Was hyperloop a scam? The Cascadia high-speed rail study compared hyperloop to other modes. (CityNerd)
The Vegas Loop, which does exist, is unbelievably impractical and gets few riders. Ray rides it and compares it to Las Vegas’s other transit. (CityNerd)
Ray will be be in Seattle at Town Hall November 5th. Livestream tickets are available; in-person tickets are sold out. He’ll be talking with Sarah Goodyear and Doug Gordon, authors of the book Life after Cars and the podcast The War on Cars .
This is an open thread.
The problem with any of the loops, no matter if they are hyperloop or urban loop, is that to work as proposed it needs to be a series of loops. You can’t build it as a straight line and have it work as intended.
I’m not saying loops are a practical solution to anything. However, the tech billionaires currently promoting them don’t seek to have read the entire theory of how loop systems are supposed to work. Or, for that matter, read the second word (“loop”) of their product’s name.
See the diagram of Urban Loop as an illustration:
https://urbanloop.fr/en/notre-concept/
That’s almost how Ray assumed the Vegas Loop would work. You go to a station and a few autocars would be waiting on a siding for the next passengers.
Hyperloop was never really intended to be a loop. It just sounded cool. It is just a variation on vactrains (low pressure travel inside a tube). Wikipedia has a good article on it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop).
In general the UrbanLoop concept has it exactly right. With autonomous vehicles, turnout stations, and dynamic assignment of vehicles you can run service that involves near infinite frequency (i.e. zero headway / no waiting for a train because a pod is waiting for you docked in the turnout station) and pure express service (you go straight to your destination without stopping, because you bypass the stations along the way). This is combining the best features of express busses (non-stop), private cars (no waiting to leave) and Uber (the dynamic vehicle assignment). This is the way of the future.
UrbanLoop has it wrong in two areas. First is the “loop”. Jarret Walker at Human Transit has good primers explaining why loops are generally bad for transit. By definition a loop takes you back to your start – but you want to transit to take you somewhere else. On the other hand, for the second part of your journey you do want to go back to where you start – but a one way loop (like those shown on the UrbanLoop website) takes you away from where you started at first. When it comes to loops they paradoxically take you back to where you start when you want to go somewhere else, but take you somewhere else when you want to go back to where you start.
Instead of a loop, the “UrbanLoop” technology should be implemented on a conventional network typology, with two way service on lines, not one way loops.
Second is the mixing between loops shown on the Urban Loop website. Vehicles waiting at turnouts provides the best part of using cars – zero headway for your vehicle to arrive. However, if the pods/vehicles are free to move onto any line, you will end up with the worst part of cars – congestion when everyone tries to have their vehicle go to the busiest/most popular areas. The only way for the UrbanLoop model (dynamic stop assignment of autonomous vehicles and turnouts) to work is for vehicles to be captive to their lines so that there can never more vehicles than the ROW can handle. There is the potential to do things like short turns when the system detects more demand at the southern end of the line rather than the north, or for branching as long as total vehicles does not exceed the capacity of the main line and one branch (no different than branching for conventional systems). But anywhere to anywhere like a car just results in car-like traffic jams.
One should note that this means there is a limit to capacity with small pod systems. They will probably displace a lot of bus transit lines in the future, but for high capacity corridors there will still be a need for large trains, or at least larger autonomous vehicles similar to current busses (with dynamic assignment you can still achieve very fast travel times by having such a bus stop only a few times on a journey, instead of stopping at every stop.)
Is Canyon Park an example of this?
One side effect of West Seattle Link might be the end of frequent connectivity between Colman Ferry Dock and the Central Business District. If the C and H Lines are truncated in West Seattle.
If they aren’t truncated, that removes much of the purpose of West Seattle Link.
Good point. West Seattle Link would come with a big restructure. This would not only alter service in West Seattle, but along the waterfront. This sort of thing has happened before. There used to be more buses along 4th and 5th. But as buses have been truncated, a lot of these have gone away. You can always backfill service along there but that becomes tricky (especially since they want to add service along First Avenue). Ultimately though, you don’t end up with the kind of savings you would with a simple truncation. For example the 41 ran express from Northgate Transit Center to the downtown tunnel. That section is now completely redundant with Link. That isn’t the case with the West Seattle buses.
