Sunday Movie: Trams!

85 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Trams!”

1. On my way to Tacoma for my conference, and I may meet Troy for a T line ride (I still haven’t seen the MLK extension).

   This 594 bus is ancient: it has stairs at the door. I thought those were all retired. Or is this the last one? The wheelchair lift is in the middle. My seat rocks and not in a good way: it’s a bit loose. Altogether an old worn bus.

   1. It looks like they bought the bus from Greyhound and out ST Labels and painting on it. If you ride Greyhound in the 1990s and early 2000s you’d remember it.

   2. MCI D4500 is not as old as it looks. This model actually dominates most part of the country’s commuting bus fleet.
      Even the newest model of this series still features high floor and multiple steps at door. High floor makes bus more comfortable on high speed, but of course it has its disadvantage on boarding time and ADA accommodation.
      It is the Puget Sound region that is uniquely in favor of highspeed version of city bus models and ADL E500 double decker. I believe it gets the idea of running express route with double decker from Canada.

      1. Interesting. It seems like one advantage of a high floor bus is that it is great for seating. Here is an image of the interior of one such bus: https://www.nationalbuscharter.com/static/national-cbc-cdn/files/mci-coach-interior.jpg. Notice how the seats are neatly arranged and uninterrupted. Of course that is one of the advantages of a double-decker bus as well. More seats.

         The drawback is that getting on and off the bus takes longer. In the case of high floor you have the extra stairs. In case of a double-decker you have stairs to the top. In both cases they make sense for commuter routes or intercity travel (like Greyhound). They don’t make sense for typical urban travel (where lots of people are getting on and off the bus at every stop).

      2. My experience of riding a charter bus similar to those high floor MCI feels like I am riding a boat. Also, high floor buses maximizes cabin space for seating/standing because everything is on top of the engines and wheels. For that reason, Latin American BRT systems use specialized high-floor city bus.

         I don’t have numbers in hand, but a I think an ADL E500 double decker is more expensive than MCI D4500 and similar. If transit agencies prioritizes cost efficiency over other factors, they probably wouldn’t consider using ADL500 for commuter routes.

         Hong Kong is full of ADL E500 running all sorts of bus service from local to express. It was probably the North American agencies made it popular for commuter express.

      3. Latin American BRT systems use specialized high-floor city bus.

         My understanding is that they also have high-floor stations (or bus stops) — https://thecityfix.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/curitaba-bus-mariordo59-640-X-480.jpg So this basically means level boarding like a high-floor subway line. This is ideal as you have level boarding and a level surface through-out the vehicle. In contrast low-flow level boarding (like Link) means that some seats sit above the wheels (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/styles/post_images_desktop/public/2022-03/TLINK_New_LRV_20220328-7.jpg). This makes it tougher to move about the train.

         I think an ADL E500 double decker is more expensive than MCI D4500 and similar.

         I would think so. But I also think the double-decker bus has more seats. Assume for a second that capacity is based purely on whether a rider gets a seat or not. This is quite reasonable for a commuter line. I’m not going to stand all the way from Tacoma to Seattle — I need a seat. Also assume that during peak the demand is so high that you are running a lot of buses. This was also the case before the pandemic. Service was clearly based on capacity (which likely meant sitting capacity). Given that, buying the double-decker made sense. As peak demand has waned, it is quite possible that we move towards other types of buses for commuter trips, including high-floor (but single level) buses like the MCI D4500.

      4. “ My understanding is that they also have high-floor stations (or bus stops)”

         Ok maybe Latin American BRT isn’t a good example. Latin American BRT started in the 70s. Low entry or low floor chassis we see today were developed in the late 80s and 90s. Back then there was no such option. In order to mitigate steps that slows down the boarding, they built the stop like a train platform and it works just fine for them.

      5. At a visit to Innotrans in 2016, they had a small bus display. ALL of the buses there were 100% low floor, so only interruptions in the seating at the wheels.

         Only one tram on display had a high floor section, because the city had asked for it that way. Every other tram / light rail car was 100% low floor, even the Turkish built one.

         One reason they need the high floor for the longer distance buses is for luggage space underneath.

      6. “At a visit to Innotrans in 2016, they had a small bus display. ALL of the buses there were 100% low floor, so only interruptions in the seating at the wheels.”

         Yeah such solution exists somewhere outside the US, but I don’t know what it takes to bring them the US and get proper certification. USDOT seems to prefer sticking to its outdated vehicle specification.

         As for high-floor LRV, I think the benefit of low floor one is that it can stop at a regular bus stop if it has street-running section. I would imagine it is more challenging to design LRV 100% low floor and it is more difficult to maintain this kind of fleet because all the mechanical and electronic modules are tightly squeezed in small space between train car. If the light rail 100% dedicated right of way and subway style station, I don’t see reason why it has to be low-floor. It is just like no heavy rail system in this world were built to run low-floor rail cars.

      7. I can confirm that high level buses with high level boarding stations are used in Colombia and Ecuador, mostly on high density, high frequency, BRT style lines. The more ordinary lines still use low level street boarding, however.

      8. I can still climb the stairs but slowly and it’s an ordeal. If someday I can’t climb the stairs I’d have to use the wheelchair lift, and that old-fashioned lift is slow and unreliable compared to Metro’s new ramp that just swings out. I’ve seen several instances on old Metro buses where wheelchair riders at the bus stop got left behind because the lift wouldn’t move. That was especially bad at 30-60 minute frequency where it would be a long wait for the next bus (and no certainty it will work either). The 594 is a 30-minute route.

   3. Even the 594, I would argue low floor makes more sense. The bus may have a long stretch on the freeway, but it also takes an insanely long amount of time to get from one end of downtown Seattle to the other, and the fact that bus is high floor with only one door is a significant chunk of the reason why.

