Anyway, it would be great to know when the new schedule gets uploaded.
Schedule = timetable in the post above.
See the new schedule, same as the old schedule. The future frequency will be the same as the current frequency as far as we know, so the times may be the same too. ST and Metro normally publish a service-change schedule a week or two ahead.
I’m most curious about if ST will move the 11:58 pm last departure from SeaTac that goes to the northmost station. Will ST stop that train at Northgate or will it continue to Lynnwood.
So DRLE is projected to enter testing in September and open early next year. With all the bus restructures on hold until the full ELE opens, this means that Downtown Redmond Station will only be served by a few buses a couple blocks away and Marymoor Village Station will have ZERO bus service.
Is there any word or plans on changes when these stations come online? It would be pretty terrible for these to open with no connecting service imo.
Also semi-related, the parking lot at Marymoor is huge. Will it really get filled up? Doesn’t look like any major bus routes are being sent here either so it’s almost all intended for link.
Yeah, that Marymoor parking lot is the “end of the line” parking for Link. Even though it’s not the terminus station, the shape of the line is such that is functionally is the terminus for drivers. ST has done the best practice here, which is the minimize parking along the line except for at the end, at which point parking is an appropriate part of the ridership toolkit to capture riders from the very large catchment area beyond Link for those trying to access the network.
How do Houstonians handle transit in the heat? One commentator said the south is too hot to wait at a bus stop on the hottest summer days so people have to drive, and therefore they have a car year round and drive it instead of taking transit. So what is the situation among transit riders in the south/southwest? Is there a temperature at which they stop using transit? Does transit shut down? How many days a year does that happen? Is there a way to make transit usable year-round, besides just air-conditioned vehicles (which even we have now).
The simplest thing a city can do to make transit usable in hot weather (besides air conditioned buses) is designing the streetscape to provide as much relief from heat as possible for people walking. This means more shade trees and fewer surface parking lots to avoid that urban heat island effect. It is also very important to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, rather than just one, as often, one side of the street has much more shade than the other, and you don’t want to be forced into walking the hotter/sunnier side, just because that’s where the sidewalk is.
Bus shelters are also useful to provide shade for people waiting for the bus, after they get there.
I’ve lived in Phoenix. Once temperatures reach 105 F the heat isn’t based on sun exposure or finding shade. Even under a tree or roof it is like a sauna. Remember temperatures are taken in the shade. So even at night it is too hot to walk very far. Because there is so much concrete temperatures really don’t decline much until after midnight.
Just as oppressive as waiting for transit in that heat is walking to it, and then to your destination. Most of Phoenix is large indoor/outdoor malls with huge parking lots to cross to get there that can be over 130 degrees. People spend a lot of time driving around a parking lot looking for a spot close to their destination because walking for long on that concrete or asphalt is very, very hot. However the air conditioning inside the stores or wherever is like a freezer so at first as the sweat dries you are freezing.
About 7 months/year on the other hand it is dry and pleasant to walk outside or take transit, but the problem then is the transit is not very good and Phoenix sprawls out forever. It can also get really dusty especially when it is windy. When you get off the bus you have very wide streets to cross and long distances to walk and the drivers are very aggressive and not aware of someone crossing a street on foot because so few people do it. Drivers trying to make a left hand turn across heavy traffic are terrifying and about half the drivers are US citizens or carry insurance. I would be hesitant to cross a street on foot at night.
It is car and truck culture so you have to accept it. From mid May to mid September you are driving if you need to go somewhere. The rest of the time getting to transit can be a long walk and the transit is infrequent or doesn’t go where you need to go. Don’t move to Phoenix if you don’t own a car.
I suppose the good news is the huge surface parking lots that are like ovens have free parking. But if you park your car in the Sun you need a windshield screen and it is very easy to burn yourself with the seatbelt when getting in the car wearing shorts. Most people start their car and air conditioning and stand in the super hot parking lot waiting for inside the car to cool down a bit. Cars in Phoenix tend to have very good air conditioning even rental cars.
Best way to make transit usable in inclement weather is to make sure it runs frequently to minimize waits. The upside is that also makes it more usable even when the weather is tolerable.
My understanding is that Houston is unusual in that it is a southern city that actually has a decent amount of frequent transit, with <15 minute headways on a number of bus routes and rail lines. Most other cities in the south are not like that, unfortunately, and I'm sure most of Houston does not have frequent transit either.
Taking the local transit route to Vancouver seems like a lot of fun (except for that walk along the highway near the border). If you had the free time and the energy for it. I’m pretty sure you can go all the way down to Salem, OR on local buses. nearly the entire span of the Amtrak Cascades corridor
If you look closely at the map, it is not necessary to walk along the highway near the border for any significant distance. After crossing into Canada, turn left onto Beach Road, immediately after the duty free shop. Beach Road is a tiny dead-end residential street. Just before the dead end (a bit over a mile in), you will see a pedestrian bridge over the river. Cross the bridge and you’re in the town of White Rock immediately on the other side.
