SEATTLE Rail & Bus

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

Almost all light rail lines in the USA, trams for the rest of the civilized world, run some of their light rail system at grade. Even what is often called light rail metros in the USA, Honolulu being one example that has one at grade train station.

Yes but none of them spent the money to have the vast majority of their LRT system be grade separated and capable of metro service while leaving out a small portion that has grade crossings. I actually measured the parts of line 1 that are grade separated vs not and the grade separated part is about 85%. The closest would be LA green line C but it's fully grade separated and therefore a metro line that just happens to use LRV rolling stock.

And based on your remark about Honolulu having an at-grade station, I'm not actually sure you understand what being grade separated means. It doesn't mean that none of the system runs at surface level. It means that the line is separated from other traffic (whether it be rail, pedestrian, or road) by either having the transit line run above or below the conflicting traffic or for that other traffic to run above or below the transit line. It's like how a controlled access expressway is grade separated. It doesn't have any intersections with stop signs, traffic lights, driveways, crosswalks, etc. as there are always overpasses or underpasses involved for anyone wanting to cross it. So a line can be entirely at grade and be fully grade-separated if there are overpasses or underpasses for anything that it crosses.

The reason separating it from other traffic is important is that it allows a higher top speed, the potential for automation, prevents the transit line from blocking intersections and affecting traffic flow, doesn't require the train to wait at any intersections, eliminates the risk of collisions with those other modes. And the reason for making a line elevated or underground for longer stretches is that it isn't always practical to have underpasses and overpasses in an urban setting due to space requirements or that so many over/under passes would be required that the cost wouldn't be much cheaper than having it elevated or underground for the whole segment while being less disruptive.

[llamaorama]

I would think in Seattle's case the biggest fault with the tram-like street median alignment along MLK is that it drastically slows down a line which when fully complete is going to be very long.

It's not even that it's at-grade, I mean the DART Blue line runs through Garland parallel to an active freight line with flashing lights and arms and still goes 65 mph. It's really the trolley track design where the rails are in pavement around Othello station and there's businesses and houses facing the street and pedestrians who probably jaywalk across the tracks all the time that really ruins it, if trains went any faster than 30-35 mph you'd end up with crashes and killing people.

But doesn't seem realistic to spend billions of dollars to rebuild or reroute an existing line when there's expansions to whole new areas that needs to be funded instead.

Maybe there would be a way to incrementally speed it up. South of Ranier Beach there's about a mile of track in the middle of MLK but there's nothing along the road except worn out metal sheds with tire shops and stuff in them. Maybe concrete barriers could go up blocking crossing the tracks at a few places and instead the handful of vehicles present would make a U-turn instead.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I would think in Seattle's case the biggest fault with the tram-like street median alignment along MLK is that it drastically slows down a line which when fully complete is going to be very long.

It's not even that it's at-grade, I mean the DART Blue line runs through Garland parallel to an active freight line with flashing lights and arms and still goes 65 mph. It's really the trolley track design where the rails are in pavement around Othello station and there's businesses and houses facing the street and pedestrians who probably jaywalk across the tracks all the time that really ruins it, if trains went any faster than 30-35 mph you'd end up with crashes and killing people.

Yes it's true that you can get most or all of the speed advantage of full grade separation by using railroad style crossing gates in places where they're feasible to implement. But I would point out that part of the reason that works in Dallas is that it has much lower frequency than Seattle. Each line in DART only runs every 15 min at peak whereas in Seattle, line 1 runs as much as every 6 minutes. That's 4 trains per hours vs 10. And not surprisingly, Seattle LRT has a higher ridership than the much larger, multi-line DART system. And I'd consider that an even bigger advantage to full grade separation - the ability to supercharge the service frequency and capacity. A metro line can basically laugh at that 10tph with their ability to more than triple that.