      1. That’s a good point. It probably makes more sense from Everett to Lynnwood.

   4. UW Tacoma reused a bunch of 19th-century buildings.

      The T Line is slow like the Seattle streetcars.

      1. Welcome to Tacoma! It was a great weekend to visit, with both Pride and Porchfest. Hope you made one or the other.

      2. And yes, the T-Line competes well with the slut. I have to go out of my way to ride it, given biking is usually significantly faster. Though I did ride it yesterday because I saw it coming (it’s every 20 minutes on Sundays) and I was about to climb stadium way, and was already tired from paddling for a few hours. Maybe we were on the same tram, though if you were with Troy I would have definitely noticed you.

      3. Troy was busy so we didn’t meet. I found a weekly newspaper The Volcano (8-12 pages) that told me about Porchfest and has other event listings.

         Porchfest has dozens of professional and amateur bands playing in people’s yards. Saturday was “South of 6th Ave”; Sunday was “North of 6th Ave”. I thought about going to it but I had things to do at home, plus I’d have to figure out where the addresses are and how long the walk from a 6th Ave bus stop, all in 90 degree heat. I thought it was still in the low 80s but when I got home I found out it had reached 90. So that’s why I found it particularly hot, and took the first bus I could from Tacoma Dome rather than waiting for another one. (The first bus was the 594; the others were 574 and 500. I thought I might take one of them to Federal Way and see the new transit center, but the 594 came first.)

         The 594 on the way back had the same entrance-stair Greyhound-like design, but the seat wasn’t as worn and didn’t rock.

         I saw the Pride banners downtown but assumed they were a holdover from the end of June or for year round. If there was a Pride festival somewhere I didn’t see it.

      4. I saw the Wright Park entrance from the Stadium T Line station, and it reminded my of my earlier visit to Wright Park and walk to north Tacoma. I almost got off to visit the park again, but I decided I’ll do it my next trip.

      5. Yep. Many of the 594s and 574s are the old greyhounds. Not great with bags. But comfy.

         Pride is in July in Tacoma. The big fest and parade were Saturday in Wright Park.

         Porchfest is 280 bands in central Tacoma. It was my first time, and I loved the community vibe if not always the music. Very eclectic, but I saw a number I liked. The 1 would have taken you there, though each quarter that’s activated at any given time is still a lot to walk . On Saturday I did it on foot, and only maybe saw a tenth of the stages in that quarter. Sunday I did it on bike and saw many more bands.

         UWT did a very nice job I think of saving and restoring the old buildings, with big plans to climb the hill and almost double the size when funds appear.

         Let me know next time you venture south.

      6. “Not great with bags.”

         The ironic thing is the overhead luggage compartments. I never see people use them, and I’d worry that it would take so long to squeeze my backpack down from it that I’d miss my stop.

      7. The ST Express buses operated by Metro, CT, and PT all seem to be different. Metro has low-floor articulateds. CT has double-decker. And PT still has the Greyhound kind, which Metro phased out in the 2000s or 2010s. Along with the seats being older, I wounder if the Pierce subarea just doesn’t have as much money as the other two and can’t renew its fleet as easily.

      8. “Porchfest is 280 bands in central Tacoma… and I loved the community vibe”

         What were the physical “porches” like? Do any of the houses have large porches or a veranda? Or were they in the front or back yard or on the driveway? Were there chairs or did you have to sit on the grass or stand? How many people attended one of them?

         I wouldn’t think of 6th Avenue as central Tacoma, more like western Tacoma. Is it really considered the middle of Tacoma?

      9. Tacoma neighborhoods:

         https://u.realgeeks.media/choicehomes4sale/tacoma/tacoma-neighborhoods-map.jpg

         It started out just in Central, South of 6th, and expanded north of 6th, into the “North End” this year. I think of the North End near 6th Ave as more the University of Puget Sound neighborhood. They have some “historic” homes (read: old), and are fighting for historic protections. There are more fine divisions. I don’t buy into “New Tacoma.” I suspect Realtors were involved in that name. I think of it as a bunch of separate neighborhoods: North Slope, Stadium, St. Helens, Downtown, Hilltop, Tideflats, Dome District.

         They really do play on porches, and sometimes front yards. Some of the streets are closed officially. Most are closed in reality, because the crowds don’t really allow cars to pass. The biggest crowd I saw was for My Chemical Fauxmance (cover band). Maybe 200 folks in the front yard, street, and neighboring yards. The smallest was for a couple of guys. One with a trumpet and one with a flugelhorn. Usually just one or two bands per block, because with amps, you start to bleed into each other.

      10. “I don’t buy into “New Tacoma.” I suspect Realtors were involved in that name.”

          SODO emerged from Industrial District the same way. I’d call west of 705 downtown and east of 705 the Tideflats. But “Tideflats” has so much connotation with heavy industry and the Tacoma Aroma and post-1950s decline that they probably wanted a new name.

          Is east of 705 still all heavy industry? Is there any housing or plans for it. Tacoma has talked for over a decade about an urban village in the Dome District, but there’s still no sign of it.

      11. There are 4 or 5 big condo and apartment buildings along the Foss Waterway near the glass Museum. There are a handful of restaurants in that area as well, and they have nice waterfront promenade and a new playground of sorts. It’s still a work in progress, and won’t really blossom until someone blows up 705, adds some more bridges or a cover over the railroad tracks, and reconnects the waterfront to the city.

          But the other side of the Foss is pretty much all still very industrial. The Port, a refinery, a lot of oil tanks, car recyclers, and dozens of maritime industrial businesses, and a big rail yard. The paper factory (the major source of The Aroma) is shut down and for sale. Interspersed in that is the Northwest Detention Center (ICE), a homeless shelter, and a new maritime center with a high school currently being built.

          Dome District – I was talking with someone at the Chamber last week, and he says the urban village is still very much in the plans, and was a little hurt that I thought that was a silly idea. I was surprised because he works with the manufacturers in the tideflats, and I had heard they were against encroachment into the industrial zones.