That being said, I’m more concerned about three-seat rides. Those headed to the waterfront will have to transfer twice (or walk). Same goes for those headed to South Lake Union. That is not unique. There are plenty of people who experience the same thing. But it seems like West Seattle riders wouldn’t gain much in the trade. Someone in Northgate can now get to Capitol Hill or the UW dramatically faster. I don’t see similar benefits for West Seattle riders.
I think the biggest benefit of West Seattle Link to West Seattle riders would be people who want to go past downtown, rather than people going to downtown itself. For example, I could see trips between West Seattle and UW, Capitol Hill, or anywhere north of that becoming much quicker, as well as between West Seattle and much of the eastside. For example, you could take Link from Alaska Junction, followed by the 542 to Redmond.
The way transit is set up today, it is nearly impossible to go anywhere from West Seattle without passing through downtown first. The car network at least has bypasses for downtown (e.g. I-5, SR-99). Even though they are often congested, sitting in traffic still ends up being faster than traveling all the way through downtown on surface streets and waiting for a connection, so that is what people do, which, in turn, largely limits the transit network *only* to downtown trips.
Still, it could definitely be worse. At least the C-line has bus lanes around the stadiums, insulating it from event traffic.
If West Seattle link must be built, my thinking would be rather than end the truncated line at SoDo would be to extend it north to Stadium, and rebuild East Link so trains could run West Seattle – Bellevue. It wouldn’t be as good as getting downtown Seattle, but it would at least end somewhere other than SoDo. It also creates one seat rides that aren’t possible now.
I think the biggest benefit of West Seattle Link to West Seattle riders would be people who want to go past downtown, rather than people going to downtown itself.
Yes, but only if you are going to Link destinations. For example consider a trip to First Hill. Right now you take the bus from West Seattle neighborhood to downtown and transfer to the RapidRide G and head up the hill. With West Seattle Link you will transfer to the train and then transfer again to a bus (or streetcar) to get to First Hill. The same goes for trips to Uptown. You have to take the train to Westlake and then the monorail (or take a bus from there). Same goes for Bellevue. You have to take a bus, then a train, then transfer to the train headed to the East Side. Thus you are still going through downtown, you just need to transfer to a train (and then transfer again for most destinations). It is even worse for those who are used to going to South Lake Union. Instead of taking a one-seat ride, folks have to transfer twice. It is worth noting that West Seattle Link probably won’t be frequent. It will be similar to the existing lines (8 minutes peak, 10 minutes midday, then 12 to 16 minutes at night). The transfers won’t be trivial.
There are some similarities with Northgate Link. But there is a big difference. Northgate Link added stops that were in between Northgate and Downtown. Before Link got to Northgate, riders used to take the 41 all the way downtown and then backtrack to get to Capitol Hill. The bus to the U-District took a very roundabout way there (or they backtracked to there as well). Thus Link was a major improvement to major destinations. That isn’t the case with West Seattle Link. If you are headed to the UW, you just transfer to Link at a different place. It will save you a little time but not a huge amount. The only stations where you would save a lot of time are SoDo and Stadium (minor destinations). Even with SoDo some riders would be better off with the 50 (since the 50 goes to more places in West Seattle).
But this is why adding the ramps between the Spokane Street Viaduct and the SoDo Busway is the best approach. It is the best of all worlds. Riders still get their one-seat ride to downtown and South Lake Union (although they might lose that one-seat ride to the waterfront). They still get their two-seat ride to First Hill, Uptown, Bellevue and a lot of other places. Like West Seattle Link, they get a faster connection to the rest of Link. If you are riding the H Line and transferring to Link there is not much difference between transferring at Delridge or SoDo. It is quite likely the transfer at SoDo will be better (the distance from bus stop to Link platform will be shorter). If you want to take Link the other direction (e. g. to Beacon Hill) then sending the buses to SoDo is much better. Instead of having to transfer to a train and then transferring again at SoDo, you just take the bus directly to SoDo. Overall it is just better.
