Riding the oldest subway cars in the world. They’re 1950s cars in the Buenos Aires Metro on Line B. (Trains are Awesome)
Honorable mention to the Muni Metro F Line with a variety of vintage streetcars from the 1950s and earlier. I rode a few early 20th century international ones and found them bumpy, but the 1950s San Francisco cars felt as smooth and quiet as a modern streetcar.
The video recomments RielesDePlata (Silver Rails), a channel about Argentina rail transit by Marcos Villena. The original is in Spanish but the text and audio defaulted to an English translation for me. The English voice has a Spanish accent and is slightly halting, so he may dub it himself.
The T Line in Tacoma. (Classy Whale)
King County transit and growth planning in 1975. (KOMO News) We had a comment thread on it a week ago.
This is an open thread.
Why won’t our local agencies implement effective fare enforcement?
IMO kind of a pointless question, you are just going to get a range of highly biased opinions in response. IMO it is not just fare enforcement that is screwed up, but the actual fares themselves are way too low, particularly for the “premium” experience of riding VERY expensive light rail. Our transit is full of very highly compensated software engineers, lawyers, and so forth, many riding for free, using an Orca card paid for by their employer. That’s a nearly price insensitive market, I think you could double the price of those rides with very little impact on demand. Offer first class service, e.g. VIP carriages with guaranteed seating, usb power, and wifi, and I’m sure the ride pricing could go much higher. You’re not even having to compete with cars/parking for these riders if you can offer an environment where these people who are costing their employers hundreds an hour can be productive during their ride – At least until/if Tesla ever really figures out the last 10% of the self driving problem (the first 90% of any engineering problem is usually easy, but apparently Elon missed that lecture in school).
If those lawyers and engineers are subsidized, who would the higher fares impact?
Define effective fare enforcement. ST It depends on whether your definition is realistic.
“the actual fares themselves are way too low, particularly for the “premium” experience of riding VERY expensive light rail. Our transit is full of very highly compensated software engineers, lawyers, and so forth, many riding for free, using an Orca card paid for by their employer.”
That’s missing the point, and many of the passengers.
Transit exists because cities need mobility. Everybody benefits when everybody else can get to their jobs, operate the companies and services you use, meet their own needs, help others like their relatives, and get healthy recreation. The most efficient way to provide this mobility is mass transit. (Along with pedestrian and bike infrastructure.) Mass transit uses less energy, materials, and infrastructure per capita than individual cars. Light rail is a form of mass transit. Subways in general — if done right — are faster, higher capacity, and lower operating cost than buses in the highest-volume corridors (the ones that are most suitable for subways).
Transit has two kinds of benefits. One is if you use a line right now for a current trip. The other is the fact that the line is available every 5-60 minutes for trips you could take. The aggregate nature of transit means that even if you don’t use it today, other people are using it today, and it will be there on the day you need it. That wouldn’t happen if the line didn’t exist.
The problems with Link having higher capital costs than it has in other countries, or bad station placement and design, or being where it’s unsuited, or not being where it’s most needed: those are not the fault of passengers, so there’s no reason to punish them with high fares. If all these decisions had been done right, Link would be far more economical and would have significantly higher ridership. The culprit of these higher costs is the ST boardmembers, staff, and county/city politicians that made these decisions, and didn’t look sufficiently at transit best practices or what works well in other countries.
Because transit benefits everybody whether they use it today or ever or not, it makes sense to fund it via taxes. Then the question becomes whether to charge fares, and if so how high, and for what percent of operating costs? That’s an arbitrary decision — there’s no single right answer. Our elected officials make this decision.
Your concern about highly-paid white-collar workers with their employer passes ignores the fact that other people outside that category exist, and are on Link and buses, and need transit mobility. The issue isn’t just a perk for those large-company workers with employer passes. The employer is paying their fare: the rate is based on what percent of employees use their passes and how much they do. If the employer didn’t have that cost, it could put that money into higher salaries or other benefits, and if the workers are unionized they’d have clout to demand it. I don’t begrudge somebody having a $10,000 original painting when I have to settle for a $20 print.
Do you want highway tolls to fully fund the highways? Why should Link riders pay astronomically high fares to cover costs 100% when drivers and airline passengers don’t? The fare has to be set low enough so that it’s not a deterrent for people without employer passes (like myself), and for working-class people, and so that we don’t have to extend low-income discount fares to half the population or more.
Your arguments ignore the operating principles of another form of mass transit, the airline industry. There are many cases where two different people flying between a pair of cities pay vastly different fares. Direct flights, connecting flights, red eyes, first class vs economy, etc. The consumer has a vast number of choices. Of course the airlines try to maximize their revenue via dynamic pricing. Business users who book same day pay a lot more than leisure travelers willing to book 6 months in advance. And as soon as the door closes, all the empty seats have the same value, ZERO.