          There are a few mid-rise apartment buildings near the dome now, but the latest one is attempting to emerge from bankruptcy. There are a few dozen small retail businesses down there, but they are going to lose 40 businesses currently housed in Frieghthouse Square, if the preferred alternative for TDLE goes forward.

      12. “ The ST Express buses operated by Metro, CT, and PT all seem to be different. Metro has low-floor articulateds. CT has double-decker. And PT still has the Greyhound kind, which Metro phased out in the 2000s or 2010s.”

          I believe those high floor buses are also being phasing out from STX PT routes. You were just unlucky to board one of the older fleets.
          I’ve seen artic buses on 577/590/594 from time to time and even saw it once on 586. Besides that, it also has Gillig BRT which is also low-entry (ironically the name of this model is BRT but I don’t think anywhere uses it for BRT and it doesn’t have an artic version)
          Gillig is running mostly on 560X but also other routes along with high floor MCI.

2. Conceptually, Trams seem best when the line is too long to walk yet still short enough to keep the end-to-end trip travel time from being too punishing because they do move a bit slower.

   They also probably best working they serve a string of busy all-day destinations to take advantage of an higher train capacity, and they should run frequently. I see lots of cities added them in the US but didn’t enable this level of demand. The result eventually becomes trams every 20 minutes that go only short distances and thus have terrible ridership.

   Finally I see the best corridor for a tram in Seattle running between Seattle Center, Belltown, Downtown and the Pike-Pine Corridor turning south to serve First Hill and Harborview. It would be a much cheaper version of DSTT2 but better at serving the shorter central city trips. I don’t think many understand how ridiculously deep the DSTT2 stations are planned to be , and how many decades it will take to build them when there’s no money for the segment. Hopping the next tram on the street would be much more convenient (and faster since the tram would not require going deep underground)) even though the actual train ride would be slower.

   1. I like the way Reece Martin describes them: They are a niche mode. They really make sense when a bus can’t handle the load but you don’t have the money (or have already built) a subway line. Of course they also make sense if you already have one and it is well designed and working well. Unfortunately that really doesn’t describe any place in Seattle. The independent corridors (like Rainier Avenue and Eastlake) just don’t carry enough riders. We have to fight to get them to run the buses more often (instead of the opposite). There are areas where buses run frequently but they are basically where buses converge (given our hourglass shape).

      We can force transfers but that would be unpopular and requires additional space to put the buses. Keep in mind, we don’t do that now even though we could. It would be fairly easy to just have all the buses end at SoDo Station and require people to transfer to Link. But all the buses just keep going, all the way to the other end of downtown. Forcing a transfer at that point would be rather unpopular (even though it would save plenty of service).

      I just don’t see any place where in Seattle where a tram makes sense. Partly it is because of Link (which operates like a tram in Rainier Valley). But it is also because the hourglass shape of the city lends itself well to a downtown spine while other corridors just aren’t busy enough.

      1. When Trams and Buses are stuck in traffic, both suck. When they don’t go where people need to go they both suck. See the SLUT.

         But when they have dedicated right of way and are well-routed, both can be great. In addition, trams have a much more comfortable ride. They have the advantage for infrequent and semi-frequent users that they know exactly where the route is, where the stops are, and where they are going to go.

3. Trams cost more than buses initially, but they have lower operating costs, especially the per passenger-trip cost if they’re well used. They would be well used in a corridor of any significant size (e.g., Aurora, Rainier+Renton, Leary Way).

   That is only true if you run fewer trams. That is where the savings come from. Instead of running a bus every couple minutes you run a tram every six minutes. But we aren’t running any buses every six minutes. Not on Aurora, Rainier or Leary Way. We would — at best — run the trams as often as we run the buses. Thus it would be more expensive.

   From a Reddit discussion based on a study in Switzerland (chf = Swiss franc)

   The total cost of running a tram, over its whole lifetime, including infrastructure and maintenance, etc., is 25chf per kilometer. Trolleybuses 15chf/km, busses ~10, and private vehicles about 2.5. So if you can get 2.5x more people in the tram than in the bus, it’s definitely worth it.

   The problem is we would get just as many in the tram as the bus. That is because the buses aren’t running based on capacity. They are running to best serve the riders. We wouldn’t want to run them less often (to save money) even if we could.

   1. “That is only true if you run fewer trams. That is where the savings come from.”

      What the video said is trams last longer. I’d also add that they run on rails. The rails reduce wear and tear compared to wheels on roads, and the mechanism is simpler so there’s less things to break and it uses less energy. That plus trams’ higher capacity. If we fully leveraged them we’d get that ridership boost so that we’d need the capacity. That would include running them more frequently than the existing buses, and land use reforms around the line.

      1. That’s why some operators in Europe are able to put a train out on a local line cheaper than a bus:

         • The wear on the right of way is steel and not asphalt, and only pay for the incremental cost of the right of way.

         • They are allowed to use single operators

         • Trains can run more miles between major maintenance cycles.

      2. Based on every study I’ve read, the total cost of running a bus is cheaper than running a train. The Reddit quote was based on this study. I can’t read German but I have no reason to dispute the person who cited it. They were very clear. According to the study, it is more expensive to run a tram than an electric trolley. Keep in mind, the person who cited it favors trams! This is an argument *for trams* not against it. But only if you have a lot of riders.

         I forget to link to the Reddit discussion. Plenty of back and forth there but no one — even the biggest tram fan — cites any evidence that trams are cheaper. They are all saying the same thing. Trams are cheaper *if you have enough riders*.

