Daniel Steiner reviews how Seattle’s geography evolved throughout its history. Daniel discusses the impact of trains and mass transit at 22:20.
This is an Open Thread.
96 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Seattle’s Map, Explained”
I saw something new and unexpected yesterday after the Husky game — three kids boarding Link at Husky Stadium with spinning rods in hand.
I talked to them. They came down from Lynnwood on Link to fish because Husky Stadium has the first access to good fishing anywhere along the line. And they caught fish too!.
Now that is a transportation use of Link and LLE that I hadn’t anticipated.
I don’t think that “fishing” as a transportation purpose is going to add any significant amount to overall Link ridership, but transit is what you make out of it. And these kids had obviously had a good day fishing because of Link.
It was also pointed out to me after the fact that there will eventually be a fishing pier on the waterfront at Jackson, just down from IDS and also the current First Hill Streetcar terminus. So maybe we will see more of this in the future.
I think there are a lot of places where you can take transit and then fish. A fair number of people fish at Myrtle Edwards and the 24/33 goes there (with a bit of a walk — https://maps.app.goo.gl/pZ1YKp7bVcsTd4K86). Some people fish Green Lake and there is transit access there. Likewise with much of Lake Washington. There is a tribal fishing dock off of Bell downtown. I think the closest transit is on Third, which is about a ten minute walk. Google Maps shows it as being longer (https://maps.app.goo.gl/tJcadEHH2NLxbGE49) but Google Maps often gets confused with pedestrian directions.
A fishing dock off of Jackson will be very accessible, as there are a bunch of buses that go there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yDveDh4Ukhzzoabw7). This is the first I’ve heard of it, but it is hard to keep track of all the goings-on at the waterfront.
The kids bring up another important use case for transit in general – without the kids able to ride themselves, everywhere they go, their parents have to drive them. Which means, one of the parents must either sit around and wait for the kids to fish, or spent two hours out of their day driving back and forth.
A lot of coverage-oriented bus routes in the suburbs may have ridership that looks unimpressive on its own, but I suspect, if the bus didn’t run, a lot of the trips taken on the bus would otherwise involve family or friends driving the person around, creating a lot of deadhead mileage, over and above the actual trip.
What ages were the kids? Was there an older child that appeared to be lead? I see high school age riders often by themselves or with peers. I’m curious how younger aged riders are by themselves or just with peers.
Some parents allow their kids to travel without adult supervision at a younger age than others. Most kids get naturally more adventurous as they age and transit can give them independence.
I’ve met several adults who were taught that any transit was too dangerous for anyone — so even as adults they steer clear of transit, unfortunately.
To counter this, I’ve wondered if there should be certain ages to create some sort of transit-inspired teaching tools. Math lessons seem obvious (fares and travel times). Reading comprehension (instructions) and map reading (geography) can also be taught. Transit can also be used to teach about local history.
With gaming such a big industry in Seattle, I could that also being a good tool to familiarize strangers (both kids and adults) to transit. (Admittedly, I wish there was an educational game about negotiating transit with a wheelchair or bicycle so that people making the Link design decisions could better understand what decades of reality they force upon others when they merely “design to code” rather than design for users in crowds.)
I started taking Metro alone in junior high to something called the Record Library on Broadway, and soon to the downtown library and the U-District. The main thing holding me back was not my parents but my own fear of not knowing what to do on a bus since I’d never been on one. But once I started taking Metro home from school, soon I was taking it everywhere. This was in the late 70s when parents were less paranoid and many kids were “latchkey children”, but there’s no reason it can’t have a revival now.
“With gaming such a big industry in Seattle, I could that also being a good tool to familiarize strangers (both kids and adults) to transit.”
That’s a good idea. Riding transit is a skill that should be taught to every child. There can be simple one-task games and elaborate multi-task games (like a scavenger hunt).
I’ve read about parents who give their kids one task at a time; e.g., they’ll take their kids to a NYC subway station, give them money for fares and an emergency call, and tell them to go to such-and-such station or do such-and-such task in three hours. The kids have to figure out the route and transfer, the procedure for boarding, etc.
I started riding the bus when I was eight, but admittedly, that was in the 1950’s and in Oklahoma. But I had two routes to choose from; one on 11th and one on 15th, a half mile apart. Long north-south blocks…..
My son started riding his bike to school I elementary school, and riding the bus solo at 14. Though that was admittedly the edge of acceptability. It was also in Albuquerque, which lacks both the fear safety and the concern trolling that Seattle has.
It also helped that he has always been 99 percentile in height.
He got his driver’s license last week. I mourn.
asdf2: this is one of the reasons I make a point of taking my kid home from school & day camps via transit, despite the occasional fussing: as teenage independence develops, I want walking & transit to feel like a familiar and normal way of getting around the city.
When I rode the 168 one Saturday morning westbound from Maple Valley to Kent, a father and young son got at one of the 2000s house tracts east of Lake Meridian. The boy was excited to go on a bus trip to the big city like his dad does on his weekday commutes.
Btw if you guys want to view the older Seattle streetcar maps:
Rainier was served by the Seattle Renton & Southern Railway from 1891 to 1934, which resisted all attempts at municipalization and reportedly offered poor service. They also refused to allow the city to pave the space between the rails, maintaining separation from general traffic but also maintaining a “thoroughfare of death” as drivers and pedestrians attempted to cross the unpaved rails. The City refused to renew their operating permit in 1934, and replaced its service with trolleybuses soon after.
What a shame to have lost so much.
How realistic is it for ST to adopt higher speed rolling stock in the future (e.g. with top speed of 65-75mph) and run them on existing lines at higher speed, after retiring/repurposing existing cars towards other uses?
It wouldn’t make a difference the vehicle.
I can discuss this more in depth if people really want to know but practically speaking the max speed has everything to do with the alignment almost nothing to do with upgrading the vehicle.
For instance the SeaTac to Tibs to Rainier beach section it is the curves that are the limiting speed not the vehicle
There are a few curves in that section that slow the train down, but there are many more straight sections where the 55mph limit of the rolling stock is reached.
The re-use of the bus tunnel was an economy measure that helped get the system started, but it limits the max speed capability forever by requiring low floor trains. 55mph is too slow for the distances covered now. Hopefully in the future there will be low floor vehicles that can go faster.
“55mph is too slow for the distances covered now.”
That should have been obvious in the 1990s when ST was planning a Spine from Everett to Seattle to Tacoma, the freeways were 65 mph. But ST capped it at 55 because it didn’t think it would need even thatL he original vision was a lot more surface like previous light rails (MAX, San Diego, San Jose). The original alignment was surface from Intl Dist around the northeast side of Beacon Hill to MLK and Tukwila Intl Blvd to the airport. And presumably continuing that way to Tacoma Dome. So trains would only be running 35 mph except a few stretches like the Lake Washingon Bridge. (The alignment north of the U-District wasn’t fully specified yet.)
Similar to speed, is that express trains are needed. These milk runs are fine for short distances but faster service skipping stops is essential and with those faster trains.
The Georgetown Bypass would be a key piece of an express line and actually allow for the Rainier Valley segment to be rebuilt grade separated. I don’t think there is really any other way to grade separate Rainier Valley than maintaining service during construction with the bypass.
The simplest path to having an express overlay for Link is to lean on Sounder during peak hours and buses down I-5, the rest of the time. It doesn’t have to require spending billions on new track.
The simplest path to having an express overlay for Link is to lean on Sounder during peak hours and buses down I-5, the rest of the time. It doesn’t have to require spending billions on new track.
Exactly.
The Georgetown Bypass would be a key piece of an express line and actually allow for the Rainier Valley segment to be rebuilt grade separated. I don’t think there is really any other way to grade separate Rainier Valley than maintaining service during construction with the bypass.
If you are going to rebuild the Rainier Valley section as grade-separated then it makes sense to shift service to Rainier Avenue (in between Rainier Beach Station and Mount Baker Station). You could do most of the work without effecting Link. The 7 would be disrupted, but they could run better connecting buses over to the Link stations.
If you did make the Rainier Valley section grade-separated then building the Georgetown line becomes even sillier. If Rainier Valley is grade-separated you solve the biggest weaknesses in the south end (inability to automate or increase headways). Of course you would have to grade-separate SODO as well. Once you did all that the Georgetown bypass becomes largely redundant.
Either way, the bypass is silly. Georgetown is simply not a large enough destination to justify such an expensive project (requiring miles and miles of track). The dynamic is completely wrong. You decrease frequency in Rainer Valley while increasing frequency farther south. That is backwards. If you want to talk about a branch to Renton, be my guest. At least that has a sensible split in service (Rainier Valley would get twice the frequency of either branch). Trains running every five minutes (or better) in Rainier Valley with trains to Renton and SeaTac every ten is quite reasonable. (But again, that would require grade separating the line in Rainier Valley.)
Ross, you don’t have to grade-separate SoDo to automate it; you just have to fence the right of way effectively. Very few pedestrians are walking between Fourth and Sixth on any pathway other than Lander, Holgate and/or Lower Royal Brougham. A good high fence with curved back fence bars will do the job of keeping trespassers out.
I don’t think it would help much. 55 mph vs. 65 mph is a difference of about 10 seconds per mile, but only on the miles that a more advanced train could actually go 65 on. Which, given all the curves and stations along the line, is not actually that much.
