Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 62

79 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 62”

1. 500/weekday on the SLUT is pathetic.

   1. It’s so slow.

   2. It needs to be connected to the First Hill line, have it’s own lane that cannot be blocked by parked cars, and it needs to have signal priority. If it had those things, I would use it all the time.

      As it is now though, I’ve tried to use it several times and it was faster to walk than wait for it.

      1. If you wanted to connect the two streetcar lines in a useful way, you’d be doing it via Denny (or, better yet, a new bridge over I-5 north of Denny), not via downtown. As proposed with the CCC, just about every trip it enables is as fast or faster with existing bus routes and/or Link – especially in 20 years when Link finally serves SLU directly.

      2. Or course, the grade on Denny, which the #8 bus is able to handle just fine, is probably too steep for a streetcar anyway. In which case, the solution is not some windy, roundabout route to accommodate the streetcar, but to acknowledge that a streetcar is simply the wrong tool for the job, and the real solution is to add bus lanes for more of route 8, and add a new bus route providing direct service between SLU and First Hill. Not a streetcar.

      3. I think it’s a major missed opportunity is not looking at making Pike and Pine the connecting couplet between the two streetcar lines (both one-way between Broadway and First). There could be stops next to the convention center.

         Two lines would overlap for high frequency Pike-Pine service. There could be a Belltown/ First Ave/ Seattle Center / Pike Market line that uses Pike-Pine and turns north on Broadway to Capitol Hill Station, and a SLU Line that turns south to the hospitals and eventually the ID, maybe then going further south by the stadiums and the Starbucks HQ.

         It could also be shortened to end at 14th and Jackson (Jackson earning a badly needed bus lane) or continue on a rainier to I-90 where a terminus could be built next to Judkins Park station inside the I-90 loop ramp.

         They then would provide all sorts of connections like Seattle Center to the Convention Center or Belltown to Pike-Pine nightlife to SLU quickly reaching First Hill hospitals. It seems to be more productive and useful for Central Seattle to me.

         The fate of Pike and Pine Streets for bus service would need rethinking, as would the Pike and Pine street lanes.

         I’ve proposed it before here — but not gotten much support. To me, it still looks like such a good idea for the streetcar that I feel compelled to mention it again.

      4. “the solution is not some windy, roundabout route to accommodate the streetcar”

         Sounds like another streetcar alignment, the U-shaped wrap around Bailey Getzert School on the SLU line. Its primary purpose is because 12th and Boren were too steep for a modern streetcar (but not for an old cable car). It added the excuses of “serving” the Central District and the elementary school. One, a station in an odd corner at 14th doesn’t serve the CD much. Two, elementary-school children are the age least likely to be allowed to ride a streetcar to school, and there’s not that many staff or visitors there.

   3. It’s approximately tied with the 249 (507 rides per weekday).

      I recommend streetcar conversion for all hourly coverage routes on the Eastside.

      1. I don’t think converting the 249 to a streetcar is possible. The route is too steep for rail. I wouldn’t be opposed to putting in trolley wires, though…

   4. I wonder what route 40’s ridership is just between 6th & Blancard and Mercer & Westlake..

      1. My guess is it is similar. Same with the RapidRide C. It is quite common for buses to get a lot of riders within downtown. 500 sounds terrible (for the streetcar) but that is mainly because it is not part of a longer route.

   5. SLU streetcar will be closed for years while building ballard Link.
      Without the CCC, it has little utility that isn’t duplicated by the C line or 70 (soon-to-be J line)
      It is slow, hazardous to cyclists, fails in the event of a lane blockage such as construction, and requires its own half-block service facility in an extremely high land value neighborhood.

      If the CCC isn’t getting built, the SLUT should be removed during the next major construction-related service disruption. Will that be Denny way repaving this year? J line construction in 2025 or 2026? The 4 years of westlake construction for Ballard link in the 2030’s? I sure hope its existence doesn’t raise construction costs for Ballard link.

      1. To paraphrase M, “Without the CCC, the SLU streetcar will have little utility that isn’t duplicated by various bus routes.” But, with the CCC, wouldn’t the SLUSC+CCC+FHSC be duplicated by various bus routes and Link?

         I know this is usually the point where some commenter will come in with various unique point to point trip examples that can’t be done by bus, but only by a connected 3-line streetcar system. But my point is the vast majority of those trips can currently be made by bus or Link. Is it really worth $300M+ to build the CCC to cater to those rare exceptions?

      2. But, with the CCC, wouldn’t the SLUSC+CCC+FHSC be duplicated by various bus routes and Link?

         Yes. You would have to move some buses to First Avenue, but you end up with more trip pairs, not fewer. For example, let’s say the 1/14 is moved to First Avenue. That means from more places on Jackson you can get to First Avenue. Same goes for Queen Anne Avenue to First. The route remains fairly linear, which means every trip pair along the corridor makes sense. In contrast the SLUSC+CCC+FHSC has a lot of trips pairs that are nonsensical. You aren’t going to take the streetcar from Broadway & Madison to First & Madison. You will take the G. Same goes from pretty much everything north of Jackson.

         The problem is not only the high cost, but the route pattern. It forms a giant ‘U’, along with a time consuming button hook on one end. You can also think of it as an ‘L’ connected to a backwards ‘L’. Very few people will ride from one ‘L’ to the other. The backwards ‘L’ already exists — it is the First Hill streetcar. So you are basically adding another ‘L’ that can be easily be replaced by a bus (such as the 1/14).