         Again, this is consistent with what other experts have written. Look at what Jarrett Walker had to say. As always, his statements are full of nuance. He admits that trams may have an impact on development. He agrees that there is a positive impact on ridership (but little research as to why). This is a professional that does a ton or research. He doesn’t just skim a study, he reads it. He compares it with other studies. Then he cites those studies in the books he published. He uses that information in his consulting business. Here he writes about one of the key advantages of trams:

         Capacity. In other urban contexts, rail transit is important for its ability to carry large number of riders per vehicle, and hence per driver, usually by combining cars into trainsets. European streetcars are often huge trainsets with capacities of 500 or more. Typical single streetcars used in the US have a slight advantage; they have a capacity of around 200 compared to 120 for a typical articulated bus. This capacity advantage can be relevant in high-volume situations, particularly when frequencies get down to the three-minute range. However. most streetcars now under discussion are not this frequent, or for markets nearly this busy.

         Notice how he never mentions cost of operations as a reason to build trams. Because it isn’t an advantage! If it was he would mention it.

         I think people conflate different issues here. Running under wire is often cheaper than operating a gas engine. The Swiss study confirms that. But that doesn’t matter — they (and we) can run buses under wire.

         People are also very much aware that very busy trams (like those in Europe or Toronto) save money over an equivalent set of buses. Walker made that clear. But that savings *only* comes into play if the trams carries a lot of people.

      3. I’m not saying total cost of operations is a reason to build trams.

         I’m saying the long lasting nature of rail equipment and infrastructure has apparently allowed some operators in Europe to operate rail service cheaper than they could a bus service.

         For that, you need access to lines where maintenance cost is handled on an incremental bases – that is, the cost to add a train is the slight additional maintenance cost of adding new trains to existing lines.

         I suspect you will find a similar math behind some of the rural branch lines in Japan, Switzerland and Austria; sure, they may only have a train every hour and could replace what they have with a bus, but with the line already there and the longevity of rail equipment and infrastructure, it’s cheaper to keep operating what they have operating.

         Adding new lines is an entirely different matter, and for that I suspect that a German philosophy I have heard of not building rail infrastructure unless it can be made faster than driving probably holds true in many places.

      4. @Glenn — It is quite possible that once you have added rail (and are paying to maintain it) that adding an additional run on the train is cheaper than adding an additional run on a bus. But that goes back to Walker’s other point. If you already have rail, then by all means, run a train on it. It is the basis for commuter and regional rail all over the world. It also helps that the train typically runs through the center of town in Europe (and the cities are very dense) while the freeways (if they even exist) run to the outskirts. (In the US we aren’t so lucky.)

         But if you are talking about a new line, the dynamics change. The fact that you can run a lot of trains for a little bit less money than a lot of buses doesn’t make up for the fact that you have to pay to build (and maintain) the track.

   2. In the Reddit discussion was this comment, which sums up the situation quite well:

      There is a point where trams become worth it to build over running busses the problem is that that point is pretty much the point where busses are not able to handle the volume, a very rare situation at least in the anglosphere. At that point you have to figure out if it is worth investing in a street running tram or something faster and with more capacity

      This is the general consensus regarding trams amongst transit professionals.

      By the way here is another Reddit discussion about the same topic. The author cites a study in the US which shows that operating trams is more expensive *per hour* than buses. The author was looking for similar data outside the US.

      Unfortunately, people immediately focused on data that included ridership, which misses the whole point. The main thing is that you want the vehicle type to match the ridership. The city of Olympia does not operate articulated buses. Doing so would cost extra. In contrast Metro does operate artics and doing so saves the agency money.

4. It appears that King County Metro’s latest GTFS update includes some new east link connection service with a target opening date of 8/30 this year.
   Also, based on the stop.txt in the GTFS, the new DART 249 will not go to Medina as it was proposed, but took Bellevue Way as it is doing today.

5. One thing about trans that needs to be highlighted is that they are often lighter than standard light rail vehicles that the 1 Line uses. That means that the ground below the tracks doesn’t need to be as robust and costly. Of course, the detailed vehicle specs are the final decider of how much train weight a track can hold.

   The down side is of course that it would prevent heavier light rail vehicles from using the tracks if they aren’t strong enough.

   1. A lot of it depends on maintenance.

      Eg: 100 years ago it wasn’t unusual for freight railroads using steam locomotives far heavier than light rail cars to use 83 lb/yd rail on some branch lines. Today, light rail and tram lines can be found using the same 115 lb/yd rail as frequently used on freight railroad branch lines.

      Both “tram” and “light rail” typically wind up somewhere in the 20 ton/axle range, so they’re really not that different. Lower speeds mean lower dynamic forces, so you might get away with less subroadbed, but that’s really just a function of how often you want to rebuild or how smooth your ride needs to be. Give lightly built track 100 years of service with lightly built cars, and you might get by without a major rebuild (see New Orleans), but only get 80 years with cars that are slightly heavier.

      Even then, the problem that tends to surface is ride quality. No matter how heavily built your track or how light your equipment, the track will settle unevenly (again, see New Orleans before the track rehabilitation project). The cars could operate just fine, but the ride was reported to be very uncomfortable for the passengers towards the end.

      There are railroad branch lines and short lines out there built far lighter than the majority of the tram lines you are thinking of, yet still allow 286,000 lb load limit freight cars. Even such lightly built track can safely handle such heavy loading, but freight only lines aren’t worried about passenger comfort.

      1. A lot of it depends on maintenance.

         Yes. That is one of the reasons why trams in the US are expensive. The agency has to maintain the track. Of course the same is true for maintaining the roads but that cost is shared by those driving. The idea that we should build trams to save drivers some money might be accurate but personally I don’t care.

      2. But the difference between maintaining “tram” track and “light rail” track is …. nothing.

         They are basically built to the same standard, and in the scheme of things, 20 tons per axle vs 22 tons per axle (which is about what we are talking about) is basically within a margin of error.