But it adds up. On the north line and the outer sections of the south line, the train does spend most of the time at max speed, despite the odd tight curve (such as between Rainier Beach and Tukwila)
I feel like ST might be able to save more time by reducing the dwell time trains spend at stations. I never really understood why trains spend as long as they do outside of peak hours, or at stations that see fewer boardings. I assume it’s a consistency/scheduling thing but reducing dwell time at each station would really add up over the course of a run.
Would platform screen doors help speed up trains too? Trains today must enter a station at a lower speed to glide past the platform safely.
A train going 10 miles an hour faster is only just a minute faster every 6 miles, right? Adding in the effects of stopping as well as speed limited sections would reduce the amount of time savings too. So a speed improvement wouldn’t yield that much.
It would seem to suggest to instead to design tracks for a different vehicle at least 25 mph faster for top speeds with a cross platform transfer. That could then allow for battery electric trains that would not need expensive catenary wire and power. But the line would still need to be long enough (say at least 8-10 miles) to make the short cross-platform timed transfer time penalty worthwhile. And ST as an agency is not proactive about building any cross platform transfers — opting instead for a real life replica of Chutes and Ladders in its station designs without the convenience of redundant or usually even down escalators.
Top speed is much more important for a route like Sounder vs. Link, due to the track being straighter and the stations, much further apart.
Every minute adds up.
It’s a good question!
My quick armchair research is that there are multiple systems decisions involved beyond just buying new vehicles. That includes track curve radii, signal system/ train control system requirements and other factors. For example, the curve radii affects the size of the vehicle wheels and that in turn affects maximum speeds. So while there are industry standards, a transit agency has to order vehicles that can specifically run on their tracks and stop at their stations (platform heights and lengths).
If an agency builds a new line rather than merely extends a line, they have more flexibility to design for faster trains.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Unfortunately that ship (vehicle design) has sailed. Limited to low floor vehicles by the existing stations, and limited in length and articulation by the extremely tight curves in the maintenance facilities and between Westlake and University St.
You can read it here about the Siemens s700 low floor the max speed is 65 mph.
Seattle link probably just enforces a lower speed limit and other cities have a lower limit than the 65 mph but it really isn’t due to low floor trains can’t run that fast. If everyone’s really that interested in settling this debate I can send some emails to sound transit and Siemens to triple check but I’m pretty sure they’ll just confirm what I’ve already said
Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee had cars that would operate just fine on sharp curves and streetcar tracks in downtown Milwaukee, hit 90mph+ between the two cities, and operate on the L structure and its sharp curves in Chicago.
Nobody had asked for anything like that before, and 100 years later nobody has asked for that since. In most places, there are intercity trains and local trains, and they don’t try to do both.
Most countries don’t have to work around private freight railroads when planning regional passenger trains though, so it may be time to stop basing US light rail cars off of European designs and develop something that’s able to operate at higher speeds, for the conditions forced on operators here not being able to easily get access to tracks more suitable for longer distance services.
Notably, LA Metro’s C Line (Glenn’s hyperlink) uses high floor vehicles.
What does floor height have to do with speed?
Actually checking the brochure it says for Seattle
Maximum operational speed: 55 mph
Maximum allowable speed: 65 mph
Aka the light rail trains that we have can already travel faster, but are limited by operational/alignment geometry concerns not the vehicle itself.
@WL: There are sections that are pretty straight in the alignment e.g. along I5 or from Cap Hill to UW – so theoretically they can go faster there?
“Maximum allowable speed: 65 mph”
That sounds familiar. There are two issue: the quality and durability of the train components (higher-speed trains cost more), and the maximiun track turning/minimum incline specs. Since the Spine is in the BART distance range, ST should have ordered 85 mph trains and designed the alignment to accommodate it.
But at least 65 mph trains are better than 55 mph trains. The ST board made noises in the mid 2010s about reviewing the Rainier Beach-TIB segment to see if it could speed it up. I haven’t heard that study was even done.
@Nameless
Those sections really aren’t that far apart. Perhaps link could go slightly faster, but then it’d soon need apply the brakes to slow down anyways. This isn’t BART with a ~6 mile section between embarcadero and west oakland station.
I guess to clarify slightly, perhaps what ya’ll are asking is not really about the max speed but faster acceleration / deacceleration. Aka most urban metros max speeds are not above 45/50 mph either but then have faster acceleration and deacceleration to the next station.
Though checking the spec it says 3 mphps (3 mph per second) which is the same as BART. I do not know if link light rail operators actually accelerate that fast though.
anyways the more I check, the more it is reconfirming what I earlier said over and over, it is about the alignment and track not the vehicle. I am not sure how much more I can emphasize that it rarely has to do with the vehicle, especially since this is already electrified. It is not as if we are going from diesel to electrified trains like caltrain.
@Nameless
Actually, I forget where I read that in a meeting about lynnwood link service patterns, but sound transit did comment on that segment between northgate to chinatown. IIRC They said due to lack of maintenance on the track they had to run the trains slower than expected in the tunnel. It’s part of why they need to buy more trains since they need more than expected to run the same frequency.
But again it had nothing to do with the vehicle itself.
The vehicle design also can be sensitive to wobbling at higher speeds both from the track design and from the wheel installation itself (and the weight of different passenger loads and locations in the vehicle too). A vehicle designer would explain the physics of it where I can’t — but I’m aware that it can be a major issue.
“Perhaps link could go slightly faster, but then it’d soon need apply the brakes to slow down anyways.”
You can feel Link accelerate and decelerate. It only does so at the beginning and ends of the segments between UW and Capitol Hill or Capitol Hill and Westlake. Most of the time it’s running at cruising speed just like a car. When people feel the train slow down, that’s the signal to organize your possessions to get up when it reaches the station. That happens near the end of the segment, not at the middle.
It’s 1 mile between stations on MAX along I-84. The original hope was they would be able to find cars that could go 70 mph in this section, but the fastest anyone offered in a proven design was 55 mph / 90kph. With all the trouble with the Boeing light rail cars a few years earlier, nobody wanted to try anything new. Many places seemed to fall into the 55 mph line after that, for whatever reason.
Link uses station distances greater than 1 mile in many places. So, it would benefit Link more than MAX to have a higher speed.
It’d probably be good to see what the added costs and benefits would be of increased speed. The maintenance and energy costs would be slightly higher, but that might be offset by each train being able to make more trips per shift. With Link’s length, that’s not insignificant.
Glenn, what about the Norristown High Speed Line?
I wish the off-peak trips would not have the same scheduled dwell times as the peak trips. ST has plenty of data how much dwell time is needed at each station by time of day and day of week.
I guess to clarify slightly, perhaps what ya’ll are asking is not really about the max speed but faster acceleration / deacceleration.
I rode (for the first time) from SeaTac to Northgate a couple weeks ago. I was alone and had brought a magazine, but I decided to do focus on the ride, and do a little research while on the train. The view was OK, but not stupendous. Granted it wasn’t completely clear — I would guess the view of Rainier would be great on a nice day — but it didn’t strike me as being as nice as the bus over Aurora (or the buses that went over I-5). Anyway, just to confirm what WL said, it was clear that the train was not going especially fast between TIBS and Rainier Beach, despite the huge distance between the stations. You could tell that the curves greatly effected that top speed.
As it ran through Rainier Valley, the dwell times were shockingly long. Counting the time it was going really slow (on the approach and pulling away from it) I counted a full minute at one of the stops. The train spent a huge amount of time at every station with the doors open as well. (I forgot to take notes on the timing but it seemed quite excessive.) To me that is the big difference. The dwell time of Link is enormous. This has a much bigger impact (on a lot more riders) then the top speed of the vehicle. Obviously some of the issues are related to crossing streets (in Rainier Valley and SoDo). The train may be waiting at the station instead of waiting at the light. This is just the price you pay for lack of grade separation.
But even the grade-separated stations have really long dwell times. I’m not sure why. Maybe because ST feels like they need to allow plenty of time for people to get on, given how infrequent the trains are. If so, this is another issue with infrequent trains. They run slower because they run less often.
“But even the grade-separated stations have really long dwell times. I’m not sure why. ”
I believe that it has to do with the downstream traffic signal. It takes a long time for a pedestrian to cross a street so the signals don’t turn green for the trains right away. So the train doors are held open until the train is given permission to cross the next street.
“I wish the off-peak trips would not have the same scheduled dwell times as the peak trips. ST has plenty of data how much dwell time is needed at each station by time of day and day of week.”
That point is actually trickier than it seems because off-peak Link ridership is influenced heavily by events. A train that might be 1/4 full most of the time might be crushloaded if a Mariner’s game just ended and a whole stadium full of people are trying to go home, all at once.
I suspect dwell time may also be influenced by signals (better to have the train wait at the station with doors open than to wait 10 feet in front of the station with doors closed, in case somebody shows up running to catch the train).
Dwell time may also have a padding component, where if a train gets delayed a bit by signals, it can dwell less at stops further down the line to make up time. Without the padding, signals in the Rainier valley could potentially lead to train bunching all the way to Lynnwood.
I mean all of our link trains have drivers, can’t they look out a mirror and then leave once there’s no more passengers on the platform? If there’s an event then dwell longer.
They do do that, and they think they leave at the appropriate time. Just because you can’t see somebody getting into or out of your car doesn’t mean people aren’t getting into or out of another car. There also needs to be time for disabled people, people navigating crowded aisles, people unsteady on their feet, and people carrying heavy groceries to get to the door or to their seat so they don’t tumble to the floor when the train starts moving.
When a train leaves a station isn’t always up to the train operator. Link Control Center sometimes tells a Link operator to hold at a certain station, and will be told when they can proceed.
Norristown cars are basically slightly narrowed subway cars with high floors and fully powered bogies,
Does Link use “request” signaling? Or does the ATC give a green a certain number of seconds after the train comes to rest?
Focusing on better transfers between lines, and between busses and light rail, would likely save more people more time than any increase in top speed.
Sound Transit’s service changes seem to be routing the 554/556 onto Eastgate P&R instead of the freeway stop, effective Sep 14. Right now the eastbound buses use the freeway stop while the westbound buses have been using the P&R for a few months, adding a few minutes to each journey.
Yes, that’s been in the announcements. There must be construction at the freeway station.
I’m guessing this is construction-related, and hopefully, temporary.
Did my first new commute using the shoreline south station instead of Northgate as the final terminus (was out of town last week). The extension – and a family schedule change – has allowed me to do bike-train-bike instead of bus-train-bus and it whacked a full 25 minutes off my door to door time!
Now I can replace driving with transit nearly every day of the week instead of just when I feel like waking up an hour early. Goodbye staring at taillights!
How crowded was Link? Were any seats left by the time the train reached Shoreline South?
I’m that weirdo riding up to shoreline for work. The train is nearly empty NB at 6:45 AM after UW.
The Seattle Center Monorail is proposing to raise its fares effective January 1, 2025.
The regular fare would increase from the current $3.50 to $4.00. Reduced fares would increase from the current $1.75 to $3.50.
Monorail-only monthly passes (not on ORCA) would increase from $70 to $80, and from $35 for reduced categories to $40.
Public comment on the proposal is being taken through October 21, 2024.
Typo: The reduced fares would increase from $1.75 to $2.00.
The monorail must be trying to drive resident passengers away. $4 for a 1.5 mile trip on long-paid-off 1960s technology when you can get to Lakewood for less than that or take Sounder to Kent for the same amount.
Long paid off, but far from maintenance-free. As ALWEG is out of business, all replacement parts have to be custom-manufactured. As far as I’m aware, the Monorail’s operations aren’t significantly subsidized by general taxes, and they are still planning to construct a new station to serve Belltown once BLE swoops most of their ridership to the former Key Arena.
“they are still planning to construct a new station to serve Belltown”
They are? This isn’t just a comment section wishlist item?
I thought there was some more recent updates to this, but maybe those were just related to the renovation of the Monorail’s stations in preparation of the Climate Pledge Arena’s opening.
@Nathan Dickey,
They are not planning to add a Belltown station to the monorail. That was just a technical feasibility study, and a pretty superficial one at that.
Adding such a station would cut monorail capacity by half, and would only be possible AFTER Link opens to Seattle Center. I.e., it would be Link that would make such a station possible by replacing the lost monorail capacity.
I don’t think a cost analysis was ever completed. The loss of capacity coupled with the operational issues of having dual, bi-directional platforms that don’t connect should be enough to kill such a concept even without a cost analysis.
Is the monorail so packed most of the time that it can’t have a third station? The extraordinary crowds after a game aren’t a typical load. Few people would be getting on/off at Belltown anyway compared to Seattle Center. And at worst trains could simply bypass the station to clear the crowds. (They wouldn’t be able to get on anyway.)
If someone pays $4 for a monorail ride, then they (1) do not have an event ticket for the Pledge; (2) do not have a monthly pass; (3) Do not have an ORCA card or a virtual ORCA card on an Android phone, which allows them to purchase a regional day pass (currently $6) which covers the first $3.50 of the ride.
Basically, that leaves infrequent and first-time riders, which could include locals, but mostly soaks the tourists, so the monorail’s ticket income can help subsidize Seattle Center programs. (The monorail is in the Seattle Center Department, not SDoT)
The reduced-fare regional day pass, now $2 through February 2025, covers the first $1.75 of the trip.
Youth 6-18 still have to use a youth ORCA card, or pay the reduced fare.
Keeping the regional day pass prices down is probably a lot more impactful on ridership than the monorail’s insistence on charging as if it is a premium service comparable to the ferries or Sounder.
If someone pays $4 for a monorail ride, then they (1) do not have an event ticket for the Pledge; (2) do not have a monthly pass; (3) Do not have an ORCA card or a virtual ORCA card on an Android phone, which allows them to purchase a regional day pass (currently $6) which covers the first $3.50 of the ride.
I get the first group, but not the third. First of all, there are two types of day passes. For fares up to $3.50 it costs $8. For fares up to $1.75 it costs $4. Second, if you exceed that fare, you have to pay the difference. So someone who does a round trip on the monorail could end up paying $9, not $8 (for their daily transit experience). So even if they buy a day pass (which would not be a good deal if they are only doing a typical round-trip) this saves them nothing. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/fares-and-payment/prices#regional-day-pass
As far as I’m aware, the Monorail’s operations aren’t significantly subsidized by general taxes,
Right, which is the problem. They make a profit — on the backs of transit riders. A lot of the folks are tourists, so the assumption is that it is OK. It is like charging for the Ferris Wheel — who cares? But a lot of the users are just trying to get around the city.
Imagine if Link was focused on making a profit (to pay for operations). They would have to charge a lot more and would likely instantly go back to charging more — a lot more — for the longer rides. Charging $10 to go the airport is quite reasonable given the alternatives (parking is extremely expensive as are cab rides). Would we be happy, since Link is actually making money?
Of course not. This is price gouging. I also think the city (or county) should seriously consider taking over operations of the monorail. It is not a toy. It is a vital part of our transit system. Lots of people take it every day, including people who are going to Uptown (not the Seattle Center).
Around 11% of the monorail operating costs are federal, as are some 80% of the capital costs:
I haven’t had a day pass since Metro had weekend passes in the 80s, and I don’t know how to get one, and I’m not going to make a special trip to a Link TVM or order anything online. I had monthly passes throughout the 2010s, but in the post-covid era I travel less so now I just have an e-purse. There are probably other people who also travel less and no longer have monthly passes. If I hear the Monorail’s fare is $4 I’m liable to forget it may be reduced with an ORCA transfer, and even with a transfer I’d still pay $4 for that trip.
For decades I avoided the monorail because it cost more than the Seattle Center buses and didn’t accept transfers. In the 2010s I finally got over that and started riding the monrail again because it was only an extra $2.50 each way and I could treat it as part of my Seattle Center experience. But if the fare goes to $4 I may rethink that again.
Ballard Link is so far away and uncertain that it seems silly to count on a Belltown station now. It won’t help anybody for the next twenty-five years at least.
The city owns the monorail, and Seattle Center is a city department. So any extra Seattle Center revenue goes back to the city.
I don’t agree that charging more for Link is “price gouging”, depending on the price and trip.
The ST levies assumed farebox recovery would cover 40% of operations and maintenance. O&M costs don’t magically disappear if farebox recovery is less than 40% or O&M costs are more than estimated. The other option is to ignore O&M and that has serious consequences when the bill comes due, like with MTA, or “value engineering” we see at some stations that is designed to not only reduce capital costs but future maintenance costs. So riders pay with inconvenience.
I don’t think Link from Lynnwood (or in the future Everett) to the airport should cost $3, including a feeder bus or free park and ride, the same as from CHS to Westlake. That is a massive subsidy for some riders not based on income that is made up by others and by deferred maintenance and value engineering.
I also question $3 Link fares when farebox recovery today is closer to 15% and ST admits it underestimated future O&M costs. $3 Link fares are lower in many cases than the buses they replacedvdespite fee splitting with feeder buses.
Transit is heavily subsidized by general taxes and should be subsidized but transit shouldn’t be allowed to ignore economic realities such as inflation, higher than estimated O&M costs, lower ridership, lower fare payment percentages, and a 30 mile trip with free feeder bus or park and ride costs the same as a one mile urban trip, or its own actuarial estimates, because those economic realities don’t magically disappear.
When we allow transit agencies to ignore their own assumptions and promises and economic realities we invite dishonesty in what the public is told these projects will cost which we see virtually in every levy and every large public project.
If someone’s income requires subsidies that should be dealt with individually. It is why ST express buses charged higher fares to peak work commuters.
Instead almost universally with transit agencies O&M is ignored or skimped on when assumed farebox recovery does not meet assumed O&M costs, until as a transit agency ages it becomes unmanageable to deal with and service becomes so bad it isn’t worth it and riders stop riding.
@Mike Orr,
“Is the monorail so packed most of the time that it can’t have a third station?”
Yes. It is that full often, very often. And not just for major events like Folk Life, but on routine days when a plethora of small events are occurring simultaneously.
And don’t forget, the monorail only has two vehicles. And those Alwegs are really old, and often one of them is out of service for maintenance. It is a common occurrence.
When one of the vehicles is out of service the capacity of the monorail is already reduced by 50%. Adding this station would reduce the remaining capacity by a further 50%. Meaning total capacity would be reduced by 75% whenever one Alweg was down for maintenance.
The last 50 years on Seattle has seen increased congestion and increased demand for transit. That won’t change. So reducing capacity by 50% every day, and 75% frequently, ought to be a non-starter.
And all this is without any cost or ridership estimates. That is not the way to spend dollars wisely and increase transit ridership.
@Glenn, in 2019, 100% of operations were self-funded:
The Federal funding was likely COVID support funding.
@Victor — To be clear I think $4 for the monorail is price gouging. Almost every agency operates with a subsidy*. But I have heard people brag that the monorail is the only transit system that makes a project. Sure, but that is not a good thing! Not if it means they are charging more than a bus as well as a trip on the train from Angle Lake to Lynnwood!
Link is a different story. I think they should charge per distance. But that doesn’t mean that a trip from Lynnwood to the airport should cost $10. By the way, when Link did charge by distance a trip like the one for the monorail cost $2.25. This seems quite reasonable. But if the the monorail simply charged what Metro charges for their buses (which go a lot farther) then it would be fine (and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion). Even charging $3 (like Link) would be OK. But $4 is just gouging.
* There are systems (mostly in Japan) that have greater than 100% fare recovery. This is likely due to very high use per service hour. Most of these are distance based (but a few are flat rate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
> Adding such a station would cut monorail capacity by half, and would only be possible AFTER Link opens to Seattle Center.
Lazarus that is not how adding a station works to calculating capacity. The main bottleneck is westlake only having a single station.
The station would add 4-6 minutes to round trip time, reducing the system’s post-event capacity to move passengers out of Seattle Center Station by half. Considering this, the station should be implemented in 2035 when the Link Light Rail ST3 line with a stop near Seattle Center can make up for the lost capacity.
@WL,
“ that is not how adding a station works”
That is incorrect. The monorail only runs 2 vehicle max on two separate tracks, reversing at each end. Doubling the transit time by adding a mid-run station would exactly cut the capacity in half.
It’s just math. Half the trains departing Seattle Center is half the capacity.
And, beyond that, it is the Seattle Monorail’s own study that says that capacity would be cut in half. You might not believe me, but you at least should believe the people who run the monorail. After all, they are the experts.
@Nathan
Thanks for the information and citation.
@Lazarus
Unfortunately I would have believe you more often if we didn’t have to call out your mistakes in the past. This is what happens when you kept making unsubstantiated claims and now others have to check any of your statements.
In terms of transportation, the monorail is closer to the SF Cable Car than a public bus route. It’s more tourist ride than public transit. The Cable Car, btw, charges $8.00 for adults. $4.00 for seniors and disabled. The comment section would have a point (which it doesn’t), if the only transportation between the Seattle Center and downtown was the monorail, but there are frequent Metro routes on both the east and west side of the Seattle Center to downtown. Monorails, gondolas, cable cars, horse carriage rides, geared toward tourists, usually charge a premium.
Would Seattle taxpayers prefer to subsidize projected monorail operating costs out of the transit measure funding?
It is more in line with the original purpose of the measure, funding more service hours.
The first thing I’d fund is replacement revenue for dropping the monorail reduced fares down to $1, in line with the reduced fares of all the transit connecting to the monorail. Then, if there is more money left, bring the regular monorail fare down to the same as light rail. But I’d also consider leaving the non-ORCA fare higher.
As taxpayers, we heavily subsidize all other public transit. Why not the monorail?
The SF cable cars have the same travel time as parallel bus routes. The monorail is much faster so it’s a better level of service. That means it should be positioned so that it’s everybody’s first choice, not with a “premium” fare that drives people away if they’re not in a few assumed categories. It’s similar to how BART charges a little more than MUNI for comparable trips (within San Franscisco) but not a lot more. Whereas the monorail will be almost double Metro’s fare.
I had firsthand experience with the cable cars when I stayed at Fisherman’s Wharf for a conference downtown. All transit modes had the same 20-minute travel time: the Hyde-Mason cable car, the F streetcar, the 8 bus (the closest), and the Van Ness bus. So it’s reasonable to charge more for the cable car because you’re riding it for the historic vehicle, not as the only best way to get from A to B (which is what transit is for).
First we’d need to know why the monorail fare is rising so much, what the money will go to, and whether the monorail really needs it to keep up with operations and maintenance. If it’s really an excess fare to soak tourists and pay for more Seattle Center programs, then it interferes with locals’ lives too much. We already pay a hospitality tax on hotel nights (which residents rarely do) and restaurants (an optional luxury). We shouldn’t have to pay it as part of the basic transit network. When the monorail started accepting ORCA and transfers, that was an attempt to make it more of the basic transit network. Uniquely high fares is a step in the opposite direction.
If the monorail flat-out can’t afford operations and maintenance without the high fare, then it can be tolerable in the short term while we figure out a better operations/revenue structure for the monorail. But it shouldn’t just be the default long-term.
I got to ride the cable car a couple decades ago. It was slower than the buses, had stops just as frequently, and shared the same views. It was used as public transit by San Franciscans to get up and down steep hills. It bore no resemblance to the monorail, except for the high tourist-trap fares.
“The ST levies assumed farebox recovery would cover 40% of operations and maintenance.”
Let’s avoid turning every non-Link issue into a Link issue, as a few commentators tend to do.
“transit shouldn’t be allowed to ignore economic realities such as inflation, higher than estimated O&M costs, lower ridership, lower fare payment percentages…”
The fare has to be at the sweet spot to maximize ridership. There are several public benefits to people riding transit besides the benefit to the passenger. It’s the most efficient and cost-effective way to move people (if we don’t expect everyone to only walk or bike, and if the travel area is larger than say 3 miles across). It has a much smaller environmental and space footprint than if everybody drove cars. It’s equitable because both upper class and lower class people can afford it. It encourages social interaction and being part of a community as opposed to being in a house-car-destination bubble. It maximizes economic activity and sales-tax revenue because anyone can ride it to work or shop, without the deterrence of a $10,000/year car or a $30 taxi ride. So if somebody else spends $3 for a 10-mile transit trip, that benefits you and the city and everybody else, as well as the passenger.
If the passenger is deterred due to high fares ($4, $10, $20), then everybody loses out. They’ll either drive or take a taxi or not make the trip. Then they’re not filling a job opening during a labor shortage, not spending on a clerk’s wages and sales taxes, not getting healthcare they need, not spending time with friends or walking in nature to maintain their mental health, and not helping relatives or volunteering. Every trasprortation mode is subsidized for this reason. Transit should be subsidized highly (and higher than driving) because it’s the most efficient and cost-effective transportation mode (other than bicycles or sidewalks).
Fares have no intrinsic relationship to operational costs: they’re an arbitrary decision by the political entity. Most of the operational revenue comes from taxes. Fares should be set at the sweet spot that maximizes ridership and is reasonably equitable.
Link’s $3 flat fare is questionable because it penalizes in-city and short-distance trips, which is where a subway is the most effective and generates the most ridership and gets the most people out of cars. It will make more sense when Metro’s fare reaches $3, as we assume it will soon because it’s long overdue for an increase. But that still won’t wipe out the extraordinary subsidy given to long-distance suburban trips (Lynnwood-SeaTac, future Everett-downtown and Tacoma-downtown). ST is arguing the flat fare is better for simplicity and the suburbanization of poverty, but that just lets the majority of suburban riders (who are non-poor) skate on the backs of urban riders. And who needs simplicity when the ORCA card calculates the fares for you? All you need to know is your most common reference fare (e.g, downtown-Lynnwood), and you can estimate other trips as more or less than that, to avoid spending more than you can.
“I got to ride the cable car a couple decades ago. It was slower than the buses”
The cable cars were probably refurbished since then. That was my impression too from riding them in the 80s, that they were slower than buses. But when I rode them again around 2014, I found they were faster than I thought.
“The SF cable cars have the same travel time as parallel bus routes.”
I wouldn’t call any nearby transit service “parallel” to the SF Cable Cars. The closest is the 30-Stockton — but Nob Hill is so steep that it’s not actually parallel. And it moves through Chinatown as slow as the cable cars climb Nob Hill.
“It bore no resemblance to the monorail, except for the high tourist-trap fares.”
Those tourist trap fares go down a bit with a MUNI visitor’s ticket.
The Portland arial tram charges a tourist trap fare too, which goes away with a TriMet day ticket.
The problem with the $4 fares is that then falls outside the $3.50 limit on the ORCA regional day pass, so now everyone pays more, even if they have a regional pass.
I cringe every time someone tries to make a social equity argument by citing the oh-so-downtrodden riders from Capitol Hill to Westlake.
But at least the argument isn’t turned into an anti-public-transit talking point akin to: The Seattle Monorail makes an operating profit off of the fares it collects! So, why can’t other transit agencies do the same? If they can’t shouldn’t they be shut down?
Count that as one more argument in favor of subsidizing monorail operations (enough to allow for regional fare consolidation) out of tax revenue.
The monorail fares are already uniquely high among peer services. I’m pretty sure the operating budget would be in the red if monorail fares were rolled back to match Link fares tomorrow.
“oh-so-downtrodden riders from Capitol Hill to Westlake.”
In-city and short-distance trips includes downtown to Rainier Beach (an equity area), downtown to U-District, UW to Roosevelt, Northgate to Shoreline, etc. And on the 2 Line, downtown Bellevue to Overlake Village and Redmond Tech.
Now tha5 lle has been open over a week, how has crowding been in the core. I’m thinking chs to stadium in particular. How is it playing out so far?
Tlsgwm (or however you spell your handle), would you be interested in writing an article about Community Transit’s Saturday restructure? We don’t have another Snohomish County expert on staff. It’s late notice so if it’s not ready until after Saturday, that’s fine. Or is there anybody else who would want to do this? If so, you can email the editors at the contact address (contact at seattletransitblog.com).
I saw something new and unexpected yesterday after the Husky game — three kids boarding Link at Husky Stadium with spinning rods in hand.
I talked to them. They came down from Lynnwood on Link to fish because Husky Stadium has the first access to good fishing anywhere along the line. And they caught fish too!.
Now that is a transportation use of Link and LLE that I hadn’t anticipated.
I don’t think that “fishing” as a transportation purpose is going to add any significant amount to overall Link ridership, but transit is what you make out of it. And these kids had obviously had a good day fishing because of Link.
It was also pointed out to me after the fact that there will eventually be a fishing pier on the waterfront at Jackson, just down from IDS and also the current First Hill Streetcar terminus. So maybe we will see more of this in the future.
I think there are a lot of places where you can take transit and then fish. A fair number of people fish at Myrtle Edwards and the 24/33 goes there (with a bit of a walk — https://maps.app.goo.gl/pZ1YKp7bVcsTd4K86). Some people fish Green Lake and there is transit access there. Likewise with much of Lake Washington. There is a tribal fishing dock off of Bell downtown. I think the closest transit is on Third, which is about a ten minute walk. Google Maps shows it as being longer (https://maps.app.goo.gl/tJcadEHH2NLxbGE49) but Google Maps often gets confused with pedestrian directions.
A fishing dock off of Jackson will be very accessible, as there are a bunch of buses that go there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/yDveDh4Ukhzzoabw7). This is the first I’ve heard of it, but it is hard to keep track of all the goings-on at the waterfront.
The kids bring up another important use case for transit in general – without the kids able to ride themselves, everywhere they go, their parents have to drive them. Which means, one of the parents must either sit around and wait for the kids to fish, or spent two hours out of their day driving back and forth.
A lot of coverage-oriented bus routes in the suburbs may have ridership that looks unimpressive on its own, but I suspect, if the bus didn’t run, a lot of the trips taken on the bus would otherwise involve family or friends driving the person around, creating a lot of deadhead mileage, over and above the actual trip.
What ages were the kids? Was there an older child that appeared to be lead? I see high school age riders often by themselves or with peers. I’m curious how younger aged riders are by themselves or just with peers.
Some parents allow their kids to travel without adult supervision at a younger age than others. Most kids get naturally more adventurous as they age and transit can give them independence.
I’ve met several adults who were taught that any transit was too dangerous for anyone — so even as adults they steer clear of transit, unfortunately.
To counter this, I’ve wondered if there should be certain ages to create some sort of transit-inspired teaching tools. Math lessons seem obvious (fares and travel times). Reading comprehension (instructions) and map reading (geography) can also be taught. Transit can also be used to teach about local history.
With gaming such a big industry in Seattle, I could that also being a good tool to familiarize strangers (both kids and adults) to transit. (Admittedly, I wish there was an educational game about negotiating transit with a wheelchair or bicycle so that people making the Link design decisions could better understand what decades of reality they force upon others when they merely “design to code” rather than design for users in crowds.)
I started taking Metro alone in junior high to something called the Record Library on Broadway, and soon to the downtown library and the U-District. The main thing holding me back was not my parents but my own fear of not knowing what to do on a bus since I’d never been on one. But once I started taking Metro home from school, soon I was taking it everywhere. This was in the late 70s when parents were less paranoid and many kids were “latchkey children”, but there’s no reason it can’t have a revival now.
“With gaming such a big industry in Seattle, I could that also being a good tool to familiarize strangers (both kids and adults) to transit.”
That’s a good idea. Riding transit is a skill that should be taught to every child. There can be simple one-task games and elaborate multi-task games (like a scavenger hunt).
I’ve read about parents who give their kids one task at a time; e.g., they’ll take their kids to a NYC subway station, give them money for fares and an emergency call, and tell them to go to such-and-such station or do such-and-such task in three hours. The kids have to figure out the route and transfer, the procedure for boarding, etc.
I started riding the bus when I was eight, but admittedly, that was in the 1950’s and in Oklahoma. But I had two routes to choose from; one on 11th and one on 15th, a half mile apart. Long north-south blocks…..
My son started riding his bike to school I elementary school, and riding the bus solo at 14. Though that was admittedly the edge of acceptability. It was also in Albuquerque, which lacks both the fear safety and the concern trolling that Seattle has.
It also helped that he has always been 99 percentile in height.
He got his driver’s license last week. I mourn.
asdf2: this is one of the reasons I make a point of taking my kid home from school & day camps via transit, despite the occasional fussing: as teenage independence develops, I want walking & transit to feel like a familiar and normal way of getting around the city.
When I rode the 168 one Saturday morning westbound from Maple Valley to Kent, a father and young son got at one of the 2000s house tracts east of Lake Meridian. The boy was excited to go on a bus trip to the big city like his dad does on his weekday commutes.
Btw if you guys want to view the older Seattle streetcar maps:
tundria.com/trams/USA/Seattle-1931.php
What a tragedy.
No service to Rainier Valley?
https://www.historylink.org/File/1756
Rainier was served by the Seattle Renton & Southern Railway from 1891 to 1934, which resisted all attempts at municipalization and reportedly offered poor service. They also refused to allow the city to pave the space between the rails, maintaining separation from general traffic but also maintaining a “thoroughfare of death” as drivers and pedestrians attempted to cross the unpaved rails. The City refused to renew their operating permit in 1934, and replaced its service with trolleybuses soon after.
What a shame to have lost so much.
How realistic is it for ST to adopt higher speed rolling stock in the future (e.g. with top speed of 65-75mph) and run them on existing lines at higher speed, after retiring/repurposing existing cars towards other uses?
It wouldn’t make a difference the vehicle.
I can discuss this more in depth if people really want to know but practically speaking the max speed has everything to do with the alignment almost nothing to do with upgrading the vehicle.
For instance the SeaTac to Tibs to Rainier beach section it is the curves that are the limiting speed not the vehicle
There are a few curves in that section that slow the train down, but there are many more straight sections where the 55mph limit of the rolling stock is reached.
The re-use of the bus tunnel was an economy measure that helped get the system started, but it limits the max speed capability forever by requiring low floor trains. 55mph is too slow for the distances covered now. Hopefully in the future there will be low floor vehicles that can go faster.
“55mph is too slow for the distances covered now.”
That should have been obvious in the 1990s when ST was planning a Spine from Everett to Seattle to Tacoma, the freeways were 65 mph. But ST capped it at 55 because it didn’t think it would need even thatL he original vision was a lot more surface like previous light rails (MAX, San Diego, San Jose). The original alignment was surface from Intl Dist around the northeast side of Beacon Hill to MLK and Tukwila Intl Blvd to the airport. And presumably continuing that way to Tacoma Dome. So trains would only be running 35 mph except a few stretches like the Lake Washingon Bridge. (The alignment north of the U-District wasn’t fully specified yet.)
Similar to speed, is that express trains are needed. These milk runs are fine for short distances but faster service skipping stops is essential and with those faster trains.
The Georgetown Bypass would be a key piece of an express line and actually allow for the Rainier Valley segment to be rebuilt grade separated. I don’t think there is really any other way to grade separate Rainier Valley than maintaining service during construction with the bypass.
The simplest path to having an express overlay for Link is to lean on Sounder during peak hours and buses down I-5, the rest of the time. It doesn’t have to require spending billions on new track.
The simplest path to having an express overlay for Link is to lean on Sounder during peak hours and buses down I-5, the rest of the time. It doesn’t have to require spending billions on new track.
Exactly.
The Georgetown Bypass would be a key piece of an express line and actually allow for the Rainier Valley segment to be rebuilt grade separated. I don’t think there is really any other way to grade separate Rainier Valley than maintaining service during construction with the bypass.
If you are going to rebuild the Rainier Valley section as grade-separated then it makes sense to shift service to Rainier Avenue (in between Rainier Beach Station and Mount Baker Station). You could do most of the work without effecting Link. The 7 would be disrupted, but they could run better connecting buses over to the Link stations.
If you did make the Rainier Valley section grade-separated then building the Georgetown line becomes even sillier. If Rainier Valley is grade-separated you solve the biggest weaknesses in the south end (inability to automate or increase headways). Of course you would have to grade-separate SODO as well. Once you did all that the Georgetown bypass becomes largely redundant.
Either way, the bypass is silly. Georgetown is simply not a large enough destination to justify such an expensive project (requiring miles and miles of track). The dynamic is completely wrong. You decrease frequency in Rainer Valley while increasing frequency farther south. That is backwards. If you want to talk about a branch to Renton, be my guest. At least that has a sensible split in service (Rainier Valley would get twice the frequency of either branch). Trains running every five minutes (or better) in Rainier Valley with trains to Renton and SeaTac every ten is quite reasonable. (But again, that would require grade separating the line in Rainier Valley.)
Ross, you don’t have to grade-separate SoDo to automate it; you just have to fence the right of way effectively. Very few pedestrians are walking between Fourth and Sixth on any pathway other than Lander, Holgate and/or Lower Royal Brougham. A good high fence with curved back fence bars will do the job of keeping trespassers out.
I don’t think it would help much. 55 mph vs. 65 mph is a difference of about 10 seconds per mile, but only on the miles that a more advanced train could actually go 65 on. Which, given all the curves and stations along the line, is not actually that much.
But it adds up. On the north line and the outer sections of the south line, the train does spend most of the time at max speed, despite the odd tight curve (such as between Rainier Beach and Tukwila)
I feel like ST might be able to save more time by reducing the dwell time trains spend at stations. I never really understood why trains spend as long as they do outside of peak hours, or at stations that see fewer boardings. I assume it’s a consistency/scheduling thing but reducing dwell time at each station would really add up over the course of a run.
Would platform screen doors help speed up trains too? Trains today must enter a station at a lower speed to glide past the platform safely.
A train going 10 miles an hour faster is only just a minute faster every 6 miles, right? Adding in the effects of stopping as well as speed limited sections would reduce the amount of time savings too. So a speed improvement wouldn’t yield that much.
It would seem to suggest to instead to design tracks for a different vehicle at least 25 mph faster for top speeds with a cross platform transfer. That could then allow for battery electric trains that would not need expensive catenary wire and power. But the line would still need to be long enough (say at least 8-10 miles) to make the short cross-platform timed transfer time penalty worthwhile. And ST as an agency is not proactive about building any cross platform transfers — opting instead for a real life replica of Chutes and Ladders in its station designs without the convenience of redundant or usually even down escalators.
Top speed is much more important for a route like Sounder vs. Link, due to the track being straighter and the stations, much further apart.
Every minute adds up.
It’s a good question!
My quick armchair research is that there are multiple systems decisions involved beyond just buying new vehicles. That includes track curve radii, signal system/ train control system requirements and other factors. For example, the curve radii affects the size of the vehicle wheels and that in turn affects maximum speeds. So while there are industry standards, a transit agency has to order vehicles that can specifically run on their tracks and stop at their stations (platform heights and lengths).
If an agency builds a new line rather than merely extends a line, they have more flexibility to design for faster trains.
Makes sense. Thanks.
Unfortunately that ship (vehicle design) has sailed. Limited to low floor vehicles by the existing stations, and limited in length and articulation by the extremely tight curves in the maintenance facilities and between Westlake and University St.
https://www.mobility.siemens.com/us/en/portfolio/rolling-stock/light-rail-vehicles.html
You can read it here about the Siemens s700 low floor the max speed is 65 mph.
Seattle link probably just enforces a lower speed limit and other cities have a lower limit than the 65 mph but it really isn’t due to low floor trains can’t run that fast. If everyone’s really that interested in settling this debate I can send some emails to sound transit and Siemens to triple check but I’m pretty sure they’ll just confirm what I’ve already said
And Los Angeles uses them at 65 mph
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)
Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee had cars that would operate just fine on sharp curves and streetcar tracks in downtown Milwaukee, hit 90mph+ between the two cities, and operate on the L structure and its sharp curves in Chicago.
Nobody had asked for anything like that before, and 100 years later nobody has asked for that since. In most places, there are intercity trains and local trains, and they don’t try to do both.
Most countries don’t have to work around private freight railroads when planning regional passenger trains though, so it may be time to stop basing US light rail cars off of European designs and develop something that’s able to operate at higher speeds, for the conditions forced on operators here not being able to easily get access to tracks more suitable for longer distance services.
Notably, LA Metro’s C Line (Glenn’s hyperlink) uses high floor vehicles.
What does floor height have to do with speed?
Actually checking the brochure it says for Seattle
Maximum operational speed: 55 mph
Maximum allowable speed: 65 mph
Aka the light rail trains that we have can already travel faster, but are limited by operational/alignment geometry concerns not the vehicle itself.
https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:3ce5a359-5933-4f0b-8877-6e9aa3df13bd/Low-Floor-Light-Rail-Vehicle-Packet.pdf#page=30
@WL: There are sections that are pretty straight in the alignment e.g. along I5 or from Cap Hill to UW – so theoretically they can go faster there?
“Maximum allowable speed: 65 mph”
That sounds familiar. There are two issue: the quality and durability of the train components (higher-speed trains cost more), and the maximiun track turning/minimum incline specs. Since the Spine is in the BART distance range, ST should have ordered 85 mph trains and designed the alignment to accommodate it.
But at least 65 mph trains are better than 55 mph trains. The ST board made noises in the mid 2010s about reviewing the Rainier Beach-TIB segment to see if it could speed it up. I haven’t heard that study was even done.
@Nameless
Those sections really aren’t that far apart. Perhaps link could go slightly faster, but then it’d soon need apply the brakes to slow down anyways. This isn’t BART with a ~6 mile section between embarcadero and west oakland station.
I guess to clarify slightly, perhaps what ya’ll are asking is not really about the max speed but faster acceleration / deacceleration. Aka most urban metros max speeds are not above 45/50 mph either but then have faster acceleration and deacceleration to the next station.
Though checking the spec it says 3 mphps (3 mph per second) which is the same as BART. I do not know if link light rail operators actually accelerate that fast though.
spot checking other nation’s subways https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro which has 2.9 mphps.
anyways the more I check, the more it is reconfirming what I earlier said over and over, it is about the alignment and track not the vehicle. I am not sure how much more I can emphasize that it rarely has to do with the vehicle, especially since this is already electrified. It is not as if we are going from diesel to electrified trains like caltrain.
@Nameless
Actually, I forget where I read that in a meeting about lynnwood link service patterns, but sound transit did comment on that segment between northgate to chinatown. IIRC They said due to lack of maintenance on the track they had to run the trains slower than expected in the tunnel. It’s part of why they need to buy more trains since they need more than expected to run the same frequency.
But again it had nothing to do with the vehicle itself.
The vehicle design also can be sensitive to wobbling at higher speeds both from the track design and from the wheel installation itself (and the weight of different passenger loads and locations in the vehicle too). A vehicle designer would explain the physics of it where I can’t — but I’m aware that it can be a major issue.
“Perhaps link could go slightly faster, but then it’d soon need apply the brakes to slow down anyways.”
You can feel Link accelerate and decelerate. It only does so at the beginning and ends of the segments between UW and Capitol Hill or Capitol Hill and Westlake. Most of the time it’s running at cruising speed just like a car. When people feel the train slow down, that’s the signal to organize your possessions to get up when it reaches the station. That happens near the end of the segment, not at the middle.
It’s 1 mile between stations on MAX along I-84. The original hope was they would be able to find cars that could go 70 mph in this section, but the fastest anyone offered in a proven design was 55 mph / 90kph. With all the trouble with the Boeing light rail cars a few years earlier, nobody wanted to try anything new. Many places seemed to fall into the 55 mph line after that, for whatever reason.
Link uses station distances greater than 1 mile in many places. So, it would benefit Link more than MAX to have a higher speed.
It’d probably be good to see what the added costs and benefits would be of increased speed. The maintenance and energy costs would be slightly higher, but that might be offset by each train being able to make more trips per shift. With Link’s length, that’s not insignificant.
Glenn, what about the Norristown High Speed Line?
I wish the off-peak trips would not have the same scheduled dwell times as the peak trips. ST has plenty of data how much dwell time is needed at each station by time of day and day of week.
I guess to clarify slightly, perhaps what ya’ll are asking is not really about the max speed but faster acceleration / deacceleration.
I rode (for the first time) from SeaTac to Northgate a couple weeks ago. I was alone and had brought a magazine, but I decided to do focus on the ride, and do a little research while on the train. The view was OK, but not stupendous. Granted it wasn’t completely clear — I would guess the view of Rainier would be great on a nice day — but it didn’t strike me as being as nice as the bus over Aurora (or the buses that went over I-5). Anyway, just to confirm what WL said, it was clear that the train was not going especially fast between TIBS and Rainier Beach, despite the huge distance between the stations. You could tell that the curves greatly effected that top speed.
As it ran through Rainier Valley, the dwell times were shockingly long. Counting the time it was going really slow (on the approach and pulling away from it) I counted a full minute at one of the stops. The train spent a huge amount of time at every station with the doors open as well. (I forgot to take notes on the timing but it seemed quite excessive.) To me that is the big difference. The dwell time of Link is enormous. This has a much bigger impact (on a lot more riders) then the top speed of the vehicle. Obviously some of the issues are related to crossing streets (in Rainier Valley and SoDo). The train may be waiting at the station instead of waiting at the light. This is just the price you pay for lack of grade separation.
But even the grade-separated stations have really long dwell times. I’m not sure why. Maybe because ST feels like they need to allow plenty of time for people to get on, given how infrequent the trains are. If so, this is another issue with infrequent trains. They run slower because they run less often.
“But even the grade-separated stations have really long dwell times. I’m not sure why. ”
I believe that it has to do with the downstream traffic signal. It takes a long time for a pedestrian to cross a street so the signals don’t turn green for the trains right away. So the train doors are held open until the train is given permission to cross the next street.
“I wish the off-peak trips would not have the same scheduled dwell times as the peak trips. ST has plenty of data how much dwell time is needed at each station by time of day and day of week.”
That point is actually trickier than it seems because off-peak Link ridership is influenced heavily by events. A train that might be 1/4 full most of the time might be crushloaded if a Mariner’s game just ended and a whole stadium full of people are trying to go home, all at once.
I suspect dwell time may also be influenced by signals (better to have the train wait at the station with doors open than to wait 10 feet in front of the station with doors closed, in case somebody shows up running to catch the train).
Dwell time may also have a padding component, where if a train gets delayed a bit by signals, it can dwell less at stops further down the line to make up time. Without the padding, signals in the Rainier valley could potentially lead to train bunching all the way to Lynnwood.
I mean all of our link trains have drivers, can’t they look out a mirror and then leave once there’s no more passengers on the platform? If there’s an event then dwell longer.
They do do that, and they think they leave at the appropriate time. Just because you can’t see somebody getting into or out of your car doesn’t mean people aren’t getting into or out of another car. There also needs to be time for disabled people, people navigating crowded aisles, people unsteady on their feet, and people carrying heavy groceries to get to the door or to their seat so they don’t tumble to the floor when the train starts moving.
When a train leaves a station isn’t always up to the train operator. Link Control Center sometimes tells a Link operator to hold at a certain station, and will be told when they can proceed.
Norristown cars are basically slightly narrowed subway cars with high floors and fully powered bogies,
Does Link use “request” signaling? Or does the ATC give a green a certain number of seconds after the train comes to rest?
Focusing on better transfers between lines, and between busses and light rail, would likely save more people more time than any increase in top speed.
Sound Transit’s service changes seem to be routing the 554/556 onto Eastgate P&R instead of the freeway stop, effective Sep 14. Right now the eastbound buses use the freeway stop while the westbound buses have been using the P&R for a few months, adding a few minutes to each journey.
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/sound-transit-fall-2024-service-change-under-way
Yes, that’s been in the announcements. There must be construction at the freeway station.
I’m guessing this is construction-related, and hopefully, temporary.
Did my first new commute using the shoreline south station instead of Northgate as the final terminus (was out of town last week). The extension – and a family schedule change – has allowed me to do bike-train-bike instead of bus-train-bus and it whacked a full 25 minutes off my door to door time!
Now I can replace driving with transit nearly every day of the week instead of just when I feel like waking up an hour early. Goodbye staring at taillights!
How crowded was Link? Were any seats left by the time the train reached Shoreline South?
I’m that weirdo riding up to shoreline for work. The train is nearly empty NB at 6:45 AM after UW.
The Seattle Center Monorail is proposing to raise its fares effective January 1, 2025.
The regular fare would increase from the current $3.50 to $4.00. Reduced fares would increase from the current $1.75 to $3.50.
Monorail-only monthly passes (not on ORCA) would increase from $70 to $80, and from $35 for reduced categories to $40.
Public comment on the proposal is being taken through October 21, 2024.
Typo: The reduced fares would increase from $1.75 to $2.00.
The monorail must be trying to drive resident passengers away. $4 for a 1.5 mile trip on long-paid-off 1960s technology when you can get to Lakewood for less than that or take Sounder to Kent for the same amount.
Long paid off, but far from maintenance-free. As ALWEG is out of business, all replacement parts have to be custom-manufactured. As far as I’m aware, the Monorail’s operations aren’t significantly subsidized by general taxes, and they are still planning to construct a new station to serve Belltown once BLE swoops most of their ridership to the former Key Arena.
“they are still planning to construct a new station to serve Belltown”
They are? This isn’t just a comment section wishlist item?
https://www.seattlecenter.com/Documents/About/PlansAndProjects/SeattleCenterMonorailStationReconfigurationE_Seattle%20Center.pdf
I thought there was some more recent updates to this, but maybe those were just related to the renovation of the Monorail’s stations in preparation of the Climate Pledge Arena’s opening.
@Nathan Dickey,
They are not planning to add a Belltown station to the monorail. That was just a technical feasibility study, and a pretty superficial one at that.
Adding such a station would cut monorail capacity by half, and would only be possible AFTER Link opens to Seattle Center. I.e., it would be Link that would make such a station possible by replacing the lost monorail capacity.
I don’t think a cost analysis was ever completed. The loss of capacity coupled with the operational issues of having dual, bi-directional platforms that don’t connect should be enough to kill such a concept even without a cost analysis.
Is the monorail so packed most of the time that it can’t have a third station? The extraordinary crowds after a game aren’t a typical load. Few people would be getting on/off at Belltown anyway compared to Seattle Center. And at worst trains could simply bypass the station to clear the crowds. (They wouldn’t be able to get on anyway.)
If someone pays $4 for a monorail ride, then they (1) do not have an event ticket for the Pledge; (2) do not have a monthly pass; (3) Do not have an ORCA card or a virtual ORCA card on an Android phone, which allows them to purchase a regional day pass (currently $6) which covers the first $3.50 of the ride.
Basically, that leaves infrequent and first-time riders, which could include locals, but mostly soaks the tourists, so the monorail’s ticket income can help subsidize Seattle Center programs. (The monorail is in the Seattle Center Department, not SDoT)
The reduced-fare regional day pass, now $2 through February 2025, covers the first $1.75 of the trip.
Youth 6-18 still have to use a youth ORCA card, or pay the reduced fare.
Keeping the regional day pass prices down is probably a lot more impactful on ridership than the monorail’s insistence on charging as if it is a premium service comparable to the ferries or Sounder.
If someone pays $4 for a monorail ride, then they (1) do not have an event ticket for the Pledge; (2) do not have a monthly pass; (3) Do not have an ORCA card or a virtual ORCA card on an Android phone, which allows them to purchase a regional day pass (currently $6) which covers the first $3.50 of the ride.
I get the first group, but not the third. First of all, there are two types of day passes. For fares up to $3.50 it costs $8. For fares up to $1.75 it costs $4. Second, if you exceed that fare, you have to pay the difference. So someone who does a round trip on the monorail could end up paying $9, not $8 (for their daily transit experience). So even if they buy a day pass (which would not be a good deal if they are only doing a typical round-trip) this saves them nothing. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/fares-and-payment/prices#regional-day-pass
As far as I’m aware, the Monorail’s operations aren’t significantly subsidized by general taxes,
Right, which is the problem. They make a profit — on the backs of transit riders. A lot of the folks are tourists, so the assumption is that it is OK. It is like charging for the Ferris Wheel — who cares? But a lot of the users are just trying to get around the city.
Imagine if Link was focused on making a profit (to pay for operations). They would have to charge a lot more and would likely instantly go back to charging more — a lot more — for the longer rides. Charging $10 to go the airport is quite reasonable given the alternatives (parking is extremely expensive as are cab rides). Would we be happy, since Link is actually making money?
Of course not. This is price gouging. I also think the city (or county) should seriously consider taking over operations of the monorail. It is not a toy. It is a vital part of our transit system. Lots of people take it every day, including people who are going to Uptown (not the Seattle Center).
Around 11% of the monorail operating costs are federal, as are some 80% of the capital costs:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2022/00023.pdf
I haven’t had a day pass since Metro had weekend passes in the 80s, and I don’t know how to get one, and I’m not going to make a special trip to a Link TVM or order anything online. I had monthly passes throughout the 2010s, but in the post-covid era I travel less so now I just have an e-purse. There are probably other people who also travel less and no longer have monthly passes. If I hear the Monorail’s fare is $4 I’m liable to forget it may be reduced with an ORCA transfer, and even with a transfer I’d still pay $4 for that trip.
For decades I avoided the monorail because it cost more than the Seattle Center buses and didn’t accept transfers. In the 2010s I finally got over that and started riding the monrail again because it was only an extra $2.50 each way and I could treat it as part of my Seattle Center experience. But if the fare goes to $4 I may rethink that again.
Ballard Link is so far away and uncertain that it seems silly to count on a Belltown station now. It won’t help anybody for the next twenty-five years at least.
The city owns the monorail, and Seattle Center is a city department. So any extra Seattle Center revenue goes back to the city.
I don’t agree that charging more for Link is “price gouging”, depending on the price and trip.
The ST levies assumed farebox recovery would cover 40% of operations and maintenance. O&M costs don’t magically disappear if farebox recovery is less than 40% or O&M costs are more than estimated. The other option is to ignore O&M and that has serious consequences when the bill comes due, like with MTA, or “value engineering” we see at some stations that is designed to not only reduce capital costs but future maintenance costs. So riders pay with inconvenience.
I don’t think Link from Lynnwood (or in the future Everett) to the airport should cost $3, including a feeder bus or free park and ride, the same as from CHS to Westlake. That is a massive subsidy for some riders not based on income that is made up by others and by deferred maintenance and value engineering.
I also question $3 Link fares when farebox recovery today is closer to 15% and ST admits it underestimated future O&M costs. $3 Link fares are lower in many cases than the buses they replacedvdespite fee splitting with feeder buses.
Transit is heavily subsidized by general taxes and should be subsidized but transit shouldn’t be allowed to ignore economic realities such as inflation, higher than estimated O&M costs, lower ridership, lower fare payment percentages, and a 30 mile trip with free feeder bus or park and ride costs the same as a one mile urban trip, or its own actuarial estimates, because those economic realities don’t magically disappear.
When we allow transit agencies to ignore their own assumptions and promises and economic realities we invite dishonesty in what the public is told these projects will cost which we see virtually in every levy and every large public project.
If someone’s income requires subsidies that should be dealt with individually. It is why ST express buses charged higher fares to peak work commuters.
Instead almost universally with transit agencies O&M is ignored or skimped on when assumed farebox recovery does not meet assumed O&M costs, until as a transit agency ages it becomes unmanageable to deal with and service becomes so bad it isn’t worth it and riders stop riding.
@Mike Orr,
“Is the monorail so packed most of the time that it can’t have a third station?”
Yes. It is that full often, very often. And not just for major events like Folk Life, but on routine days when a plethora of small events are occurring simultaneously.
And don’t forget, the monorail only has two vehicles. And those Alwegs are really old, and often one of them is out of service for maintenance. It is a common occurrence.
When one of the vehicles is out of service the capacity of the monorail is already reduced by 50%. Adding this station would reduce the remaining capacity by a further 50%. Meaning total capacity would be reduced by 75% whenever one Alweg was down for maintenance.
The last 50 years on Seattle has seen increased congestion and increased demand for transit. That won’t change. So reducing capacity by 50% every day, and 75% frequently, ought to be a non-starter.
And all this is without any cost or ridership estimates. That is not the way to spend dollars wisely and increase transit ridership.
@Glenn, in 2019, 100% of operations were self-funded:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2019/00023.pdf
The Federal funding was likely COVID support funding.
@Victor — To be clear I think $4 for the monorail is price gouging. Almost every agency operates with a subsidy*. But I have heard people brag that the monorail is the only transit system that makes a project. Sure, but that is not a good thing! Not if it means they are charging more than a bus as well as a trip on the train from Angle Lake to Lynnwood!
Link is a different story. I think they should charge per distance. But that doesn’t mean that a trip from Lynnwood to the airport should cost $10. By the way, when Link did charge by distance a trip like the one for the monorail cost $2.25. This seems quite reasonable. But if the the monorail simply charged what Metro charges for their buses (which go a lot farther) then it would be fine (and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion). Even charging $3 (like Link) would be OK. But $4 is just gouging.
* There are systems (mostly in Japan) that have greater than 100% fare recovery. This is likely due to very high use per service hour. Most of these are distance based (but a few are flat rate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
> Adding such a station would cut monorail capacity by half, and would only be possible AFTER Link opens to Seattle Center.
Lazarus that is not how adding a station works to calculating capacity. The main bottleneck is westlake only having a single station.
WL, the capacity reduction is from the Monorail’s consultant study of feasibility of adding a midpoint station: https://www.seattlecenter.com/Documents/About/PlansAndProjects/SeattleCenterMonorailStationReconfigurationE_Seattle%20Center.pdf
@WL,
“ that is not how adding a station works”
That is incorrect. The monorail only runs 2 vehicle max on two separate tracks, reversing at each end. Doubling the transit time by adding a mid-run station would exactly cut the capacity in half.
It’s just math. Half the trains departing Seattle Center is half the capacity.
And, beyond that, it is the Seattle Monorail’s own study that says that capacity would be cut in half. You might not believe me, but you at least should believe the people who run the monorail. After all, they are the experts.
@Nathan
Thanks for the information and citation.
@Lazarus
Unfortunately I would have believe you more often if we didn’t have to call out your mistakes in the past. This is what happens when you kept making unsubstantiated claims and now others have to check any of your statements.
In terms of transportation, the monorail is closer to the SF Cable Car than a public bus route. It’s more tourist ride than public transit. The Cable Car, btw, charges $8.00 for adults. $4.00 for seniors and disabled. The comment section would have a point (which it doesn’t), if the only transportation between the Seattle Center and downtown was the monorail, but there are frequent Metro routes on both the east and west side of the Seattle Center to downtown. Monorails, gondolas, cable cars, horse carriage rides, geared toward tourists, usually charge a premium.
Would Seattle taxpayers prefer to subsidize projected monorail operating costs out of the transit measure funding?
It is more in line with the original purpose of the measure, funding more service hours.
The first thing I’d fund is replacement revenue for dropping the monorail reduced fares down to $1, in line with the reduced fares of all the transit connecting to the monorail. Then, if there is more money left, bring the regular monorail fare down to the same as light rail. But I’d also consider leaving the non-ORCA fare higher.
As taxpayers, we heavily subsidize all other public transit. Why not the monorail?
The SF cable cars have the same travel time as parallel bus routes. The monorail is much faster so it’s a better level of service. That means it should be positioned so that it’s everybody’s first choice, not with a “premium” fare that drives people away if they’re not in a few assumed categories. It’s similar to how BART charges a little more than MUNI for comparable trips (within San Franscisco) but not a lot more. Whereas the monorail will be almost double Metro’s fare.
I had firsthand experience with the cable cars when I stayed at Fisherman’s Wharf for a conference downtown. All transit modes had the same 20-minute travel time: the Hyde-Mason cable car, the F streetcar, the 8 bus (the closest), and the Van Ness bus. So it’s reasonable to charge more for the cable car because you’re riding it for the historic vehicle, not as the only best way to get from A to B (which is what transit is for).
First we’d need to know why the monorail fare is rising so much, what the money will go to, and whether the monorail really needs it to keep up with operations and maintenance. If it’s really an excess fare to soak tourists and pay for more Seattle Center programs, then it interferes with locals’ lives too much. We already pay a hospitality tax on hotel nights (which residents rarely do) and restaurants (an optional luxury). We shouldn’t have to pay it as part of the basic transit network. When the monorail started accepting ORCA and transfers, that was an attempt to make it more of the basic transit network. Uniquely high fares is a step in the opposite direction.
If the monorail flat-out can’t afford operations and maintenance without the high fare, then it can be tolerable in the short term while we figure out a better operations/revenue structure for the monorail. But it shouldn’t just be the default long-term.
I got to ride the cable car a couple decades ago. It was slower than the buses, had stops just as frequently, and shared the same views. It was used as public transit by San Franciscans to get up and down steep hills. It bore no resemblance to the monorail, except for the high tourist-trap fares.
“The ST levies assumed farebox recovery would cover 40% of operations and maintenance.”
Let’s avoid turning every non-Link issue into a Link issue, as a few commentators tend to do.
“transit shouldn’t be allowed to ignore economic realities such as inflation, higher than estimated O&M costs, lower ridership, lower fare payment percentages…”
The fare has to be at the sweet spot to maximize ridership. There are several public benefits to people riding transit besides the benefit to the passenger. It’s the most efficient and cost-effective way to move people (if we don’t expect everyone to only walk or bike, and if the travel area is larger than say 3 miles across). It has a much smaller environmental and space footprint than if everybody drove cars. It’s equitable because both upper class and lower class people can afford it. It encourages social interaction and being part of a community as opposed to being in a house-car-destination bubble. It maximizes economic activity and sales-tax revenue because anyone can ride it to work or shop, without the deterrence of a $10,000/year car or a $30 taxi ride. So if somebody else spends $3 for a 10-mile transit trip, that benefits you and the city and everybody else, as well as the passenger.
If the passenger is deterred due to high fares ($4, $10, $20), then everybody loses out. They’ll either drive or take a taxi or not make the trip. Then they’re not filling a job opening during a labor shortage, not spending on a clerk’s wages and sales taxes, not getting healthcare they need, not spending time with friends or walking in nature to maintain their mental health, and not helping relatives or volunteering. Every trasprortation mode is subsidized for this reason. Transit should be subsidized highly (and higher than driving) because it’s the most efficient and cost-effective transportation mode (other than bicycles or sidewalks).
Fares have no intrinsic relationship to operational costs: they’re an arbitrary decision by the political entity. Most of the operational revenue comes from taxes. Fares should be set at the sweet spot that maximizes ridership and is reasonably equitable.
Link’s $3 flat fare is questionable because it penalizes in-city and short-distance trips, which is where a subway is the most effective and generates the most ridership and gets the most people out of cars. It will make more sense when Metro’s fare reaches $3, as we assume it will soon because it’s long overdue for an increase. But that still won’t wipe out the extraordinary subsidy given to long-distance suburban trips (Lynnwood-SeaTac, future Everett-downtown and Tacoma-downtown). ST is arguing the flat fare is better for simplicity and the suburbanization of poverty, but that just lets the majority of suburban riders (who are non-poor) skate on the backs of urban riders. And who needs simplicity when the ORCA card calculates the fares for you? All you need to know is your most common reference fare (e.g, downtown-Lynnwood), and you can estimate other trips as more or less than that, to avoid spending more than you can.
“I got to ride the cable car a couple decades ago. It was slower than the buses”
The cable cars were probably refurbished since then. That was my impression too from riding them in the 80s, that they were slower than buses. But when I rode them again around 2014, I found they were faster than I thought.
“The SF cable cars have the same travel time as parallel bus routes.”
I wouldn’t call any nearby transit service “parallel” to the SF Cable Cars. The closest is the 30-Stockton — but Nob Hill is so steep that it’s not actually parallel. And it moves through Chinatown as slow as the cable cars climb Nob Hill.
“It bore no resemblance to the monorail, except for the high tourist-trap fares.”
Those tourist trap fares go down a bit with a MUNI visitor’s ticket.
The Portland arial tram charges a tourist trap fare too, which goes away with a TriMet day ticket.
The problem with the $4 fares is that then falls outside the $3.50 limit on the ORCA regional day pass, so now everyone pays more, even if they have a regional pass.
I cringe every time someone tries to make a social equity argument by citing the oh-so-downtrodden riders from Capitol Hill to Westlake.
But at least the argument isn’t turned into an anti-public-transit talking point akin to: The Seattle Monorail makes an operating profit off of the fares it collects! So, why can’t other transit agencies do the same? If they can’t shouldn’t they be shut down?
Count that as one more argument in favor of subsidizing monorail operations (enough to allow for regional fare consolidation) out of tax revenue.
The monorail fares are already uniquely high among peer services. I’m pretty sure the operating budget would be in the red if monorail fares were rolled back to match Link fares tomorrow.
“oh-so-downtrodden riders from Capitol Hill to Westlake.”
In-city and short-distance trips includes downtown to Rainier Beach (an equity area), downtown to U-District, UW to Roosevelt, Northgate to Shoreline, etc. And on the 2 Line, downtown Bellevue to Overlake Village and Redmond Tech.
Now tha5 lle has been open over a week, how has crowding been in the core. I’m thinking chs to stadium in particular. How is it playing out so far?
Link Light Rail Employee Rulebook.
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/human-resources/rail-supervisor-training/link-light-rail-rulebook.pdf
Tlsgwm (or however you spell your handle), would you be interested in writing an article about Community Transit’s Saturday restructure? We don’t have another Snohomish County expert on staff. It’s late notice so if it’s not ready until after Saturday, that’s fine. Or is there anybody else who would want to do this? If so, you can email the editors at the contact address (contact at seattletransitblog.com).