Go to Vietnam and you can experience the same thing with busses. In a Socialist country! Vastly different experience riding a “VIP” bus vs one used by Euro backpacker types vs one used by locals.
There is also the Lexus lanes as a local example involving cars.
IMO slow busses should be one price, expresses a higher price, light rail higher still, and a VIP carriage on light rail much higher still. Like the airlines and the Lexus lanes, you could do dynamic pricing to try to fill all the seats (yes I know that would probably require implementing infrastructure beyond what our local government seems capable of). And if you are worried about it, give low income users a subsidized card.
Finally, living in a democratic country means you don’t get away with blaming the politicians you elected. We are all to blame.
You’re comparing a weekly trip to a supermarket for food to an overseas airline flight or a lexus lane? Cities need a basic circulation system. The most efficient is to have a subway/tram network for the primary corridors, and a bus network around them. We want people to use the subway as much as possible when it’s suitable for their trip. That requires the fare to be the same or close to local bus routes. In north Seattle, Link is for trips between the U-District, Roosevelt, and Northgate. The parallel 67 is for trips to areas between those stations, like NE 80th Street or NE 55th Street. (I lived in 55th and went to a friend’s pizzeria at 80th.)
Transit is a public service because the public needs it (including people who don’t use it: they need other people to use it). Transit must be robust, which means a core subway network for a city of 500+K and even smaller. The core subway network needs to be priced like a core service people will want to use as their first choice: that can’t happen if you price-gouge them to discourage them from using it. It’s not a VIP service, it’s the primary mass service. If you don’t accept this, there’s no point in a reply chain going around in circles over it.
I don’t know about Vietnam transit. But I know Latin American countries have robust subway and/or BRT networks providing comprehensive transit, and they don’t charge fares as high as lexus lanes or limousines. Many developing countries don’t have comprehensive bus networks, and have some kind of private jitneys or e-rickshaws to fill the gap. I think that’s worse.
WA requires that large employers (100+ employees) offer incentives to reduce the number of employees driving to work at peak hours. It might be argued that people who work at large companies are the only beneficiaries of the commute trip reduction requirements, but I suspect that I’m able to benefit from law because my commute requires a transfer in the U District. Thanks to the commute trip reduction law and the thousands of employees and students who are commuting daily to the UW, the buses I need are running more frequently than they would without the law.
As Ralph Nader would say, “Wat is the problem you’re trying to solve with [premium-level high fares]? Is this a problem that really needs a solution?”
Does Link have too much ridership and we have to bring it down? But it’s more efficient to put people on a Link line that exists than to provide bus capacity for them (especially if it requires adding bus runs to fit them).
People rightfully hate the airline industry, and dynamic pricing may be economically efficient but it’s not fair
Having a VIP carriage on light rail would be so incredibly dumb. Dynamic pricing for mass transit is ridiculous, stupid, infeasible, unfair, pointless, and stupid. Yes, I did say stupid twice on purpose. For one, the price would be very high, especially after including all the extra costs associated with providing the VIP carriage in the first place. Who would pay for that? Second, it’s bad policy because it would limit capacity on the parts of the line that are nearing capacity at peak hours. And honestly, why would any politician in their right mind suggest this?
The reason employer passes exist is to avoid the much higher costs and environmental impacts if all those employees drove cars to work. It’s mostly large companies that have thousands of workers at one site. Companies and institutions that large are required to have a “commute-trip reduction” plan, which means incentivizing them to not bring SOVs. Transit passes are one way to fulfill that, and are the most win-win situation for both the employers, employees, and surrounding public.
If we didn’t have this, Seattle and Bellevue would be like Santa Clara, with more expressways everywhere, and a larger percent driving to offices. That would be a worse outcome, especially for residents living near those offices or near the commute paths.
I think a decent transit system and relatively less sprawling land use around major job centers in Puget Sound compared to South Bay Area do more than corporate transit pass does to attract people who can afford driving to take transit.
Big tech companies have equivalent transit pass program in most of their locations, not every city have the same transit usage as Seattle has.
Yeah, I think the “commute-trip reduction” system is a good one and it probably influence transit ridership. But the quality of the system and a lot of other factors (like density) probably influence it a lot more.
Peter, there are a variety of reasons, but it mainly has to do with racial and economic justice concerns.
The Madison/Union trolley wire project is approaching a milestone (of sorts). Almost all the wire needed to return trolleys to Route 2 has been put in place. The only remaining gap as of this morning is the short piece between Union and Madison on 11th Ave. There’s still a lot of work needed to permanently secure the wires in place and rebuild the switches and turn pieces. The turns to and from Broadway still need to be installed and the turn from 11th Ave to Madison on the outbound wire needs to be installed, but almost all of the wire is in place above the roadway.