6. There are some upcoming Link system segments at the ends that could perhaps be better if they emulated a tram. It seems important for the middle parts of lines to be grade separated, but much less so for the last mile or so.

   Sone examples:

   1. Rather than build an aerial or subway Ballard Station, bring the tracks to the surface at Market Street to run east-west and have MLK like stops at 15th/ 17th and again at 22nd/ 24th.

   2. Rather than have a deep station at Alaska Junction, bring Link to the surface at 35th and Fauntleroy (SDOT is already planning to close Alaska Street to traffic anyway) and reduce the West Seattle Link budget by around a billion dollars.

   3. Rather than build a massive aerial Tacoma Dome Station, bring it to surface level and extend it to UWT/ Pacific Ave for one more station.

   4. Rather than build a station at the edge of Issaquah, put in two Issaquah stations at grade with a tram street profile connecting them.

   4. Rather than build a single massive aerial station on the edge of Downtown Everett, lay out the last mile or two to emulate a tram running through Downtown instead.

   The big drawback is probably making sure that a train won’t get too slow running through intersections or that the schedule would get thrown off — but as long as the end segment isn’t very long and the signal priority is set up to favor trains starting their runs, it won’t be so bad.

   And in all of these cases it would Kay the groundwork for more end-of-line vitality (destinations).

7. Are Metro weekend ridership numbers available somewhere?

   1. Not very easily.

      The dashboard doesn’t list weekend numbers. Oddly enough you can filter by weekend for a particular route but that just gives you zero for ridership since the ridership they list is always weekdays. The yearly evaluation has metrics for Saturday and Sunday but I don’t think it lists total ridership for those days.

      When Micheal and I have requested stop data (and written about it — like this) they just give us weekday ridership. It is possible we can get weekend data but it would require another request.

      1. I would imagine that major events (which tend to occur more often on weekends) make weekend ridership much more volatile than weekday ridership. For instance, year to year trends in weekend ridership might be influenced by the win/loss record of the Seahawks and Mariners.

         Still, it is useful, and it’s important to measure it. If the sole metric for evaluating routes is weekday ridership, it tends to encourage schedules that gut weekend service to fund more weekday service, which is usually not good for usability of the system. Keep in mind that since each week has 5 weekdays and only two weekend days, you’d have to remove 2.5 weekend trips per day for every weekday trip added per day, in order to be budget neutral. You can also see the loads on Saturday and Sunday (per trip) which is interesting.

      2. I would imagine that major events (which tend to occur more often on weekends) make weekend ridership much more volatile than weekday ridership.

         Yes. You also have a smaller data set. You can see that with Link ridership (on their dashboard). To see even more volatile numbers, select a specific weekend day with a specific station. For example Angle Lake on a Sunday. Ridership is well over 3,000 just about every month and sometimes over 5,000. But in may it was under 2,000. There is similar volatility for Saturday but June is low month. Go figure.

         But you can average the numbers and get a good idea of what is happening. That is what ST used to do with their service reports. For example you can see that in the years prior to the pandemic, Saturday ridership on the 594 was higher than weekday ridership. A lot of that was because Sounder and the 590 didn’t run. It is still interesting.

      3. The lower the total line ridership on weekends, the more volatile it can be. When there’s 90K riders on a line like Link there is some volatility — but if a route is only carrying 2K or 3K on a weekday, something like an annual street fair can create a huge surge of riders.

   2. The annual reports break out relative ridership for all the routes, but they don’t give specific numbers. You can compare the productivity of Route 4 to Route 48 on Weekdays, Sundays or Saturdays, but you don’t get the absolute number of riders.

      Scroll to the end of the pdf and you’ll find the rankings of all routes: top 25%, bottom 25%, middle 50% for weekdays, Saturdays, Sundays.

      https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/about/data-and-reports/2024/2024-system-evaluation.pdf?rev=4c1b3fab720049ea8c28079e50a3dca2&hash=9A675590F1479A11010C4AB8C018156D

8. By the way, here is a nice video about the history of trams from someone who actually knows a lot about transit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OdfjobCLIQ.

   1. That’s actually in my playlist to review for a Sunday Movie someday. The red line says I watched it at some point, but I don’t remember the particulars. I’ll watch it again. Of course, there’s both good tram deployment and bad tram deployment. It needs to improve people’s mobility choices (faster, more frequent, or a significant trunk corridor), not just be an add-on that doesn’t really help anything and is slower than a bus.

9. Tram makes sense in Europe and Toronto because most of those were upgraded from streetcar system.
   I think promoting tram is more about revive aging infrastructure (upgrading historic streetcar) and give them a modern makeover. If you have the tracks and power system, investing on some minor upgrade and modern fleet that can do those sharp turns. Building it from scratch might not be more economical than building light rail and if it was not handled properly, it can easily become something like DC streetcar.
   If it is about the cost, you can design Link Light Rail at-grade to achieve similar cost reduction.

   1. That’s what I mean, likes like Link on MLK with their own lanes, strategically located to give many people robust mobility to many destinations and transfers with good travel time. In a city/metro like Seattle you need more than just that, a metro backbone, but trams can serve secondary corridors.

      I disagree that cities that lost their streetcars can never have proper trams. That’s unfair to them and punishing them for something somebody did a hundred years ago, and leaving them with less convenient transit and less destination choices than a city that has a good tram+metro network.

      1. The more I read into this, the more I think tram is just another word for what we call light rail or streetcar in the US. I couldn’t think of any meaningful different between Portland Streetcar and European tram. A lot of unique feature of European style tram was due to its past not because it was designed this way for a beneficial reason.

         “I disagree that cities that lost their streetcars can never have proper trams.”
         They can have rail transit back, but it will be called streetcar or light rail rather than tram if in the US.

      2. A rose by any other name smells just a sweet.

         As long as the rose has it’s own damn lane.