The main advantage to West Seattle Link is that is saves service money. You are running fewer buses. But at some point the capital costs overwhelm those savings. It is like paying a million dollars for a low-maintenance roof. Even over the long run it doesn’t save you money.
West Seattle Link was just a poorly conceived project. It assumed streetcar costs and subway benefits. But it is basically the other way around. It is extremely expensive to just get to West Seattle. With stations very close to the expressway (and only three stations) there isn’t that much benefit. It was just a bad idea.
@Glenn — That is an intriguing idea. It would certainly add more value than just a stub line. I think the main drawback is that it basically keeps service levels as they are now. There is a lot to be said for what we’ll have once East Link trains go across the lake. At that point you will have twice as much service in the north end than to the south or east. While running trains that often to Lynnwood may be hard to justify, it is certainly a good idea to run trains between the UW and downtown as often as is practical. Trains from the south are fairly limited. The best they can do is every six minutes and they have been hesitant to run them that often. Realistically you are looking at what we have now (8 at peak). This is bad enough for the south end, but really bad for the core of our system (from downtown to the UW).
This is one of the reasons why they wanted a second tunnel. You retain a good balance. It is also why the combination of bus improvements for West Seattle and an independent (automated) line from Ballard to Westlake works as well.
Just to be clear: I’d not change any of the existing Line 1 and 2 plans. I’d just schedule West Seattle trains to run between the existing East Link planned schedule. So, in the gaps where they have a Line 1 train scheduled through the downtown tunnel, a West Seattle train takes its place on the East Link line.
There shouldn’t be too much of a problem with this, since the ridership estimates for West Seattle link are low enough it shouldn’t need more than a train every 15 minutes or so.
You’d need to figure out how to cram a line to the south around the existing tangle of highway interchanges.
I rather agree, Glenn. I’ve often argued that 8 1 Line with 6 2 Line and 4-6 WS Trains should work fine.
And just a note in frequency: trains could be safer and slightly faster to load if ST installed automatically boarding gates or doors. It cuts a few seconds off the station pull-ins.
“Yes, but only if you are going to Link destinations.”
It’s more than just Link destinations, it’s also anywhere that involves passing through a Link station north of downtown before getting on a bus. For instance, Lake City, Wedgwood, Bothell, Kirkland, and Green Lake are all considerably easier to reach with West Seattle Link vs. without it. Wallingford too, for that matter, as staying on the train to 45th St. and catching the 44 is quicker than riding the 62 from downtown. Maybe First Hill, it doesn’t help much because the connection point still has to be downtown, but there are still a lot of places where it does. Even Ballard, a connection between the two trains at Westlake is still going to be considerably faster than switching between the C and D line, like you would today.
When Seattle Link is built, I think you will see a considerable amount of induced demand, where people from Capitol Hill and other places along Link visit West Seattle Junction more often than they do today, and vice-versa.
It’s more than just Link destinations, it’s also anywhere that involves passing through a Link station north of downtown before getting on a bus.
Fair enough. There are a number of places where it would be just a little bit faster. But there are plenty of places where it would be slower (and more annoying). Anywhere on Aurora for example. Also Phinney Ridge. Ballard, Magnolia, Queen Anne — you get the idea. You are forcing an extra transfer. Even if it was faster (and it isn’t) you lose riders this way (https://trid.trb.org/View/174502). You can make up for this by reducing the travel time to other destinations or running the trains more often. The latter is highly unlikely and the former is rare. There are relatively few trips where West Seattle Link saves a lot of travel time.
Even Ballard, a connection between the two trains at Westlake is still going to be considerably faster than switching between the C and D line, like you would today.
But that is merely an argument for Ballard Link. Imagine they build Ballard Link the way many of us propose (as an independent, frequent, automated line that ends at Westlake). Great! But now consider how someone from West Seattle heads to Ballard (or any of the other stations on that line):
1) Take a bus to Westlake and transfer to Ballard Link.
2) Take a bus to Andover & Delridge. Then take the escalators to the platform and wait who knows how long until the train gets there. Get on the train and go to Westlake. Now transfer to Ballard Link.
Unless you get really lucky, the first option is faster. More to the point, it is bound to be more popular. If they ran both, hardly anyone would transfer to West Seattle Link if they were headed to Ballard (or anywhere else on that line).
It will definitely save some people some time. But they won’t save that much time. For the vast majority of trips in which you save time, all you’ve done is change the transfer point. Instead of riding a bus downtown and transferring to trains running every five minutes to the UW, you are transferring to a train in West Seattle running every ten minutes. The bus runs very quickly to downtown — the train won’t be that much faster. Look at the travel time from West Seattle to the UW: https://maps.app.goo.gl/q1UmJdfmBKBeDCjK7. It takes 14 minutes to get to Symphony Station. Link won’t be much faster (maybe 10 minutes). That just isn’t much. The actual transfer experience as well as the frequency of the trains and buses matter more (a lot more).
But again, I’m not arguing we do nothing for West Seattle even though many people would come out ahead if we did. If we run the trains to SoDo you have almost all the benefit of both options. Riders who eventually find themselves northbound on Link (for part of their journey) are just about as well off as if they spent a lot more money running the trains to West Seattle. Meanwhile, riders who prefer that one-seat ride to downtown and South Lake Union (whether they are heading there or transferring on something other than the north end of Link) can continue to do so. Way more people come out ahead with that option while very far fewer come out behind.
The ugly truth is that West Seattle Link is a wasteful project unless the line goes through Downtown. All the paltry forecasts of station boardings assume that the SODO transfer required of a stub line is non-existent.
The other thing that isn’t mentioned is how the last station would be very deep inside a bored tunnel. Had WS Link run at the surface just before Avalon station and run in a Delridge median then an Alaska bus/rail transit mall, billions would be saved. The EiS had a Delridge-only scenario but no scenario assuming two stations in West Seattle.
I’m not at all convinced it’s a particularly good value even if there are stations downtown. A huge portion of Wrst Seattle has to transfer at Alaskan Junction with it, unless they keep running the buses.
Even today, the connection from many part of downtown to ferry terminal is not seamless because of lack of east-west routes and coverage at 1st Ave. I think people would more eager to ride bus on east-west routes like G to avoid walking the hill. I can only imagine thinks got a lot worse when all the West Seattle routes were truncated. I hope they would keep one route that has little overlap with West Seattle Link (H or 125) and run every 15-minute.
Yesterday I took a ride on the new 223 and the north (Eastgate – Bellevue) part of the 240.
I like the 223’s fast connection between Overlake and Eastgate. The newish stop on 24th serves the Safeway much better than the old 221. On the other hand, we do still need a southbound stop at Overlake Village Station.
No one boarded the 240 between Eastgate and downtown. What’s more, I was struck by how there was basically nothing on the route between South Bellevue and SE 8th. I think this invites a restructure: Move the 240 to 108th; send the 249 down 112th – SE 8th – Woodridge – Factoria.
Also, I’m dubious about how the new 226 barely misses both Crossroads and Overlake Village Station. Perhaps we could break the route at Overlake, attach the Bel-Red segment to the 225 (which would now lay over at Bellevue TC), and have the route just run South Bellevue – Overlake?
It’s a good route, but it could be better. The bus needs signal priority at the lights on 24th, and I think it should just stay on 148th all the way from 24th to Eastgate. There are plenty other bus routes for riders to get between Overlake and Crossroads, the 223 doesn’t need to try to do everything.
Yeah, and the lights on 24th need resyncing for cars too. People shouldn’t have to stop at 148th, 151st, and 152nd.
Staying on 148th (with a jog over to 152nd for Overlake Village) would be nice, but then we’d need another bus for Lake Hills. If there’s enough budget for another route, I’d be happy for that… but then if we have that budget, there’re places in Bellevue that need it worse. Or we could send one route straight down 156th – Lake Hills – 148th, and another on 140th-Main-148th?
“Staying on 148th (with a jog over to 152nd for Overlake Village) would be nice, but then we’d need another bus for Lake Hills.”
I’m not convinced that’s actually the case. If the 223 were moved to 148th, the gap between the 223 and 226 (on 164th) would be only about a mile. That puts everyone on the Lake Hills stretch that the current 223 covers within half a mile of either one bus or the other. And, on top of that, much of the route is also within half a mile of Main St., which has the 245, which also goes to Crossroads.