What about Pine Street between 15th and 16th/Madison to return trolleys to the 12?
I went for a walk at the newly opened Myrtle Edwards Park.
I like the density of public restrooms they put there. I think park like this and Waterfront near Colman Dock needs this kind of permanent restrooms. I hope they will properly maintain the amenities.
I took bus to Elliot & Harrison and entered the park via Thomas St pedestrian bridge and left via Galer St Flyover. The walking connection between park and Elliot Ave is better than I expected. Previously I thought it would be tricky because of the rail line.
At one of the public restroom buildings, a Cafe Hagen location is set to open tomorrow. I go to their location in at Downtown Bellevue a lot and I like their coffee and pastries.
That’s nice to hear. It is a great park. I think I’ve visited it before it was actually called Elliott Bay. It has improved over the years. The Thomas Street pedestrian bridge is fun. I like the way it works with the hill on the side of Queen Anne. The Galer Street Flyover will get you there but it doesn’t seem as smooth, in my opinion. I’m glad they added more bathrooms — that is always welcome.
YouTuber rides and review the Waterfront Shuttle.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Qjeatz254eg?si=zTFgtyCYzgsprvRZ
I’d already forgotten about the waterfront shuttle. That may be the biggest hinderance to its success. Most people don’t know about it, and people have gotten accustomed to so many years without waterfront transit that even when they hear about it, they immediately forget. It will take videos like this and people actually seeing it and using it before it sticks in their head that it’s available for any trips opportunities that may come up.
I don’t know what kind of advertising there is for it. For that matter, I don’t know how transit is promoted to tourists. There may be signs on the waterfront, which make a big difference. I remember Oakland had a similar shuttle and that is how we found out about when we visited for a wedding.
A one point in the video, it actually looks kinda full. Maybe Mariners fans. Just imagine how busy it must get in the summer.
I would expect crowds to be around during cruise ship stopovers at Bell Street Pier as well.
It would be even better if Waterfront Shuttle started at 5th Ave N & Broad St, the stop 4 also serves.
A couple Sundays ago, I was waiting for 4 with 20ish people at that stop during day when 4 runs every 30-minute.
I think without more weekend trips on 4 anytime soon, it just makes thing easier for those going from Seattle Center to Pike Market if they can wait 4 and Waterfront Shuttle at the same stop.
It is crazy that the 4 runs every half hour (at best) on the weekends. That is the problem that needs to be solved. Hopefully the next transit levy will pass and the money will go to running buses like the 4 a lot more often.
From the KOMO News Archives, a 1975 report the future of public transport in Seattle
https://youtu.be/FtU5qydn6Fs
Before it was The Bravern, it was sort of a large strip mall called Raymer Square. Click through the pics to see different parts of the large block. DQ was on the corner of 8th and 112th. Taco Time was on the corner of 6th and 112th, now Meydenbauer Center. The TraveLodge motel was on 110th.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BellevueWA/comments/reyks6/raymer_square_1960s2006/?solution=773bc1dc7df8aa6f773bc1dc7df8aa6f&js_challenge=1&token=7afd7253fec22262ff1c52b1703fe9ec91f5714574730956eb08514ec092b800&jsc_orig_r=
I was thinking of this a while back, trying to remember a strip mall on 8th Street. It took me a while before I realized that it must have been where the Bravern is now. I don’t remember anything in those pictures, though. Which is not surprising, as I had only been to Bellevue a handful of times before the Bravern was built.
Speaking of which, the Bravern is probably the best example of how Downtown Bellevue is so annoying as a pedestrian. It is easy to drive to (right off 405, with two surface level driveways with valet parking, plus a big subterranean parking garage with quick elevator access to the retail center) and not so easy to walk to (no access to storefronts directly from the street).
Nonetheless, I’ve found that it has the most convenient public bathroom to the Downtown Bellevue Link station.
That’s a good idea for a post. A list of the closest public bathrooms to Link stations that don’t have on-site station bathrooms. Not sure which stations do and don’t have bathrooms. Why does ST include them with some stations, but not in others?
Yonah Freemark at the Urban Institute has some interesting data on transit rides per capita, by urban area here: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/transit-oriented-development-can-help-cities-grow-which-urban-areas-are-doing-best
Seattle is ranked number 6, behind New York, San Francisco, Washington, and Boston, but ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. My personal experience with these areas (with the only one I haven’t spent any time in recently being Washington) is that the central cities mostly all have equivalent transit, but the higher ranking ones (Seattle included) have better suburban transit service.
King County Metro added passenger count tracking. You can see how full buses are getting live on Pantograph and OneBusAway.
Looks like most buses are pretty empty… With some getting a little full during rush hour.