      3. What I and NJB call “tram” is specifically a surface light rail with robust transit lanes and signal priority so it doesn’t get stuck in traffic, and on arterials not freeways. We need a term that distinguishes it from mixed-traffic streetcars at the low end and grade-separated rail at the high end. What it’s called locally doesn’t matter; what matters is having good travel time; and trying to use the word “tram” to distinguish this is the best we can do.

10. In the UW Tacoma campus I saw a disused railroad track running diagonally through the middle, with a promenade in half the right of way connecting the buildings. What’s the history of this railroad segment and where did it go?

    1. https://korsmo.com/project/uwt-station-prairie-line-trail/

       https://www.prairielinetrail.org/about

       Prairie Line Trail.

       It was at some point the northern terminus of the Northern Pacific.

       They are making a multi-use path, in stages. It’s at Stage II right now. I’m a little dubious it’s a good use of money, but it depends on where it finally ends up, which I can’t remember now. If it actually connects to South Tacoma Way, perhaps it makes sense, but I don’t think so.

       https://projects.tacoma.gov/?data_filter=dataSource_5-18e58e0c4d5-layer-8:projname=%27Prairie%20Line%20Trail%20Phase%20II%27&page=Project-Web-Page

       1. Western terminus.

    2. https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Prairie%20Line%20Trail/Prairie%20Line%20Trail%20Final%20Conceptual%20Design.pdf

    3. I saw an entrance to the Prairie Line Trail with a big sign. I didn’t know where it went. I put it on my list of things to do someday.

    4. I was on the brick promenade and saw several of the artworks in the video. But the sign I was talking about was at the entrance to an asphalt trail like the Burke-Gilman. That’s the trail I didn’t know where it went. Maybe it goes north to the north Tacoma waterfront?

       1. Yeah, it’s a goofy little trail. It does lead down to a bridge connecting you to the waterfront at 15th. And it will soon lead you up the hill to the Brewery Blocks, but not much more. Maybe 10 blocks total. I think their dream is to connect to to broader regional trails:

          – the Waterflume Trailwith goes to 74th, deep into South Tacoma almost to Lakewood, and
          – The Pipeline Trail that goes to 74th to the east, and will eventually connect to Puyallup.
          – Maybe even the FootHills Trail via the Pipeline. We shall see.

          Dreams.

       2. There is even an old, barely used railway line that goes out through Fredrickson and beyond, close to Mt. Rainier. It would be possible to hike or ride your bike all the way from Tacoma to The Mountain. Or it would have, if the city hadn’t sold a good portion, maybe 20 or 30 miles of right-of-way, to a private shortline rail a couple years ago for something like 8 million. I went and testified to the travesty. To no avail.

          If they actually used the line for freight to the port and got some trucks off the roads from Fredrickson, it would be one thing. But as far as I know that wasn’t even considered.

       3. They used to have something like 8-12 customers on that line, as far south as a sawmill in Morton.

          It’s unfortunate they let it languish as there used to be a lot of activity on it, including passenger excursions up to the edge of the national park, events between Chehalis and Tacoma, and occasional passenger trains to Northwest Trek animal park.

       4. We did go to the Brewery Blocks to the pizza/sandwich pub; it was the only restaurant open on Sunday afternoon. The others closed at 2 or didn’t open until 4. But that was across from the brick promenade. The narrow asphalt trail was somewhere else. I think it was on the east side of Pacific Avenue as the 594 passed northbound? It branched off diagonally, and had a big sign about something trail. But the sign wasn’t at the promenade, it was at this other asphalt trail.

          I was surprised the 594 went on Pacific because I thought it would go two-way on Commerce, or north on 705 and stop on Commerce. But that may be from before the T Line. Sometimes I remember what bus routes used to do rather than what the’re doing now, and that throws me off sometimes. But I just got off at 14th & Pacific (because there was no stop at 19th), and coming back I got on at Tacoma Dome so I didn’t have to find the stop.

       5. Yeah, the piece east of Pac Ave is the first part of Prairie Line. It’s all pieces of the same trail.

          I assume you mean Camp Colvos for Pizza. It’s original brewery is on Vashon. They actually have a 3rd eatery up the hill a couple blocks embedded at Seven Seas, which occupies the old Heidelberg brewery. It’s one of the true 3rd places of Tacoma. Huge space with beer, coffee, sandwiches, oysters, pinball, shuffleboard.

          Most of all people and a big meeting space. It was definitely open as well.

       6. The 594 should follow the tracks on commerce. Going Pac Ave adds 5 minutes of lights, I would guess.

       7. There is even an old, barely used railway line that goes out through Fredrickson and beyond, close to Mt. Rainier.

          Interesting. This map shows a bunch of old railways but obviously not all of them. I’m not sure if there is a map shows both active and inactive railways. A fair number of people are talking about the old spur out to Carbonado and Fairfax now that the bridge to the Carbon River Entrance (Mowich Lake) is closed. You can follow the old roadway and cross over a different bridge (on foot or bicycle) to get up the Carbon River (or backtrack to get to Mowich Lake). Some of it is in the process of being cleaned up as a nice bike path (an ongoing project that started before the bridge problems). Other parts of it are quite messy and typically require pushing a mountain bike.

          It isn’t clear how the various bike paths hook up or could hook up in the future. The idea of biking to Rainier sounds both exciting and exhausting.

       8. Yeah, not that one.

          This one starts in the Tideflats and is owned by Tacoma Rail. They only kept to portion to the city limits.

          https://open.piercecountywa.gov/dataset/Railroads/w46i-nj9i

          It’s the line that ends in Ashford, with a spur to Yelm.

       9. Interesting. If it was converted to a bike path you could bike almost all the way to Paradise (on a bike path).

       10. It used to go a spot very close to the national park, but pieces kept being sold off to the land owners.

           You can still see traces of it on Google Maps going east from Park Junction, and crossing Highway 706 at 278th Ave. That bit has been gone perhaps 25 years.