In the worst case, such a route shift would add a transfer for some people trying to get to Crossroads, but in practice, I think that number would be very small. This is not exactly a high-dense area to begin with and, for a lot of the people, options would exist to walk slightly further to the 226 or 245, which would still provide a one-seat ride to Crossroads. And, that’s not even getting into the fact that the 223 goes by a huge shopping center around Overlake Village, so many people who currently take the 223 to the Crossroads QFC might decide to just take the faster 223 to the Fred Meyer instead.
In an ideal world, there would be a bus on 148th, 156th, and 164th, but there are lots of other neighborhoods with similar population density that have worse coverage than this. As other commenters have pointed out, Woodridge currently has no bus at all – and they don’t have the option to just walk to another bus route, like people on Lake Hill Blvd. would.
But, in return for giving up a tiny bit of coverage, you make for a much faster and more direct north/south ride through Bellevue, offering improved connectivity to Bellevue College, Issaquah, Factoria, and anywhere else buses from Eastgate may go to. Faster trips attract more riders, so overall ridership would likely improve. I have personally met people who have ridden the bus to Eastgate from places like Overlake and Redmond, so these trips are not hypothetical. It’s one thing to sacrifice speed to serve a huge regional destination with a Link station, such as Overlake Village, but we shouldn’t detour buses just so that people from one random cluster of single family homes, especially those with other bus routes available, don’t have to walk as far.
In an ideal world, there would be a bus on 148th, 156th, and 164th
[For sake of argument I’ll refer to the future East Link routing as if it was happening today.]
The area between Bellevue College and Crossroads is problematic. None of the corridors are that dense, none of them are that desolate. It comes and goes on each corridor. For example 164th north of NE 8th has some density. But south of there it is very low-density housing until you get to the middle and elementary school. It is tempting to just pick a middle street (156th) with the expectation that riders can walk east or west. But quite often the streets don’t go through. Even when they do it can be very long walk (well over half a mile).
The 245 cuts across Main, but that part of Main doesn’t have that much either. At least by cutting across it connects well with the 220. That way riders from that part of Main can more easily get to Downtown Bellevue. But that also means that riders heading to the college from the north get delayed. It would be a lot quicker to take the 223 route, except the 223 makes a dogleg as well.
If I didn’t care about coverage I would do the following:
1) Straighten out 245. Have it follow the fastest route from 156th to the college (which means the 223 route).
2) Straighten out the 223 as well. From NE 24th just go south on 148th to the college.
3) Have the 226 turn on Main and then follow the current path of the 245 to the college. Obviously that is not ideal — it is way too loopy. But it changes the nature of the bus. Instead of being coverage, it is a connector bus. There are definitely some one-seat rides in there, but there are lot more two-seat rides. You use the savings from straightening out the first two routes to run this bus more often. Even if it ends up being infrequent only a relatively small number of people come out behind. Along a relatively small stretch of the existing 245 things would be worse (and not that much worse). The bigger hit is the West Lake Sammamish area. That leads to the following:
4) Add Metro Flex coverage for the area around Phantom Lake. Of course this is bullshit transit. It is a way of telling an area we haven’t forgotten about them and we will provide some transit, although it might take a very long time for your shuttle to arrive and who knows where it will end up going.
It probably makes the most sense to do this after Bellevue finally improves the Snoqualmie River Road (I don’t know why it takes them so long to do a simple hardening of the road to allow buses). At that point buses will take a faster route through campus. That will result in a significant service savings, which could go into running these buses more often (or even finding a different way to backfill service for West Lake Sammamish).
No one boarded the 240 between Eastgate and downtown. What’s more, I was struck by how there was basically nothing on the route between South Bellevue and SE 8th. I think this invites a restructure: Move the 240 to 108th; send the 249 down 112th – SE 8th – Woodridge – Factoria.