         The service cost: Nothing! Moving the 1/14 wouldn’t cost anything in service (assuming the are BAT lanes on First). In contrast, the streetcar extensions require plenty of extra service that has to come from somewhere.

      3. Ross, no bus transit on First south of Virginia is going to be reliable because the intersection at First and Pike is completely lawless. There’s the scramble, of course, but people don’t actually “scramble” across the street. They begin crossing on the yellow frequently and then amble across [no “scr”] because they know the cars will wait for them.

         However, experience throughout Europe shows that people do get out of the way of trams, even in pedestrian-heavy environments. Presumably it’s because they sort of like riding it themselves.

         Is this a reason to build the CCC? Probably not, but it is a reason not to re-create the abysmal reliability of the old 15 and 18.

      4. I actually agree with Sam here, that the cost of the CCC ($410 MILLION estimated as of january) is not worth the utility it provides.

         Most of what it does is closely covered by other routes. It does help:
         – people who are scared of buses
         – tourists who like the novelty of streetcars
         – mobility-challenged people who have trouble climbing the medium grade between 1st and 3rd around madison and are travelling north/south

         Not worth $410 million. Not worth 5 years of construction to retrofit pioneer square streets.

      5. @Tom..
         In a perfect transit utopia, there’s a tremendous case for the CCC. Aside from the most obvious case, connecting the FH and SLU lines, bringing consistent transit service along the heavily tourist-dominated 1st Ave would be the next biggest reason. This would enable a fantastic connection at IDS where to 1st Ave and for ferry riders to access other parts of downtown in both directions. It can only be facilitated by removing most parking along 1st Avenue .

         But that’s in a transit utopia.

         In today’s reality, how can we improve *current* service? Transit signals, station removal, priority lanes and parking lanes would be the best solutions. And if you REALLY wanna efficient-ize the streetcar, reduce the operation of SLU to summer only.

      6. Jordan, but that’s thething. It eouldn’t be “reloable” except after 8:00 PM from November through March.

         We’ve been there before, and Ballard and West Seattle begged gor decades to be moved to Third or at least the Second and Fourth couplet.

         Sure you can put “bus lanes” on the street but they’ll be violated consrantly, and the First and Pike intersection will never be tamed by rubber-tired vehicles.

         People worry about knife-like steel wheels.

      7. It doesn’t have to be closed. ST will be decking the station box for any number of other reasons; for a decade the Market Street Muni cars ran on the decking when the BART/Muni tunnel and the stations were being dug. It’s standard practice.

      8. Ross, no bus transit on First south of Virginia is going to be reliable because the intersection at First and Pike is completely lawless.

         Oh, come on. A bus is just as intimidating as our streetcars — they are the same size. No question Link would be more intimidating, but it is highly unlikely to be an issue. People get out of the way. If it is a recurring problem than a traffic cop — even a Metro traffic cop — can tell people to get out of the way.

         The big reason buses don’t go on first is because of automobile-related congestion, not pedestrian anarchy. At a minimum you would have BAT lanes. But center running buses — which is the plan for the streetcar — is not out of the question. The 1 and 14 are both trolleys, so you would have to move the wire (a given for the streetcar). Combined with the RapidRide G, that should be a large enough purchase to buy trolleys with doors on both sides. Even if it falls a bit short they could just buy enough of them and use them for other routes (you don’t need to use the doors on both sides just because the bus has doors on both sides). Meanwhile, the RapidRide G buses (that they just bought) could be used for other RapidRide routes (e. g. the RapidRide A or RapidRide E). At that point you have a project that is quite similar to the streetcar, which means you could convince the feds to allow the switch (and not lose federal funding). There is precedence for that: https://humantransit.org/2017/06/providences-downtown-connector-a-streetcar-transformed-into-useful-transit.html.

         Again, I’m not sure that would be necessary. It is quite possible that BAT lanes would be sufficient. But if we did take this approach it would have other advantages. For example the streetcar, 7, 14 and 36 could all run in the middle of the street on Jackson. The bus that seems least likely to get dual-sided doors is the 14, but with this project it would. That would require a very large purchase (much bigger than just the 1/14 and G) but it would be well worth it in the long run.

   6. I would keep the First Hill streetcar, but sell off the South Lake Union Streetcar. The facilities base is worth a lot of money right now. Ridership is one factor, but it has more to do with the network. It is very easy to backfill service on South Lake Union. The C and 40 run currently along the corridor. With the 40 it is basically on the way, and with the C it is an extension over laying over downtown. Because the C goes to South Lake Union, riders of the C benefit. I could easily see the H extended there, providing additional one-seat rides.

      In contrast the First Hill streetcar runs down Broadway. Currently it is the only transit down Broadway. Even if the 60 is moved (and I would move it) I think there should be two routes on Broadway. Unlike South Lake Union, there aren’t a lot of other options. I can think of a few, but none of them seem dramatically better. Getting rid of one streetcar — used by very few people — seems pretty easy. Getting rid of both seems like it would be trickier politically and probably not worth it.

      1. Thinking about this some more. If you got rid of both streetcars, this is what I would do: Send the 49 down Broadway, then west on Jackson to First. This basically replaces the First Hill Streetcar (minus the 14th Avenue detour). I would then alter the 60 to run on Broadway. It would layover where it does now, or better yet extend it to Aloha (and use the layover for the 9, which I would get rid of). The 60 and 49 would run at the same frequency, and overlap on Broadway between Jackson and Aloha. I would probably have both follow Boren between Yesler and Terrace instead of staying on Broadway to the end (this instead of this). On the other hand, if BAT lanes were added for the second option then I would go that way. In any event the two routes would follow the same path between Jackson and Aloha.