       11. There is a pretty high bar to decommission a working railroad. So Tacoma was on the hook for funds towards maintaining the tracks, bridges, and crossings until they were able to clear that bar.

           I don’t recall what the hoops are, but I’m sure the braintrust here nows.

11. The 2024 ST Fare Report is now published:

    https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Report%20-%202024%20Annual%20Fare%20Revenue%20Report%20-%2007-10-25.pdf

    Notably, Link farebox recovery has fallen from 16% in 2023 to 12% in 2024. That’s a whopping 25% drop!

    The Board target for Link was reset to 17%. Before Covid, Link was getting 34%.

    Of course, lots of the drop is traceable to the early partial 2 Line opening as well as the Lynnwood Link opening.

    Still the Board cannot keep living in fantasy mode where farebox recovery doesn’t matter. This is not just about capital costs; this is also about operating costs too. I have serious doubts that ST can afford to run the wildly optimistic service promised upon ST3 completion even if they could afford to build it.

    Given inflationary pressures, surely a fare increase seems likely. It’s also imperative to get the cross-lake connection open; the delay costs ST in revenue every day that it’s delayed.

    But more so the agency needs to be anticipating what kinds of lower farebox will be upcoming. The ratio can only drop given the lousy projected ridership on extensions to West Seattle, Everett and Tacoma Dome.

    ST has long been in nonchalant denial of farebox recovery needs, and wants to play Santa Claus — giving service away to new, unproductive Link segments. At some point this denial can no longer continue.

    1. Good point, Al. This gets back to the whole idea of “ridership per mile”. It seems like it doesn’t matter. Who cares if ridership per mile goes up as long as ridership goes up? But this is not what you want. You want a network effect. You want lots of new riders taking trips they didn’t take before. You want ridership per mile to go up with every new project. We had this, with U-Link. We also had this with Northgate Link (we just didn’t notice because it happened during COVID). But we have lost it with Lynnwood Link.

       Fares also went up. But not for longer distance travel. This is the worst of both worlds. The riders our system is favoring (longer distance) are fewer and more expensive to serve.

       I’m not sure there is a great solution. I really doubt we will go back to charging more for longer trips. Agencies that have had this sort of problem in the past have cut service to the extremities. I’m not sure how easy or practical that is. I would expect more general denial. As this becomes a bigger story I would expect the usual lines to be drawn. The Seattle Times editorial staff won’t miss the opportunity to rake ST over the coals. The Stranger (and much of the blogosphere) will throw down the “whatabout” card. After all, automobile infrastructure isn’t held to this standard (which is true). It is quite likely that folks will miss the big picture — the system we are building is just a really bad value. Never mind the capital cost — which are immense. When ridership per mile keeps going down you are doing it wrong.

       1. “ I’m not sure there is a great solution. I really doubt we will go back to charging more for longer trips.”

          I think flat rate is just popular in this country. Before ST changed to flat rate, we proabably don’t have another light rail system in the US that has distance-based fare.
          Some subway heavy rail system (like MTA subway) even uses flat rate. So I really don’t see us going back. I just hope revenue-wise two approaches are about the same for ST.

       2. Before ST changed to flat rate, we probably don’t have another light rail system in the US that has distance-based fare.

          It isn’t about the type of trains. Our system really isn’t light rail. We have a handful of stops on the surface, but our system is basically a commuter/rail and metro hybrid, like BART. No, we don’t have the same trains as BART (until recently no one else did) but it is quite similar and BART has distance based fares. Muni charges a flat fare but they would charge the same if the trains were heavy rail and the lines were completely underground.

          The LIRR has both an electric fleet and diesel trains. Various parts of it feel like a subway line. But it is part of a system that runs a very long distance and so it makes sense to have distance-based fares. Same goes with the trains to New Jersey. In contrast you can’t take a NYC subway train outside the city. It is clearly a metro. Distance based fares would not only be silly but a ridiculous pain in the butt. Fare based systems really only make sense with systems that spend a lot of time going out into the suburbs or other cities. Link (like BART) is one of those systems.

          But yeah, I think flat fares are just more popular.

       3. It’s about the perception of the route type.

          New York: Flat subway and buses within the city. Distance-based commuter rail to surrounding cities. Buses, subway, and PATH have different flat fares.

          San Francisco: Flat MUNI in the city. Distance-based BART and Caltrain. Higher-priced suburban express buses. A special unlimited monthly BART pass for station pairs within the city, if it’s still available. (It was part of the agreement that established BART, to avoid penalizing intra-SF urban riders.) I don’t remember if MUNI metro and buses have the same fare, but the cable car fare is higher.

          Chicago: Flat L and buses within the city and a few technically-suburban termini. Metra is distance-based. L and bus fares are/were different, or at least have/had different transfer policies.

          Portland: MAX and buses have the same flat fare. I don’t know about the streetcars and WES.

          In other words, in large older cities with extensive metros, there’s a tendency to distinguish between in-city routes (flat) and suburban routes (distance-based), and sometimes between subway (higher) and bus (lower). In contrast, in smaller cities like Portland, there’s a tendency to make the metro fare the same as the bus and flat. This affects how people perceive the routes. If the subway fare is higher, people think, “Is the higher cost worth it, or am I rich enough not to care, but in either case the subway is a distinct premium service.” If the metro fare is the same as the bus fare, people think of the metro as more bus-equivalent and are more likely to interchange them.

          Link confused things by being a hybrid of the two. It’s a city metro within Seattle, but it goes long-distance to outer suburbs and has distance-based fares like BART. And, we assumed, the higher long-distance fares were necessary to meet the operational costs of such a long route. (Noted: Short distances up to Westlake-Beacon Hill were lower than Metro, and Westlake-Rainier Beach was the same.) So what kind of service is Link? It’s partly one, partly another, and probably partly a third.