I would do the first part only. Swap the 240 and 249 between South Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue. I think 108th is a stronger corridor than 112th. The 240 is the more frequent route so it should use the stronger corridor. The 249 runs less often and will eventually be a coverage route (running in Medina and Clyde Hill). It should run on the weaker corridor — 112th. 112th also has Link. North of Main it will have the 220. The 249 is enough on that corridor. This would also mean the 240 could avoid a couple turns (and thus get to Downtown Bellevue a little faster). That may be the strongest arguments for swapping those sections. There aren’t a lot of riders between Main and where the come together on either corridor. Might as well speed up the more frequent bus.
Does 108th even need bus service, really, other than a twice per day bus to serve the high school? A lot of it is within a half mile walk of East Main St. Station. More would be if Sound Transit didn’t decide to build a wall blocking the direct path.
112th may not generate very many riders, but the bus at least gets through it very fast. 108th has speed bumps everywhere and is slow.
Also, isn’t there some TOD supposed to be going on on 112th in a few years? Once that opens, maybe 112th will get some riders after all.
Does 108th even need bus service
Not really. The future 249 could just run from South Kirkland to Bellevue Transit Center (via Clyde Hill and Medina). But the route will be so infrequent that extending it a little bit to South Bellevue doesn’t cost much. It is a pretty straight shot (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2KQ4A9zRoXBXV1V7A). By extending that far you connect to other buses (that end there) like the 111. I’m not saying it is the best coverage route, but it is reasonable.
But the main thing we need to do for now is move the 240 over. Then the corridor has the appropriate amount of service. Metro can then evaluate that section and decide if it is worth keeping or whether it makes more sense to add coverage somewhere else.
Google Maps driving directions tells me 108th and 112th both take 7 minutes from South Bellevue P&R to Bellevue TC, so those speed bumps must not be hurting things very much.
Google Maps driving directions tells me 108th and 112th both take 7 minutes from South Bellevue P&R to Bellevue TC, so those speed bumps must not be hurting things very much.
I think the speed bumps are part of the reason why it is a wash. I just assumed 108th is faster but it isn’t. 112th is essentially a highway so it isn’t surprising 108th is slower. That being said, southbound a bus on 108th has the advantage of being able to go straight (through Main Street — https://maps.app.goo.gl/D1tSM7fUfEVwkFqR8). This might give the bus an edge over going around when there is traffic.
“Does 108th even need bus service”
I’ve taken ex-241 from Bellevue to South Bellevue as an alternatives to 550 during the days of Bellevue Way construction.
It is true that there might be very little need to run bus on 108th Ave SE, but this street is basically a queue-jump to Bellevue Way or 112th Ave SE, both have a very long queues at Bellevue Way @ 112th Ave SE. Because through movement is banned at 108th Ave SE at Main, 108th Ave SE never gets a lot of traffic. I was quite exciting that original 240 was routed through 108th Ave SE, but unfortunately it was changed to Bellevue Way at last minute.
I’m dubious about how the new 226 barely misses both Crossroads and Overlake Village Station.
I think the 226 is a coverage route. This isn’t obvious because BelRed doesn’t seem like a coverage corridor. But with the combination of the RapidRide B and Link, Metro is assuming it is. Folks will walk a little further to Link and the (much more frequent) RapidRide B, leaving the 226 without a lot of riders. The only people who use the 226 will be those who don’t want to walk a long distance to catch transit. In other words — it is coverage even on BelRed Road. To be fair, the 226 does run by a handful of apartments on 164th and the high school but that is about it. The 223 seems a lot stronger. My guess is that if Metro gets more money you will see a bigger frequency gap between the 223 and 226.
What if 4Line got truncated to Eastgate? In my limited experience, there’s little congestion between Eastgate and Issaquah, most happens between Eastgate and downtown Bellevue, so this could save a similar amount of time for most Issaquah commuters while saving a couple billion $.
It makes sense to me. It’s not like there’s that much walkable to the Issaquah Transit Center anyway. It could be added once funds anre available and better station sites are chosen.
And frankly I don’t think I-90 will ever be that congested. Much of the land east of Issaquah is already in public ownership as parks or forests and there’s not much vacant and developable private land available in the narrow Snoqualmie Valley.
as far as i know the expensive part of line 4 is the elevated crossovers i405 and then i90 to the center lane from south main to eastgate.