At this point, you have two choices. You can walk an additional couple of miles up the hill and hop on the direct bus to Bridgeport SkyTrain station. Or, you can walk to a closer bus stop and take a bus to the bus, which is less walking, but adds another connection. My personal recommendation is that White Rock is a nice town to explore, so it’s better to just keep on walking to the express bus.
Now that Twin Transit has revived their Olympia-Centralia route, you can go the entire distance to Salem on local buses. In fact, I think the Castle Rock to Chehalis segment is better than it was before the pandemic.
I don’t think you can get further south than Monmouth, at least not in the Willamette Valley. The coast is a different matter.
Using local transit to go long distances is like driving to a far away place without ever getting on a freeway. Sure it can sometimes be done and someone can make an entertaining video about it. But it’s not practical for anyone.
Higher-speed long-distance transit options (including private intercity buses) are much better to use. They exist so people aren’t forced to spend hours on local transit.
Using local transit to go long distances is like driving to a far away place without ever getting on a freeway. Sure it can sometimes be done and someone can make an entertaining video about it. But it’s not practical for anyone.
I think that misses the point. First of all, the fact that it can be done is itself interesting. But as noted at the end, the trip was cheaper than any alternative. That might not mean anything to most people, but to some it could be worthwhile. Personally I would probably hitchhike, but this is an alternative.
But what I found more interesting was the description of each section. In many cases these are expresses. Stringing them together might be silly, but taking the bus from Mount Vernon to Bellingham isn’t. That particular route is especially interesting: One route, two agencies and two sets of buses. Wild. Then there is the frequency. It is a major problem (as you would expect). In other words there is useful information here.
Of course you can get the information in other ways, but that is probably the case with 90% of the videos out there.
“Higher-speed long-distance transit options (including private intercity buses) are much better to use.”
That depends entirely on what you are trying to do.
You can’t visit Peace Arch Park if you take one of the freeway expresses. The only thing you get to see is the inside of the customs house.
You can take the Amtrak Cascades bus on I-5, but if you take Island Transit down the length of Whidbey Island instead you can stop for lunch at a restaurant in Oak Harbor or Coupville or Mukilteo.
More to the point, however: this also illustrates the places local transit is lacking. Eg: everything south of Salem.
That was a great video. I knew SEA to YVR could be done on public transportation but didn’t know the specifics. I learned a lot, especially the border crossing part.
I personally like Flixbus for travel between Seattle and Vancouver BC. The schedule is good, no weird middle of the night hours, and the price is super reasonable.
There’s a nice for that kind of excursion trip, and for reading about it. Washington state has long had people who want to hike in the mountains… or take a chain of local buses just because they can. Sometimes it’s a way of saving money in exchange for a few hours. In this case I don’t think you save that much compared to a $35 Greyhound trip, especially including the long layovers. Still, this is one of the few parts of the country where you can get to a Canadian city in half a day, so there always people doing it.
There are similar statewide local-transit trips like from Seattle to Aberdeen, Port Townsend, Forks, or Whidbey Island. To Eastern Washington I think you have to take Greyhound or Trailways, but its stops over there have connections to other routes.
Buses to the mountains comes up all the time on NWHikers.net. Typically people want to through-hike (backpack from one destination to another). For example, Snoqualmie Pass to Stevens Pass (which is very nice backpacking trip). Usually these involve private operators, but for some trips there is an option is to use public transit. I remember one person who wanted to hike from Snoqualmie Pass to North Bend (and then take a bus). At least that was one of the options they were considering.
I’ve hiked some in Europe and the buses and trains serve a lot of destinations. We made through-hiking trips (hut to hut) as well as day hikes and never rented a car. It would be nice to have more options in this country, but it is expensive, obviously.
A thought: Why do Seattle streetcars need to connect with each other?
Our streetcars were built to be short distance services. Our region has already chosen higher capacity, faster technologies to provide long distance services. Streetcars are faster than walking — but end up being slower than almost every other transit technology except a gondola. And if the streetcar is negotiating lots of signals on wider streets with lots of pedestrians, even a gondola can ultimately be faster.
Certainly connecting can centralize maintenance. They provide flexibility in assigning how many vehicles are running, like when there is vehicle that must be taken out of service for awhile. Those are good things.
Certainly the technology is useful if the connecting corridor itself would gain enough benefit from the service that the installation is worth the cost and years of construction.
But without one of these compelling reasons, the need to connect becomes more of an OCD thing. It looks better on a map.
At its core, I think that the lack of strong functionality is why there hasn’t been strong advocacy among First Ave interests and the city as a whole to build the CCC.