          Then ST chose to flatten Link’s fare to $3 and make it the same as buses. (Metro is still $2.75, but will rise to $3 soon. CT/PT/ET are lower, but we’ll focus on King County.) This makes Link more “bus-equivalent” like MAX. But it has theoretical problems for long-distance trips. It may be the only US metro with a flat fare out 35 miles from the center, as if those suburbs were part of the city and dense. And one assumes ST is foregoing needed distance-based revenue to operate such long lines.

          So Link is like nothing else in the US, in both its distance-based and flat-rate incarnations.

       4. It’s about the perception of the route type.

          Yes. Basically the smaller and more dense the system, the more likely it will have a flat fare. Typically the type of system follows suit. But it is my understanding that Berlin has fare zones, even if you just ride the U-Bahn. Partly that is because the S-Bahn is not that different from a U-Bahn in Berlin itself. You take one or the other without thinking the distinction. Someone can correct me on this.

          But typically they differentiate based on system because there is usually a clear distinction. Yes, the LIRR overlaps the subway, but so many of the rides are outside the city (and so few inside it) it makes sense to charge by distance. In general, regional/commuter rail has distance based fares. A metro has a flat fare. There are bound to be exceptions, but that is the general pattern the world over.

          The problem is hybrid systems. BART is a hybrid system, as is Link. The vast majority of trips within BART take place in the urban core, like a metro. But it also extends to distant places, like commuter/regional rail. Link is similar and if it goes to Everett and Tacoma, it will be even more similar. Link charges a flat fare, BART doesn’t. Go figure.

       5. “It isn’t about the type of trains. Our system really isn’t light rail. We have a handful of stops on the surface, but our system is basically a commuter/rail and metro hybrid, like BART.”

          I compared Link with other light rails in the US because when ST made a fare decision, they probably would refer to other light rail systems. It doesn’t matter how little Link is like light rail. At least APTA defines Link as light rail.

          Of course you wouldn’t do flat fee for commuter rail and regional rail because distance traveled could be very different, but for metro light rail and heavy rail, I think distance-based fare or not seems just arbitrary sometimes.

          Almost all the larger light rail system in the US are not “like light rail” when they enter suburbs and post-70s US metro systems (BART/WMATA/MARTA) are like regional rail because they were built after suburbanization. I would call them US-style light rail and metro systems.

       6. There is also very clean difference between commuter/regional rail and metro heavy/light rail systems.

          When you take a commuter rail/regional rail, mostly like you will need to check schedule. Their passenger information tends to emphasize departure time. You would think you don’t need to worry about departure time going from Jamaica to Penn Station by LIRR, but the reality is that the service was not tuned to run at an even frequency, which is very different from metro system. Also, they don’t always stop at the same track.
          That’s especially the case for Harlem–125th Street Metro-North station because each track runs both northbound and southbound train. Even if they might look like a metro system, the way how you use it and the way how they are operated are more like intercity rail system.

          While in a metro system, you usually check frequency and numbered/colored line you are taking. Each numbered service made fixed number of stops and has relative constant headway and service pattern.

    2. It’s rather ambiguous, but I think Tacoma Link data is not merged with the 1 and 2 Lines for the farebox recovery calculations. Resolution 2024-08 says that the T Link data will be added in 2026. It’s odd in that T Link fares began in late 2023,

    3. I thought Link’s pre-covid farebox recovery was around 50%, while Metro’s was 20-30%. There was talk on the blog of how Link was more dependent on fare revenue than Metro was, and how the pandemic free fares and post-pandemic loss of fare-payment ethic would hit Link harder than Metro.

       The ST Board also changed the fare to $3 right when Lynnwood Link opened and it was expecting to get $3.50-$4 fares for longer trips. Now that’s out the window and it’s only getting $3. That must have impacted fare recovery severely, and yet ST doesn’t mention it. It’s like ST needed the high fare revenue from long trips, and then suddenly it didn’t, because “equity” somehow makes high costs go away. That appears to be wishful thinking the board will have to deal with someday, especially with the Everett and Tacoma extensions.

    4. “Fares also went up. But not for longer distance travel.”

       Fares were $2.25 for trips up to the length of Westlake-Beacon Hill, or maybe the minimum rose to $2.50 at some point. It was $2.75 up to Westlake-Rainier Beach. Then it jumped to $3.25 for Westlake-TIB and Westlake-SeaTac. So it was trips the distance of Westlake-Rainier Beach or Westlake-Northgate that went up, and longer trips that went down. In other words, it was the typical trips in the highest-ridership, most walkable areas that went up. But it’s not that big a deal; my monthly pass went up from $99 to $108, so that’s not much.

    5. “I really doubt we will go back to charging more for longer trips”

       The reason ST gave for flatting the fare was simplicity, enabling more ORCA features like a fare cap, and equity. It said the suburbanization of poverty meant that people were commuting Lynnwood-Seattle and Everett-Seattle not by choice but because they couldn’t afford Seattle housing prices, so it wasn’t fair to punish them for living in the suburbs and and they needed the lower fares to have money left over for necessities. I didn’t quite buy that because a lot of suburban riders are middle class, and Seattle has lower-income people scraping by too. But that was the justification. And given that the state and all substate governments now have an equity-first mindset, it would be hard to bring back distance-based fares. Plus ST spent years berating people to tap out, and then said tapping out wasn’t necessary any longer, so if it goes back to requiring tapouts there will be complaints. (“It was tiresome before and too easy to forget, and we don’t want to go back to that.”)

       1. >> The reason ST gave for flatting the fare was simplicity

          Yes, and that makes sense. No one liked having to tap out. BART has turnstiles both directions which is its own pain. Berlin has fare zones which makes it fairly simple. You can’t be in a ‘C’ zone with an ‘AB’ ticket.

Comments are closed.