[Doady]

Yes, Seattle built LRT where the people are, Dallas did not. That's the most important thing, not speed, and it is reflected in Seattle's higher LRT ridership.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, Seattle built LRT where the people are, Dallas did not. That's the most important thing, not speed, and it is reflected in Seattle's higher LRT ridership.

True DART did build trains on mostly ex-railroad corridors that once linked freight trains across the country. Corridors immediately surrounded by warehouses, industries, and ranch land. Not many people like living near the ambient noises coming from trains. So initially, there were not many poeple living near the train stations.

Never-the-less, if you watch youtube videos from 1996-2006 era and compare them to videos from today, within the last year or so, you will see a significant difference with TODs springing up everywhere near the DART train stations. TODs are continuing to be built. The people are moving to the train stations where they were built a decade or more ago.

Check out the Orange line through Irving through the Las Colinas neighborhood specifically. From nothing to a small city of TODs.

That old saying; build it and they will come, is true.

P.S. That Las Colinas area is within a median of a city arterial street, much like the MLK in Seattle. And I have seen a few TODs spring up around MLK as well on Sound Transit videos. Give it time.

[mhays]

The older 1 Line stations to the south have some of the LEAST housing construction of all the new openings. Those areas have historically been lower income and lacked large sites. That said, a number of buildings are going up, particularly at Othello.

The four new stations from Shoreline to Lynnwood have 10,000 units recently opened, planned, or underway per the Seattle Times a few weeks ago. That was a 1/2-mile radius, so not necessarily TOD by most definitions.

East Link has similar numbers east of Downtown Bellevue.

For East Link's 2025 additions, Judkins Park in Seattle, Mercer Island, Marymoor Park, and Downtown Redmond all have a lot of housing construction recent/underway/planned.

The previous northern extension to the U District, Roosevelt, and Northgate would collectively have a similar number as well.

Downtown and Downtown Bellevue could tie tens of thousands of units to Link, but they could be about walkable proximity to jobs too.

[llamaorama]

I didn't mean to start a comparison between DART and Sound Transit Link, I just cited it as an example where an at-grade alignment could meet whatever technical and regulatory requirements would exist to support trains running at speeds comparable to a car on an uncongested freeway.

But now that we are on the subject, I think you guys have a misinformed opinion of DART and do not realize how many of the stations do have quite a bit of density surrounding them or the amount of new TOD that has been built or is planned. In contrast, its quite clear looking in Google Maps that many of the new Link stations are currently surrounded by strip malls and stroads.

I suspect the real difference between Seattle and Dallas light rail ridership is that Seattle has more transit usage in general which is probably due to being a high cost of living vs low cost of living area.

My personal experience with Seattle transit is that more "normal" people use it than use transit in Dallas and I bet this is because of the cost of living. I've ridden the bus there a few times and except for the homeless people the people on the bus were a diverse mix, white, black, asian, etc wearing clothes that you would wear in an office. One time going to Seattle for work I had to use a company car to give a guy on our team a ride from his apartment in Lynnwood because he didn't have a car or a driver's license. Normally he said he rode the bus to downtown. We got to quietly talking about salary differences between the DFW team and the Seattle team and the Seattle people make more than the DFW people but on the DFW side you have people buying houses and in Seattle they are riding the bus.

In contrast I've ridden DART light rail a few times, mostly boarding and departing at stations on the Red Line where it passes through areas that are sort of affluent and the stations have a lot of nice apartments and condos and offices near them, and the train is mostly empty except for homeless people. The people who live in those areas that have good rail service are all driving their cars.

[Nouvellecosse]

I personally wasn't criticizing the DART system. There are plenty of LRT systems that make extensive use of railroad crossing gates to achieve speed including Calgary, one of NA's busiest and most successful. It was Doady who said that it has poor station locations and I'm not familiar enough with it to confirm nor deny. I was just pointing out that speed is not the only major benefit of grade separation since another is the potential for greater frequency.