Looking at streetcars as merely a short-distance technology choice, what streets should have a streetcar line generically? Where would merchants and property owners along the street prefer it over a bus to the point that they would embrace the years of construction? Has the evolution of low-floor buses and buses with doors on both sides eroded the functional attractiveness of putting in a streetcar?
Unless a clearer technology benefit can be embraced, I can see even FH and SLU lines getting abandoned in a few decades. If just one goes away, there will be nothing to connect.
Why don’t people ever complain about the north ends of the South Lake Union Streetcar and the First Hill Streetcar not connecting to each other?
Sam, I’ve suggested several times here that a Pike-Pine streetcar to connect the lines would be much more useful than a First Ave connection. That’s connecting the south end of one line to the north end of another.
A north-end to north-end connection is obviously too steep to be practical. Of course, an incline or gondola would solve that challenge.
Because there’s no easy way to build one. It’s really really steep.
The only real way I could see it being done is if the slu streetcar goes to u district up Eastlake and the first hill streetcar goes up 10th.
What Al suggested works as well but there’s already the link going from Capitol Hill to Westlake
“ What Al suggested works as well but there’s already the link going from Capitol Hill to Westlake.”
There is already a connection between Westlake and CID too! And there’s two Link stations in between — which Pike / Pine doesn’t have.
@Al
Sigh do I really have to explain it fully why that is different.
Capitol Hill to cid there’s the rest of broadway corridor and little Saigon.
@ WL:
You said Capitol Hill to Westlake, not Capitol Hill to CID. Little Saigon is nowhere near Link between Capitol Hill and Westlake.
If the CCC is built, it would be possible to make that trip on a streetcar. It would take about a 30 minute ride though.
Because they’re not just looking for nonsense comparisons to troll about. The northern ends of the streetcar lines are much further apart, and there’s a steep hill between them that’s way too steep for a streetcar.
Why do Seattle streetcars need to connect with each other?
They don’t.
Just to back up here, the best routes are those that are long and straight. Being straight means that every stop combination makes sense. Being long means you have a lot of combinations. The RapidRide E is a great example. The opposite is a route that is short and/or curves. Short routes (by their very nature) have fewer trip combinations. Routes that form a “U” typically have good alternatives. Routes that zig-zag are often slow. That not only makes alternatives more attractive, but it makes them expensive to operate.
But there is a drawback to extending routes. They are more prone to delays and bus bunching. With all of that in mind, consider the streetcar extension. It is really two extensions. The Capitol Hill Streetcar is extended to Westlake and the South Lake Union Streetcar is extended to Pioneer Square. There is value in the latter. But the former doesn’t get you much. It forms a ‘U’. Making matters worse, it does a back and forth at the south end of Broadway, which delays people headed to downtown. Thus there are not that many new trips that make sense. Basically First Avenue to Jackson and that’s it. The streetcar from Capitol Hill is notoriously unreliable (despite being short). This is bad in its own right, but it means that when you double up service along First, you run the risk of bunching. As for the service along First, it too has value, but it is brand new, and thus expensive.
This is a very important issue which is often ignored. Consider all the various transit projects in the city. This includes Link, but also RapidRide, bus lanes, and off-board payment a stations. They all have one thing in common: They save service hours. You may not be happy with the routes themselves, or which ones get the most frequency, but every change makes the system more efficient.
The streetcar extension is the opposite. It provides a minimal amount of new coverage (on First) and a minimal amount of new trip pairs. Yet it requires brand new service. In contrast, consider what would happen if the 14/1 were moved to First Avenue. Unlike the streetcar extension, every trip pair makes sense. More to the point, there are a lot more of them. You also have coverage along First Avenue. It also wouldn’t cost anything when it comes to service. It might not save much (unlike a lot of other projects) but at least it wouldn’t mean cancelling a coverage route, or running some other bus less often.
The streetcars don’t need to be connected to each other. We gain very little and it costs us a lot — both in capital and service spending. It just isn’t worth it.
I agree with all of Ross’ operational points, but I would counter that the streetcar has an important advantage over a bus route when it comes to wayfinding and navigability, in particular for new riders, and for placemaking.
This is very much adjacent to the “streetcar as economic development” trope, which in many American downtowns has been done with dubious results, but for Seattle tourism is a very important part of the economy and I don’t think that angle should be dismissed out of hand.
Given the issues with building on 1st I wonder if they’ll use the backup option of the 2nd and 4th avenue couplet
If it were me, I’d build the CCC as a full Link compatible light rail line, and have that be the alternative route to where Link trains should go if the tunnel gets closed, rather than the deep and expensive DSTT2.
You’d have to build it for two car trains rather than four, but it’d be a hell of a lot better than a 10 minute Escalatorpalooza maze to get to DSTT2 or the 20 minute headways of the single tracking tunnel.
How would you connect the alternate route to Link on the north end? They’re two stories vertically apart.
Does anyone know why there was a speed restriction on the 1 Line yesterday? Heat was my first thought, but it wasn’t that hot.
It was an odd non-explanation because ST itself sets speed restrictions. It’s like saying the train didn’t stop because the driver didn’t brake. Yes, but why didn’t the driver brake is what we want to know.
I guess it was nice to have some variation on the daily delays due to “mechanical issues”.
Does anyone know anything about LLE simulated service? Will LLE simulated service be two-car trains every 10 minutes throughout the morning and evening? Someone here said it starts tomorrow.
Here’s the announcement. It’s the real 3-4 car trains, so they’ll kick passengers off at Northgate and continue empty.
https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-lynnwood-link
How much testing does a newly opened track segment actually need? Obviously, you want to I run some empty trains before carrying passengers, but multiple months of empty trains every 10 minutes all day long feels excessive. Is this about checking some box in order to satisfy some obscure federal rule, or is there a real reason for it.
Highway segments don’t undergo months of testing before cars and trucks are allowed on it, and in other countries, I would expect that rail segments don’t either.
Is this about checking some box in order to satisfy some obscure federal rule
That is my understanding, yes.
The Federal Transportation Administration requires several weeks of full-service testing for all new rail lines. I’m not familiar with the actual regulations, but I assume it has something to do with making sure that the train operators have some familiarity with the route and associated hazards, such as maintaining safe speeds on declines and looking for fallen stuff on the tracks.
I agree it seems onerous but it’s a safety thing, and even though it just looks like red ink after awhile, (almost) all safety regulations are written in blood.
It’s less than two months. The initial segment was nine months of I remember. How long did the 2 Line Starter Line get?
2 months of full simulated service seems pretty standard, based on my occasional read of the monthly ST capital projects update reports.
Highways don’t require the testing that rail transit does because there are many more systems involved like automatic train control. Plus rail vehicles need more safety systems because it takes them much longer to come to a stop than a car with rubber tires does.
We sadly remember the first day of the Cascades service on the Point Defiance bypass. That’s kind of why thorough testing is needed.
.60 days does however strike me as a long time. I would think that 30 would be plenty. But some safety expert might know a reason.
After the mess with Northgate Link tearing up the bottom of train cars, a couple months seems like a good idea.
I think TriMet only did two weeks of full simulated service on the orange line, but they were running a lot of simulated service months before the full service simulation with yellow line trains running through.
Probably a similar amount of time was spent testing everything.
The Apple Cup issue was only discovered by a crush-loaded train with a particularly low-hanging undercarriage cable and an uncut trackway bolt (which was supposed to be cut after tightening), but it did teach ST to do undercarriage fit testing after that.
I think revenue testing is about getting operators comfortable with the route and the time-pressure of staying on schedule.
“The Apple Cup issue was only discovered by a crush-loaded train with a particularly low-hanging undercarriage cable and an uncut trackway bolt”
It was discovered much earlier. One of the items brought out during the investigation was that maintenance workers had been noticing the problem for a while, but couldn’t get any management at SoundTransit to get it taken care of.
Has a new timetable been published?
ST doesn’t show a timetable after August 29. Lynnwood Link opens August 30.
Wouldn’t the simulated service already be operating on the new schedule? Perhaps one reason for the testing is to tweak the schedule (and driver assignments) if needed.
Anyway, it would be great to know when the new schedule gets uploaded.
Schedule = timetable in the post above.
See the new schedule, same as the old schedule. The future frequency will be the same as the current frequency as far as we know, so the times may be the same too. ST and Metro normally publish a service-change schedule a week or two ahead.
I’m most curious about if ST will move the 11:58 pm last departure from SeaTac that goes to the northmost station. Will ST stop that train at Northgate or will it continue to Lynnwood.
So DRLE is projected to enter testing in September and open early next year. With all the bus restructures on hold until the full ELE opens, this means that Downtown Redmond Station will only be served by a few buses a couple blocks away and Marymoor Village Station will have ZERO bus service.
Is there any word or plans on changes when these stations come online? It would be pretty terrible for these to open with no connecting service imo.
Also semi-related, the parking lot at Marymoor is huge. Will it really get filled up? Doesn’t look like any major bus routes are being sent here either so it’s almost all intended for link.
Yeah, that Marymoor parking lot is the “end of the line” parking for Link. Even though it’s not the terminus station, the shape of the line is such that is functionally is the terminus for drivers. ST has done the best practice here, which is the minimize parking along the line except for at the end, at which point parking is an appropriate part of the ridership toolkit to capture riders from the very large catchment area beyond Link for those trying to access the network.