         This would keep many of the same aspects of the system today. You can still get from Jackson (Amtrak/Sounder) up to First Hill. But it is an improvement. You avoid the button hook on 14th. It goes farther up Broadway (without having to tear up the street). It is similar to what we have now, but better at no additional service cost.

         It also offers up an easier way to improve Jackson. While center running buses (and the streetcar) would be ideal, it would also be expensive. You would have to shift the streetcar tracks (and stops) or invest in buses with doors on each side (for every route along there). In contrast, if you got rid of the streetcar then you just add BAT lanes. These aren’t as fast as center running bus lanes, but still pretty good. There are other benefits. Because all the vehicles serve the same stops, riders avoid having to decide whether they should go in the middle of the street (to catch the streetcar) or stay curbside (to catch the bus). If you removed the center stops you could narrow the street and widen the sidewalk. Eventually you pave over the tracks (or pull them up) to make biking safer.

         Overall it looks similar, but just better. That being said, I don’t see it happening unless they want to cash out. Again, the property used up by the First Hill streetcars is expensive. The streetcars themselves are worth money. The streetcar is not ideal from a transit perspective, but it has some tourist value. I could see it being replaced at some point with something more functional (a bus) but I could also see it sticking around a long time.

         On the other hand, I don’t see much point in the South Lake Union Streetcar.

      2. Close the SLU streetcar and fill in the tracks. Right now it actually impedes mobility for non-driving modes in the area. The tracks add dangerous hazards to bicyclists throughout the heart of SLU, on several of the few (relatively) flat routes in a major dense neighborhood. I try to bike through often and I can’t even keep straight where all the tracks are.

         Moreover, the comments saying “it just needs more priority!” Seem to come from people who aren’t here often. It does have priority! Like at the Valley and Fairview traffic light, it gets to snake past the traffic queues built up there. But it also contributes to those queues (which the much more useful C Line and 70 get stuck in) with an extra traffic light phase that’s programmed to always appear, not just when the trolley is actually there. If we could give its right of way along Valley, and its traffic light time, to buses there, we would serve many more riders with improved transit speed and reliability.

      3. @JTinWS — I agree with all of your points. Streetcar tracks are a hazard.

         If we made the corridor faster for the streetcar, it would make it faster for the 40 and C and that has way more benefit. If the streetcar is delayed a bit, it only effects a handful of riders. The problem is limited to just that corridor. With three routes (the 40, C and streetcar) you have plenty of service, which means you aren’t likely trying to time it. You just take the first vehicle that arrives.

         In contrast if an outbound 40 is delayed it effects just about everybody on that route. Anyone boarding downtown and headed towards Fremont is delayed. Everyone who boards north of Mercer — who could easily be trying to time the bus — would have to wait longer. Same goes for those trying to get from downtown to West Seattle (on the C). It is a lot more important to improve the corridor for buses than the streetcar.

         Whether the South Lake Union streetcar is fast or slow, it just doesn’t make sense anymore (if it ever did).

      4. it would be trickier politically and probably not worth it.

         Yeah, that’s the understatement of the week. The FHSC is a Federally-subsidized project of Sound Transit, whereas the SLUS is a developer-funded Billionaire’s plaything.

         What you write below about extending the 49 down Broadway to Jackson and then over to First is a great “outside the box” insight. Maybe it could turn around at Dearborn using First southbound and the busway back to Jackson to provide service to the football stadium (and baseball, too, with a bit of a walk). There’s not good layover, so it would have to hot-loop with recovery in the U-District.

      5. I think the first hill streetcar should be removed too. Why? Because we need bus lanes on Jackson, and it’s politically impossible with a center-running streetcar.

         Replace it with a bus, reroute other buses, whatever. Just make sure that we aren’t dragging down the rest of our system for a white elephant.

      6. Don’t just remove the SLU Streetcar — remove Westlake Ave entirely (or almost entirely) from Stewart up to Blanchard. This would eliminate several huge intersections and shrink a few others and make walking in this area suck less (i.e. less time out in front of turning cars, less waiting for red lights, etc.). Do literally anything with the space.

      7. @Ross re: buses if both streetcars are removed
         What if instead of deleting route 9, you move it from Broadway to Boren up into SLU? Also, since its Henderson street tail is being duplicated by Rapidride R, move the 9’s tail to cover the previous route 7’s tail which is losing service. This way nobody loses coverage and the Rainier-Boren corridor gets the service it deserves, connecting first hill to SLU.

      8. Don’t just remove the SLU Streetcar — remove Westlake Ave entirely (or almost entirely) from Stewart up to Blanchard.

         Brilliant! That is a great idea. Other than the the streetcar, there is no transit on that section. It is an awkward diagonal street that doesn’t fit with the rest of the grid. It would be a promenade or sorts — there are small parks on both ends. You would add a bike path there (of course) which would connect to the bike path on 8th/Bell (https://maps.app.goo.gl/CZotSj8RCW9moMnSA). (I would also fix the bike path on Bell and 9th, putting it on both sides of the street.) With a little bit of work that would be an excellent way to bike all the way from Fremont to the heart of downtown (https://maps.app.goo.gl/CZotSj8RCW9moMnSA).

         Blanchard is one way heading northeast. That means that if you were heading south on Westlake you cross Denny and then angle southeast on 9th. Thus buses like the 40 and C would do this inbound: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JKQprLmi5pSJEF2J6 (and be the same as outbound). The signal phases on that (and several other intersections) becomes much simpler. Thus bus traffic moves through there much faster. Yep, I like that idea a lot. I know there is a tourist/development value in having a streetcar, but having a pedestrian/bike only street adds a lot more.

      9. What if instead of deleting route 9, you move it from Broadway to Boren up into SLU?

         I like the idea of a Boren bus, but I don’t like the idea of extra service on Rainier. I think it should just end at MLK or it becomes part of the 106. I also like Al’s idea. Basically send the 106 to SLU via Boren and then split it. The southern 106 would end at Henderson/Rainier Beach. Then the northern route (the one coming from SLU) picks up the tail of the 7 (south of Henderson). With the split the northern route could go farther than SLU. It could turn on Harrison (a future transit street) and then follow the 3/4 to Mercer before turning west again and ending in Uptown. Basically this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/rP22hUgWNPA6hUj69.

         As much as I want a route on Boren, it means extra service that has to come from somewhere. We would need more funding. On the other hand if both streetcars go away it would be easy to backfill the service with the 49 and it would cost very little (if anything). As Tom wrote though, it would be very difficult from a political standpoint.

      10. There’s not good layover, so it would have to hot-loop with recovery in the U-District.

          I’m thinking that if the streetcar is gone then the 49 just takes its layover spot. The streetcar backs up, but it seems fairly easy to turn around in the area (https://maps.app.goo.gl/A8JXTqFypTiA6xCq5). I think the only value in going south is if you could keep going south to Lander, which in turn would free up the 21 from having to go on First. The 50 would cover the section between Spokane and Lander, and the 21 would follow the C and H downtown. Having the 21 follow the same pathway as the C adds a lot of value, as riders could take either one if they were going to Avalon or the north end of 35th (and the bulk of the riders get a faster trip). But yeah, I’m not sure if there is layover space there, and it looks a bit long for a live-loop. I’m not sure if it would work, but it is definitely much easier to move a bus. I still think it is unrealistic to get rid of the First Hill Streetcar but I’m surprised at how much better the transit system could be without it.

   7. I see the streetcar function is best as a feature for a street with active destinations all along it. Even though there are some destinations of interest on the route, they aren’t active enough to attracts higher number of riders. It moves slowly so that any trip that is over a mile riding seems like a time suck — especially with RapidRide service duplicating much of the route.

      I don’t see the CCC changing things much. The major destinations that it serves are easily walkable from a Link station. So unless someone is making a direct trip it’s not very good for trip making.

      It could be different if it ran other places. A SLU streetcar extension that angles back up to Seattle Center through Belltown on First Ave would seemingly get more riders.

      Another strategy would be to go into full “tourist mode” and acquire or build that are a unique feature. The San Francisco Boat Tram is a good example:

      https://www.sfmta.com/blog/all-aboard-boat-tram-summer

      If there was a way to have an outdoor car for the summer, it would be much more popular. The current vehicles a carry way too few people and way too non-descript of an experience to excite lots of riders. The outdoor feature could even be enticing enough to warrant building the CCc after all!

      1. That boat tram is cute. But a bus can be cute too. Open air buses are fairly common. The waterfront bus (https://seattlewaterfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/shuttle-stop-sign.jpg) could use some work in my opinion. It should be easy to open the windows, and the pictures could be a lot better. Historical trams are cool (and we had them) but we could lean into our old trackless trolleys too.

         That being said, I don’t think this is the right place for that. Westlake to SLU is not particularly touristy (unlike the waterfront). Nor do I think there is anything fundamentally wrong with a short line. The problem with the SLU streetcar is that it is redundant. It basically a subset of other buses (the C and 40). It does form a spine of sorts, but there are better options for that. You could easily replace the SLU streetcar with an extended H and it would cost basically nothing in terms of service. Riders on the H get a one-seat ride to SLU, while service along the corridor remains the same. It is actually an improvement for trips along the corridor because you consolidate things. Imagine I’m at Fourth & Virginia and want to get to Westlake & Republican. That is a pretty long walk (almost twenty minutes). I can walk over and catch the 40/C or catch the streetcar. This is not good. By consolidating on the 40/C pathway you make things better.

      2. “That being said, I don’t think this is the right place for that. Westlake to SLU is not particularly touristy (unlike the waterfront). ”

         Yes I think this is true. Had the streetcar been part of the waterfront rather than First Ave things would be different because it would be somewhat more interesting. The best way to have a successful streetcar is to have a decent market for making the trip as well as a unique and enticing experience to compensate for it being slower than a bus.

         The current streetcar operations and future plans don’t overcome its limitations.

      3. Yes I think this is true. Had the streetcar been part of the waterfront rather than First Ave things would be different because it would be somewhat more interesting.

         I agree. We really blew it with the Benson streetcars. They were cute. They were fun and functional. Tourists like them, even when the waterfront was fairly podunk. Now the waterfront is world class and it would be a great addition. It solves one of the tricky issues with transit along the waterfront, which is turning around at the north end (or continuing past the tracks up the hill). If it continues past (as the shuttle does now) it has big delays (because of trains). Turning a bus around is tricky as there isn’t a lot of room there to do it. But with a train it just reverses directions. We actually take advantage of one of the key aspects of a streetcar. Imagine that!

         Then the issue along the waterfront becomes vertical conveyance, and there has been quite a bit of work done in that regard (https://waterfrontseattle.org/about/accessibility). Connecting the Space Needle with the waterfront makes sense, but I don’t think it is essential (from a tourist standpoint or just in general). The loop could be done this way, starting at the Seattle Center: Monorail, walk/roll to Pike Place, Elevators down to the waterfront (or walk), Benson Streetcar to Pioneer Square, bus (or Link/monorail) back to the center. Sounds like tourist heaven to me.

      4. “That boat tram is cute.”

         It needs a Boaty McBoatFace sign.

   8. IMO It’s a great example of why trollies on city streets competing with cars for road space is something we should try to avoid.

      1. Yes. The same is true for buses. I would say the difference is that buses are a bit more agile. If someone is blocking the lane the bus can often go around it. With a streetcar it is stuck.

         The fundamental advantage of streetcars is capacity. There is nowhere in Seattle where we actually need them. Either buses form a spine (naturally) or we have Link or we just don’t have enough ridership to require a streetcar. Making things worse, our streetcars don’t have more capacity then our buses (Link is a different matter). The only argument for it is that it adds tourist value. It seems like spending that money doing other things would help the tourist industry more.

2. Glad the Snoqualmie Valley Shuttle is getting weekend service.

   I hope someone’s working to expand it to Monroe? If I remember correctly, there was a little talk of that pre-COVID.

3. I enjoy the historical photos and stories.

4. DODGER STADIUM GONDOLA!??!! Yes, let’s put +50k gameday attendees on a 6-person car-in-the-kay to move people efficiently.

   I’ve been to Dodgers stadium. And though it is a nostaglic facility with a beautiful view, its major downfall is its topographically isoloated location. The only viable solution is operating shuttle buses and providing a 100% right-of-way for them between the stadium and downtown below. LAMetro already does that but could do more.

   1. It’s both/and. Gondola would supplement a robust shuttlebus network.

      If the gondola is paired with development of some of the Dodgers parking lot, the gondola can be the all-day connection between a “Dodgers” neighborhood and Union station (and onwards), while a shuttle bus network would be ‘peak oriented’ service to run only on game days.

      Also, much like Seattle’s monorail, this will be public transit that will be a destination itself.

   2. The web site is here:

      https://laart.la/

      It’s not a “rapid” technology as transit modes go. That is a deceptive word to use in its title. It will take 7 minutes to travel only 1.2 miles.

      Each gondola is supposed to carry 30 to 40 people, not 6. It’s not as big as the Portland Aeridl Tram — but it’s much closer to that than it is to a small gondola car. Whether that’s enough capacity for a game surge I can’t say.

      1. Thank you for the link, Al.

         Aside from shear numbers, my gondolas skepticism is rooted in grandiose ideas touted by developers and politicians who are easily swayed by swag & shine rather than efficiency and effectiveness (i.e. our own SLU or the H Street Line in DC). Especially in Los Angeles where there’s a clear history of screwing over constituents. If a gondola is built, I can only see it as a funride for gameday-goers that will likely cost +$10 roundtrip and not be integrated into the region’s fare system.

         I’m sorry, this is just a complete waste of resources and adds onto the cluster**** history of that hillside.

         (unless the technology for +200 person gondolas running every 3 minutes is developed)

      2. There are contributing factors.

         1. LA is now in 2028 Olympics mode. There is a rush to do this — and if it gets bogged down in schedule (like with more litigation) it may fade away. In the other hand, it may get built as a result of public giddiness for the idea — after decades of frustration about how to get to the stadium by transit.

         2. I’m sure that the Dodgers owners have opinions on this but they haven’t apparently been as vocal as the prior owner. It was heavily pushed by former owner Frank McCourt. This is a good recap of things from March:

         https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-city-council-halts-dodger-stadium-gondola-project-for-further-study/3370805/?amp=1

         Recently, lawsuits to stop the project were dismissed.

         The question to me becomes whether or not the current owners are going to play hard ball with the stadium’s future. Note that the stadium and land is owned by the Dodgers organization and not a public entity (unlike many other stadiums around the country).

      3. It will take 7 minutes to travel only 1.2 miles.

         That is quite fast compared to walking. That works out to 10 MPH which is quite respectable for transit. The Paris Metro is a bit faster, but not much. Dwell times and frequency tend to be excellent with gondolas as well, more than making up for lack of speed (especially at that distance).

         The bigger issue is throughput. You want a steady stream with gondolas, not a big pulse. The big advantage of a gondola is the extremely good frequency. Basically you can show up and expect to be on one within seconds. But if a lot of people show up at the same time, you have to wait, and it isn’t as good. I could see issues both after a game and before. It connects to rail lines which would mean a lot of people getting off the train and trying to get to the gondola. Throughput is 5,000 riders per hour, which is about the same as one bus.

         That being said, this would mean it was popular. It is always disappointing if a transit improvement gets overwhelmed, but it is much worse if it fails to get the ridership they hoped for. Worse case scenario it is really popular but people complain because it is too popular on game day. Then what? They build something else — something they maybe should have built in the first place? OK, but that doesn’t mean that building it was such a bad thing, nor does it mean that the gondola (which has other stops) would then be useless.

      4. “It will take 7 minutes to travel only 1.2 miles.

         That is quite fast compared to walking. That works out to 10 MPH which is quite respectable for transit. ”

         When LA built the Pasadena light rail line, they generally ignored Dodger Stadium. It was rather short sighted as its home plate is barely over 1/2 mile from the Chinatown Metro station. But it’s up a hill and across a busy freeway, and privately owned. It may just have been that the Dodgers didn’t care in the 1980’s or maybe even transit hostile like some shopping center developers.

         Given the urgency of a 2028 opening, I see the gondola logic. (There’s not enough time to do anything else than devise some exclusive high-capacity game day bus service mostly on existing streets but with bus only lanes.) But like you I don’t see it as a viable way to handle a crowd surge.

      5. LA is now in 2028 Olympics mode.

         Good point — I was thinking the same thing. Gondolas have tourist value. They are both fun to look at and fun to ride. For a really old city they might seem out of place, but for LA they seem perfect. If you think of this as only for game day than it seems a bit limiting. But there are three stops (not two). There is some value for travel between the other two stations if nothing else. Areas around stations often are nothing more than parking lots but evolve to offer more. For example there is a sports clinic outside Husky Stadium. Thus the stadium could have more all-day, everyday potential in the long run. There is a strong push by public officials to make the 2028 Olympics “car free”. There will be plenty of momentum to make LA far less of a car-centric city (https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2024-08-14/l-a-promises-a-car-free-olympics-ill-believe-it-when-i-see-it-essential-california). This could all be reversed when the Olympics are over (like in 1984) but it could also represent a change in the way the area views transit.

   3. Dodger is fairly close (0.6 miles) to the Chinatown stop on the A-Line (light rail). The problem is, as you point out, is that it’s 300′ up a hill from Chinatown, and the current walk is not only strenuous but unpleasantly located alongside one of the main car access routes.

      It would be rather easy to address these issues by building a series of outdoor escalators up the hill on the south side of the stadium, adjacent to the 110 pedestrian overpass. It would be about the same size as the Starway at Universal Studios Hollywood, if you are familiar. Add an improved pedestrian overpass (the current one is rather dilapidated and low capacity), and the walk from the Chinatown station would be very pleasant with great views coming up the escalators.

      The core issue with Dodger Stadium, and my theory as to why the above isn’t being discussed, is that former team owner Frank McCourt still owns 50% of the stadiums parking and he has no interest in loosing parking revenues. He is pushing for a gondola because he sees that as a way to make is parking lot more valuable (part of it would presumably get developed), but without enough capacity to seriously disrupt the demand for parking. Escalators are a simple solution with high enough capacity to eat into his cash cow, so he would never consider them.

      1. tbh, just use the Olympic and FTA money for a LR stub to Dodger Stadium. Even if it comes out after the Olympics, it’d be a better use of FTA funds than a gadgetbahn gondola that I’ve only seen make logical sense in very niche cases like the Portland Aerial Tram or the proposed Burnaby Mountain Gondola to Simon Fraser University.

5. The biggest streetcar lesson: Don’t build the tails first then expect ridership on the tails to justify building the central core. The second biggest lesson: Don’t build a train and run it less frequent than the busses.

   1. I would add this: Don’t build a slow streetcar (slower than a bus) as a political consolation prize or an unstudied “favor” to the neighborhood. It’s kind of the political equivalent of buying expensive clothes that won’t get worn because they aren’t practical.

      Streetcars cost money to operate and maintain as long as they are in service. The effort should pencil out with objective analysis first. And ideally it should replace bus service rather than add service on top.

      1. The SLUS was not a consolation prize to the neighborhood. It was a gift to a now-deceased billionaire. No wonder it has been orphaned.

      2. The First Hill streetcar was a consolation prize. Instead of a Link station on First Hill they got a streetcar. The South Lake Union streetcar was designed to spur development (same with the park idea). The area did boom, but so did much of the city (hard to claim the streetcar made any difference at all).

6. I find the Louisville article interesting. Compared to other mid-American cities, Louisville had a more robust transit ethic in decades past. That’s because it developed its central core before 1900 like Cincinnati and St Louis. Having lived there once, it has similarities to Seattle and Portland but at a smaller scale.

   The article doesn’t get into it but it’s a situation where the larger transit district and the later city-county merger may have diluted transit support as more geographic coverage became more politically popular because of it. The core area frequencies were once decent but not great. Losing those frequencies could easily destroy transit use in its few great transit riding neighborhoods and destinations left.

   The merger ended up saddling the transportation budget with a large amount of new suburban roads to maintain, leaving the crumbs for transit. The only buffer to that is that the state owns and maintains more local arterials than one finds in other states.

   The transit downward spiral there is a discouraging thing. It’s a real life example of the coverage versus frequency debate.

7. Up in british columbia there’s the The Fraser River Tunnel Project for Vancouver video expanding from 4 lanes to 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWhHJWKa6CQ&t=1173s

   More notably there’s bus on shoulders added (almost?) entire length of their highway. They’ve also added special bus slip lanes

   https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/

   1. I liked the video, and thought many of the ideas are universal. For example the dangers of slip lanes. Or the idea of “moving the bottleneck”.

      1. I also just in general found it interesting where they are moving forward with hov shoulder lanes instead of bus/hov center lanes and also how the project had such a relatively heavy transit focus compared to other american freeway projects.

8. William Hui, a systems engineer for TransLink in BC, traveled from Vancouver BC to Tijuana, Mexico using entirely local transit.

   1. It’s interesting he went down the Oregon coast instead of the I-5 corridor. I’m glad he could do that. I went that way once on Greyhound from Portland to San Francisco, but later that route was deleted. Then there was apparently nothing, but now there seems to be viable service. One day I may take it to Cannon Beach or Lincoln City.

      1. There’s no local public transit between Independence and Albany, OR on the I-5 corridor. So, if your goal is 100% local transit (as he was doing – no intercity trains or buses) the coast route is the only way that has local transit districts the whole way through.

   2. Thanks for sharing the story! This is the type of thing I dream of trying, much to the chagrin of my partner.

      For more details I found the Vancouver Sun article

      And the Google map Hui created of his journey, with stops and locations

      1. Oh no, I forgot this doesn’t use Markdown :( apologies for the formatting.

      2. I fixed it. For this blog you can use HTML. But if you make a mistake (e. g. forget to close a tag) it can look pretty bad. In your case it wasn’t bad at all (but it also wasn’t what you wanted, so it was easy to fix).

9. I am looking forward to the Lynwood Link opening. My father moved from Ballard to Lynwood in 2017. He would have loved to see light rail open in Ballard, since he lived there forever. But now he is excited about it opening near his current neighborhood. We will probably ride it together a few days after opening day. Take a look at all the stations. Maybe get food. He hasn’t seen the Northgate stations yet. And since we both walk very slow, it will probably take an entire day. Hope the secalators work. We are both looking forward to it.

   1. Hmm, maybe we should talk about what a trip from Lynnwood to Ballard would be like without Ballard Link. Unfortunately it’s still not great: both the 44 from U-District and the 40 from Northgate take a rather long time. The 45 and 61 won’t go to central Ballard. The 40 and 44 street-improvement projects may speed things up somewhat, but only if they’re not watered down.

      1. It won’t be great with Ballard Link either. Going all the way downtown and then coming all the way back take a while. For that matter, while Lynnwood Link is an improvement getting from Lynnwood to UW (right now) is not that bad. The key project from Lynnwood to Ballard would be a subway line from Ballard to UW. That is the weak link (no pun intended).

      2. “It won’t be great with Ballard Link either. ”

         Transferring to Link at Westlake will at least be comparable in travel time. It may even be better if the 44 can’t shake off its 45 minute travel time peak hours. And some people would be happier moving in a grade-separated train than in getting frustrated crawling through congestion, even if it doesn’t save time.

10. Seattle Times articles:

    Mike Lindblom gets it right on Lynnwood Link solving I-5 congestion ($). (I.e., it won’t.)

    Seattle is #1 in people living in small one-room units ($). The article doesn’t clearly distinguish between studios, microapartments, and “one-room units” (a new term). To clarify, a studio has its own kitchen and bathroom. A microapartment has a shared kitchen. (Earlier SROs also had a shared bathroom, but that seems to be gone now.) “One-room unit”, it’s unclear what it means. The article points out that their popularity is due to high housing costs: people can’t afford anything larger or more complete.

    It also says this is happening across the country. I think people get too much stuck in a mistaken idea that Seattle is unique in having a lot of one-person households or high housing prices. It’s not that Seattle and San Francisco are unique; it’s just that it happened here first. Household sizes have been going down throughout the country for decades. When I was little, most of my neighbors had 2+ children. Now that’s somewhat unusual. And housing prices are like a supermarket checkout line: they’re fine as long as the lines are only 2-3 people. But they get overwhelmed if the lines reach 5-6 people regularly.

    That’s what’s happened to Seattle’s housing supply. Seattle’s population went down in the 1960s, and only regained its previous peak in the 2000s. Housing was cheap throughout that time. In 2012, the recovery and the Amazon boom squeezed out the last remaining slack out of the market, and $600 1 BR apartments shot up to $1000 and then $1600. That’s when unaffordability became widespread and people began moving to 200-450 sq ft apartments because they couldn’t afford anything larger. That started in 2012. In the late 2010s or early 2020s (I forget if it started before or after covid), that rising unaffordability spread to areas that weren’t coastal tech cities; San Bernardino, Idaho, Montana, Mt Vernon, etc. That put the squeeze on houses and apartments in those areas. And now it has risen to even affording a 1 BR in most of the country. This is a much bigger problem than just Seattle or microapartments: the high cost of housing needs to be dealt with head-on. Just giving people more mortgage subsidies doesn’t address it, because the people who are most suffering can’t afford a mortgage. Or even if they barely can, they rightly question whether putting all their assets and debt capacity into a single-family house is really the best thing to do.

    (And yes, tacomee will say that it is.)

    1. I somewhat disagree Mike. The average size of the one room units is 661 sf, which is pretty big for one person in a major city, which equals 1322 sf for two which is a very large unit for two.

       What the statistics tell me is Seattle has a lot of high income people who can afford to live alone in their own unit that on average is 661 sf. That is not a micro-unit or “studio”.

       Now if statistics showed 2 or 3 people living in a 661 sf unit that would be different. The poor tend to not live alone because shared housing is almost always cheaper per sf. For example, renting a room in a single family house.

       This is the finding by King Co. and the affordable housing subcommittee that found most of the housing affordable to those earning between 0% and 60% AMI is in older, shared housing that is being displaced by new construction. The new concept is to preserve that older more affordable housing while finding other areas to upzone for new housing, which must be in CO zones near walkable transit. No new housing units in a SFH zone count toward a city’s affordable housing target.