[mhays]

There are so many factors in addition to housing prices. Some big ones:

In Washington, all major employers have to encourage alternative commutes due to the Commute Trip Reduction Act. Offices typically have low parking ratios, and frequently employees get benefits to not use parking. Most office workers and college workers (along with college students) get free transit passes.

Seattle-area apartments typically come with fewer parking spaces than units, both within the city limits and in suburbs with good transit.

Transit is far better. Link runs far more often than many other systems. Our buses are also often pretty frequent and fast due to bus-only lanes, direct freeway access, etc.

Our roads are often congested. Often any additions focus on HOV lanes.

Once a decent number of people use transit, others follow. It's a catch 22 in reverse.

Greater Seattle has more neighborhoods of high density than anywhere in Texas.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mhays

There are so many factors in addition to housing prices. Some big ones:

In Washington, all major employers have to encourage alternative commutes due to the Commute Trip Reduction Act. Offices typically have low parking ratios, and frequently employees get benefits to not use parking. Most office workers and college workers (along with college students) get free transit passes.

Seattle-area apartments typically come with fewer parking spaces than units, both within the city limits and in suburbs with good transit.

Transit is far better. Link runs far more often than many other systems. Our buses are also often pretty frequent and fast due to bus-only lanes, direct freeway access, etc.

Our roads are often congested. Often any additions focus on HOV lanes.

Once a decent number of people use transit, others follow. It's a catch 22 in reverse.

Greater Seattle has more neighborhoods of high density than anywhere in Texas.

The basic reason being that Seattle is confined mostly to a north to south configuration squeeze between bodies of water and mountain ranges.
Take most Texas large cities, sole exception being El Paso being confined by a border; they are not restricted for over 30 miles in any direction. They have spread out in every direction, in some over 60 miles. Downtown Dallas to Fort Worth is over 30 miles, add 10 miles out in both directions and that's easily 50 miles across. Add another 10 miles further to the east for Mesquite and Garand, that's easily 60 miles. Downtown McKinney and Denton to the north are also 30 miles from downtown Dallas and Fort Worth, and you can add another 10 miles to reach their city limits. So it's another 50 miles easily in that direction as well. To summarize, DFW metro is easily 60 miles east to west and 50 miles north to south, or 3000 square miles in area, and still growing.
Downtown Everett to Tacoma in a north to south direction is 60 miles or so, but downtown Seattle to Bellevue is just 10 miles. Add another 10 miles to the east for Bellevue, but not west for Seattle because that's the Sound; its 20 miles. So 60 miles x 20 miles is 1200 square miles.
With that basically skinny 10 miles wide by 60 mile long corridor, a single or double line rail system and cover most transit needs very well in Seattle. But to get the same level of transit coverage in DFW, five to ten east to west lines 60 miles long would be needed. Even at just 5 lines, that's 300 miles of rail lines for the same amount of coverage.
DFW has built over 90 miles of light rail, 34 miles of commuter rail, and presently building another 20 miles of commuter rail, and Fort Worth 20 miles of commuter rail. Yes, over 160 miles of rail lines. To date, Seattle has built or will soon complete 82 miles of commuter rail, and 47 miles of light rail. That totals around 130 miles.
So 130 rail line miles in an area of 1200 square miles provides more coverage than 160 rail line miles in an area of 3000 square miles. Hard to argue with that.

[mhays]

There is no "basic reason." Many factors are involved.

Also, Seattle's relative compactness is heavily about choosing to limit sprawl.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mhays

There is no "basic reason." Many factors are involved.

Also, Seattle's relative compactness is heavily about choosing to limit sprawl.

Such as not building on water.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, Seattle built LRT where the people are,

Yes and no. The first line served two masters - some in-town transit plus long-distance travel to Tacoma and Everett. Inevitably, both goals were compromised, i.e. the elimination of the First Hill subway station. That move saved a ton of money and some time from long-distance rides, but left a dense part of the city out of the network.