The section from wilburton to south kirkland is at-grade. the section from eastgate to issaquah is also in the center median (there’s some discussion between keeping the center hov lane exit at eastgate with the train station to the north of i90 or removing for the train station in the middle.)
Delayed trains and mechanical issue AGAIN this morning.
This three weeks in a row where the morning commute has been disrupted at least one day of the week. Not too good, ST.
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/1-line?route_tab=alerts&direction=0&at=1757314800000&view=table&stops_0=40_N23%2C40_S01&stops_1=40_S01%2C40_N23#alertsTab
Today’s bad news from abroad reminds me of a piece of advice for governments operating transit systems:
Non-segregated buses are a safety feature, not a bug.
It also means much better service, as passengers could see buses they are allowed on come twice as often.
Just came back from New Orleans and spent $150 in Uber/Lyft because NORTA (their main transit system) is horrendous. The airport bus, though a delightful express route, runs at an abysmal frequency of every 90 minutes. All buses aren’t allowed to enter the French Quarter nor do any of them go to the waterfront. My gf and I were going to dinner to a popular neighborhood (think Fremont or Wallingford) and we missed a bus. The next bus wasn’t for another 30 minutes. So we Uber’d instead. I was well aware of the historic streetcars. I thought they were preserved for historic purposes and tourists. But I wasn’t aware they’re relied upon for actual public transit usage. It’s a shame that +100 year old vehicles running at poor intervals are actually used for legitimate transit.
I stayed with a friend who lived such that the streetcar was actually useful to go to/from the French Quarter. They rarely used it, but we used it on our visit and it was fun & useful but slow. I remember the reserved Right of Way was really good, but the stop frequency was very high.
NORTA basically never recovered from Hurricane Katrina and all the ways in which the state and national government bungled the response, but the St. Charles Streetcar is absolutely legitimate transit. I’ve heard stories of Tulane students relying on them for nightlife transportation and they love them. What’s so wrong with cool old streetcars? The frequency could be better, and the downtown on street section is very slow, but NORTA also maintains everything in house and it’s the oldest continuously operating street railway in the world. I’d much rather see systems like NORTA’s than ones like Seattle, that are built for tourism and development too, have similarly marginal use cases, but completely lack the charm.
And sure, there are no buses directly within the French Quarter, but there are a ton of buses that run on Rampart and Canal. It’s definitely easy to get to on transit. For the waterfront, there are routes that get you a few blocks away, and streetcars that run down Canal (plus the pretty meh waterfront streetcar line).
I received a postcard today advertising the “2025 Puget Sound Regional Travel Safety Study.” It directs me to https://survey.psrc.org/ and supplies an access code.
If you also receive such a postcard, note that the website will not accept the code as written – “ABC1DEFGH” or the like. It will tell you the code is invalid. You must write it out in lowercase instead: “abc1defgh”.
I was just at Alaska and MLK next to Columbia City Link station. The lights were all flashing red. No cops to direct traffic were around.
The Link train approaching signals and signal priority for Link were not functioning. The train drivers had to honk through instead.
This seems to point out a systemic failure between SPD, SDOT and ST. At the very least the train approaching signals should work. It also had been that way several minutes when I got there. Meanwhile an SDOT parking enforcer went through the intersection yet did not pull over to direct traffic either hand signals.
Looks like live wire testing begins tonight!!
https://bsky.app/profile/typewriteralley.bsky.social/post/3lyefieokok2t
Yep. WSDOT finally signed off on turning on the power. Only approx 3 months late.
Is that a half month behind schedule?
There’s no such thing as “behind schedule” when the schedule is regularly updated to match delays. It would be more appropriate to say the schedule is ahead of the work.
We were expecting the powered testing to start two-thirds through August if I remember right. So if it’s starting now, that may put pressure on the target April opening date. That’s what I wanted to confirm.
@Mike Orr,
“We were expecting the powered testing to start two-thirds through August”
Originally ST was planning to start live wire testing in the first week of July. And I believe that even that date was a reset from an earlier date.
Video of the test: https://www.youtube.com/live/W7b-6t3ucjM?si=LMFQ600Er9avjqEw