       The reason Seattle has so much single room housing is because it leads the nation in people who live alone. The two things San Francisco and Seattle have in common are very high average median incomes and a lot of folks who choose to live alone and can afford it.

       If Seattle has a key issue when it comes to affordable housing it is wealth disparity. Half earn over $117,000/year, which makes the housing market difficult for those earning 60% AMI and below. Virtually every city with a housing affordability problem is a wealthy city which means wide wealth disparity.

       It is very difficult to get builders to build non-subsidized housing that is affordable to those earning 60% AMI and below in a wealthy city, and the builders claim it can’t be done unless there is some consideration like additional height for market rate units and affordability capped at 80% for a small percentage of very small units.

       New county policies are to upzone already dense zones, not undense zones, while trying to preserve the existing, older more affordability housing because new construction is always more expensive, which is not easy to do. It will be interesting to see how these conflicting goals work out.

       1. “The average size of the one room units is 661 sf, which is pretty big for one person in a major city,”
          That’s pretty average for many cities in the US and Europe, my Denver apartment was slightly smaller than that at around 600 sq ft.

       2. My last apartment was a 348 sf studio, and I wasn’t actively using all of it. Now I have a 650 ft 1 BR for two people. It has an alcove which my bf turned into a quasi second bedroom. These sizes are fine for me, but I’m a minimalist, so I can’t expect average Americans to be as content as I am.

          The ultimate problem was allowing the housing shortage to grow into a crisis between 2003 and now. It’s much easier to nip rising rents in the bud than to try to roll them back 40% now. It’s the rising housing prices that’s creating the increasing displacement and homelessness, and it keeps marching higher up the income scale into the middle class. It’s heading toward the bad old days of the Industrial Revolution, except then they had overcrowded tenements they could afford, and now the tenements are gone with no replacement.

          Renting rooms in a single-family house can be an alternative for some, but its not a solution that can solves the problem for everybody. Single-family houses are designed for nuclear families, and even the older ones designed for extended families assume everybody has a close bond. Their location is often not close to frequent transit.

          “The new concept is to preserve that older more affordable housing while finding other areas to upzone for new housing”

          What you don’t understand is that that older housing is not affordable anymore either, or is heading that way in a few years. When a decrepit house with rotting floors sells for $600K or $1M, the idea that it’s affordable to people making $50K is ludicrous. And we shouldn’t be forcing people to take on ultra-long-term debt.

          An even more fundamental issue is inequality. In a relatively equal society with a living wage and a robust social-safety-net minimum, if there’s a housing shortage, the people who lose out are relatively random. But in a highly unequal society, the people who lose out are all skewed to the lower-income.

          The idea of not spreading upzoning because we’d spread it too thin, and we need to concentrate on the downtown core to create a real urban area, misses what Seattle is actually like. Fine, let’s not upzone the entire city, just the area inside the outermost frequent bus routes. In North Seattle, everything between 24th NW and 15th NE, from the Ship Canal to 65th. Let it be like Chicago’s North Side or Paris. The most insidious single-family areas are those right next to an urban-village center, or in between nearby villages. Mt Baker tapers down in less than five blocks, and California Ave SW infamously has single-family just a block or two on either side of the main street. Those are the low-hanging fruit. And those houses aren’t “affordable” now, so you’re not displacing a struggling family, if anything you’re displacing the upper 30%.

11. On the topic of Snoqualmie Valley Transit running on weekends…it sounds nice at first, but I don’t see how the connection between an SVT bus running every 90 minutes and a route 208 bus running every two hours can be anything but terrible.

    So, even if you can technically ride the bus from Seattle to Carnation on a weekend now, it’s going to be a long, arduous journey.

    1. In the summer, there’s also the Trailhead Direct Mt Si route that provides a transfer opportunity, which at least has 30 minute headways.

       1. That definitely helps, although it requires some out-of-direction travel and the schedule isn’t really useful for Snoqualmie Valley residents. And, of course, the limited season.

          Still, if it stopped by Snoqualmie Casino, ran both directions, and ran year round, it would allow SVT riders to connect with the rest of the county much more easily.

12. Just wondering currently the estimated cost of ballard/west seattle link has increased from 7 billion to 12 billion and now it’s estimated at 15 billion. I know they’ve delayed the projects by a couple years but has anyone actually done an in depth calculation of where this extra money is coming from? Delaying from 2035 to 2039 doesn’t seem to add up to enough extra money for the north king subarea.

    Is it just taken from the other subareas? I notice some of the sounder projects are delayed in the realignment and/or parking projects are cancelled but does that really add up to enough money.

    1. It can’t be taken from other sub areas. That’s why they’re building Issaquah – Kirkland: the Eastside leaders had to come up with something that looked almost useful in order to do something with the funds from the extra time required to fund North King projects.

    2. My understanding is that ST can raise taxes forever. They are limited to how much debt they can incur at any one point though. So basically the cost overruns just push the plans out farther and farther. Each time the project gets pushed out, the price gets pushed up, especially if you assume the dollar amount for when it is actually spent. But those numbers don’t necessarily reflect higher costs per tax dollar, as the tax dollar will be increasing at the same time.

    3. I should add that adjustments could also happen along the way. Ballard Link construction is supposed to take from 2027 to 2039. That is a long time (and a long time from now). Thus it is quite possible that in 2030 (a few years into the construction but still nine years away from completion as of now) they adjust the timeline some more and delay it further.

Comments are closed.