The second line (ST3) will be entirely where "people area" - South Lake Union, Ballard, West Seattle, etc., as neither branch will continue long distance and it appears that the entire line will be grade separated.

That's why, returning to my earlier remarks, the surface-running section of MLK is bad if it's also part of the Tacoma > DT stretch. Adding a bypass would greatly improve the travel times between Tacoma, the airport, and downtown. The existing surface MLK stretch would continue to operate as far south as the airport.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yes and no. The first line served two masters - some in-town transit plus long-distance travel to Tacoma and Everett....

Yeah I think that's an important aspect in that it intends to serve as a local urban transit spine in lieu of a subway/metro, but also meant to serve very long trips that would normally be provided by commuter rail since Sounder commuter rail is very low frequency. But unless a line has both local and express service, it can't serve both tasks as well as one would like since you can fewer stops and higher speeds or more stop and lower speeds, but not more stops and higher speeds.

Which isn't to say that it's a bad line. Most lines face trade-offs of one type or another and it's hard for a single line to do everything. But that happens to be a major trade-off. That said, having slower than necessary sections that lack grade-separation or crossing gates doesn't exactly help.

[mhays]

The 2024-26 additions include a lot of (originally) low-density freeway sites and suburban areas.

However, every significant municipality is required by the State to accept growth. Each city responds to this by encouraging dense areas, often in commercial/retail areas. Cities like Shoreline, Lynnwood, Bellevue, and Redmond are all encouraging and getting tons of housing around new stations.(*)

It's notable that we're not using freight rail corridors. We don't have much of that anyway. It's much easier to redevelop strip malls into dense mixed use vs. redeveloping factories.

*This is another reason why Seattle torches many cities in ridership...even our suburbs generally see a lot of infill in denser transit-served nodes, even those without rail.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mhays

The 2024-26 additions include a lot of (originally) low-density freeway sites and suburban areas.

*This is another reason why Seattle torches many cities in ridership...even our suburbs generally see a lot of infill in denser transit-served nodes, even those without rail.

Much like some light rail routes in DFW. TODs will develop near the train stations.
You must infill to grow when the option in two directions for Seattle is building over water; Puget Sound and Lake Washington. Seattle itself can not grow north or south because suburban cities already exist and do not wish to be annex. The only option for growing Seattle is building on empty parcels or building up.

[mhays]

Nothing I've said has anything to do with city limits. By "Seattle" I mean the whole area.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by mhays

Nothing I've said has anything to do with city limits. By "Seattle" I mean the whole area.

Maybe. But Lake Washington and Puget Sound are still there.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I suspect the real difference between Seattle and Dallas light rail ridership is that Seattle has more transit usage in general which is probably due to being a high cost of living vs low cost of living area.

My personal experience with Seattle transit is that more "normal" people use it than use transit in Dallas and I bet this is because of the cost of living.

I suspect that the bus tunnel was a major factor in the popularity of the city's buses in the 1990s and 2000s before the first light rail line became operational. I don't believe that there's an equivalent piece of bus infrastructure anywhere else in the United States. The Boston silver line BRT tunnel is the closest thing to it, but it a)was never completed (there are two unconnected fragments) and b)it skirts around the edge of downtown Boston rather than directly under the center. Also, only dedicated silver line buses use the BRT tunnels whereas the Seattle bus tunnel collected a variety of far-flung routes.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But unless a line has both local and express service, it can't serve both tasks as well as one would like since you can fewer stops and higher speeds or more stop and lower speeds, but not more stops and higher speeds.

I just had the idea that if a faster, more direct connection were built between the airport and the existing light rail corridor approach to the downtown tunnel, then the existing light rail service on MLK could be re-routed to run on the proposed First Ave. streetcar track. This would give the city the excuse to fill the streetcar gap. The existing streetcars would share this new section of track with the MLK branch light rail trains. The LRT trains would be made much shorter (just two cars) and the streetcar system might need to buy new rolling stock that would be compatible.

I just drew this in photoshop: