Seattle Subway!

[kub86]

Originally Posted by California Kid

Actually the color coding tells you what the backers think as more important ( as described by the official announcement on seattletransitblog.com)

Red is priority number 1 , purple is priority number 2 and blue is priority number 3 ( again this is how the creators presented it november last year, so it gives an idea how the market it when the time comes to get a campaign started ). Its not based so much on ease of construction, its more on ridership projections.

Right...but a shorter line will be more sellable to the public. Maybe they should break the red line in half. Do the Ballard part first, build the tunnel down 2nd ave, and extend to west seattle later. Or vice versa.

[Nexis]

If they go with a separate tunnel , then i would go with a separate Train type instead of LRT , build a system similar to the Skytrain in Vancouver. A Skytrain system would service Seattle , the Link would connect various Large neighborhoods and towns with multiple stops , and the commuter rail would service towns with one or 2 station.

[Matt the Engineer]

I'd love a driverless system. Operation consts drop dramatically and frequency becomes limited only by how quickly the trains could arive, rather than how many drivers we can afford.

[jam5]

Originally Posted by Nexis

If they go with a separate tunnel , then i would go with a separate Train type instead of LRT , build a system similar to the Skytrain in Vancouver. A Skytrain system would service Seattle , the Link would connect various Large neighborhoods and towns with multiple stops , and the commuter rail would service towns with one or 2 station.

Okay -I'll bite. Why do you consider Skytrains superior to Seattle light rail, and why do you think it would serve Seattle better?

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by jam5

Okay -I'll bite. Why do you consider Skytrains superior to Seattle light rail, and why do you think it would serve Seattle better?

The main difference is that it's 3rd rail instead of catenary. Skytrain actually doesn't go any faster than our Link (55mph), but it COULD. Also I believe it's driverless, which would be great since operators and unions are currently driving up our service costs.

[jam5]

Originally Posted by Doomgoggles

The main difference is that it's 3rd rail instead of catenary. Skytrain actually doesn't go any faster than our Link (55mph), but it COULD. Also I believe it's driverless, which would be great since operators and unions are currently driving up our service costs.

Our Metrorail cars in the DC area also have the option of being run driverless, and actually were driverless until a few years ago due to the horrendous June 2009 crash on the Red Line. Now they are all being driven manually.

[Nutterbug]

The disadvantage of third rail...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/...s-in-evanston/

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by Doomgoggles

The main difference is that it's 3rd rail instead of catenary. Skytrain actually doesn't go any faster than our Link (55mph), but it COULD. Also I believe it's driverless, which would be great since operators and unions are currently driving up our service costs.

There's not much practical use in having an urban system with stops so close together to run faster than 55 mph anyways.

It is pricey, but some advantages to Skytrain's linear induction motor (LIM) system over a conventional rotary motor system include being able to handle steeper grades (6% vs. 3%) and I believe also faster acceleration capabilities.

Though it was the Rolls Royce of metro systems at the time when the Expo Line was opened back in 1985, I thought it would be the most common standard for new systems by now. I guess Bombardier having the stranglehold on this design and trainsets kept it from becoming more widespread.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by jam5

Our Metrorail cars in the DC area also have the option of being run driverless, and actually were driverless until a few years ago due to the horrendous June 2009 crash on the Red Line. Now they are all being driven manually.

Sounds like it just needed to have better safeguards in place.

Human judgement too can fail. Seattleites know that all too well with their monorail.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by Doomgoggles

The main difference is that it's 3rd rail instead of catenary. Skytrain actually doesn't go any faster than our Link (55mph), but it COULD. Also I believe it's driverless, which would be great since operators and unions are currently driving up our service costs.

As designed, Link could never be driverless.

The only way driverless can work is in a controlled environment. This means not only locking down the Rainier Valley leg to be free of traffic and peds, but also all station stops to prevent pedestrians or other obstacles from having track access.

Picture the Sea-Tac train system. That's what it would take. Not cheap. Better to have those darned people working IMO.

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

As designed, Link could never be driverless.

The only way driverless can work is in a controlled environment. This means not only locking down the Rainier Valley leg to be free of traffic and peds, but also all station stops to prevent pedestrians or other obstacles from having track access.

Picture the Sea-Tac train system. That's what it would take. Not cheap. Better to have those darned people working IMO.

The Rainier Valley is my chief complaint about our system. It's ludicrously slow, subject to delays, and is simply not as safe as a grade separated line. It must be manned, therefor it's less efficient.

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

There's not much practical use in having an urban system with stops so close together to run faster than 55 mph anyways.

Not downtown, no. But on the blue line (Airport express and Aurora) it would be ideal. Also the cross-bay section of the red line. But where we REALLY need the extra speed is East and North Link.

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by jam5

Okay -I'll bite. Why do you consider Skytrains superior to Seattle light rail, and why do you think it would serve Seattle better?

Being Driveless is better then having drivers with a city as dense as Seattle , that means you can run trains every 2 mins instead of every 5 mins....and you can run trains every 2 mins all day.

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by Doomgoggles

The main difference is that it's 3rd rail instead of catenary. Skytrain actually doesn't go any faster than our Link (55mph), but it COULD. Also I believe it's driverless, which would be great since operators and unions are currently driving up our service costs.

Auto systems rarely go above 60mph for some reason , 3rd Rail has a max speed of 100mph.

[alexjonlin]

How many minutes do you think will be shaved off the Westlake-Airport travel time once buses finally get kicked out of the tunnel? I imagine it's an average of at least a couple minutes of delay due to bus congestion for each trip from the stub tunnel to Stadium Station.

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

The disadvantage of third rail...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/...s-in-evanston/

Incidents rarely happen like that and we have over 840 miles of 3rd Rail commuter rail....it depends on what kind of 3rd Rail you use. Top and side contact are the most dangerous , while bottom contact is safer...

Top Contact



image hosted on flickr

LIRR M7 #7341 Westbound by diffusedmind, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

The Long Island Rail Road by ShellyS, on Flickr

Bottom Contact

image hosted on flickr

METRO-NORTH--4321 arr Scarsdale OB by milantram, on Flickr

image hosted on flickr

METRO-NORTH--4325 at Deans Bridge, Purdy's OB. 1 of 2 by milantram, on Flickr

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by Nexis

Incidents rarely happen like that and we have over 840 miles of 3rd Rail commuter rail....it depends on what kind of 3rd Rail you use. Top and side contact are the most dangerous , while bottom contact is safer...

Why don't they use overhead wires for non-grade separated systems?

[UrbanBen]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

As designed, Link could never be driverless.

The only way driverless can work is in a controlled environment. This means not only locking down the Rainier Valley leg to be free of traffic and peds, but also all station stops to prevent pedestrians or other obstacles from having track access.

Picture the Sea-Tac train system. That's what it would take. Not cheap. Better to have those darned people working IMO.

If Google can build driverless cars that interact with pedestrians and bicycles safely, it's going to be a simpler task to make a train driverless as well, even surface rail.

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Why don't they use overhead wires for non-grade separated systems?

In NY Grand Central Terminal along with the LIRR system for some reason they built the Bridges and the Terminals , aswell as the Tunnels too low for wires so they stuck with 3rd rail. NJ and CT use Overhead for the 370 miles of Electrified we have....3rd rail is banned in CT so theres a reason for that. As for NJ , the PRR opted for Catenary over 3rd rail , the lines are often longer , and stations are spaced more. The PRR wad then copied by the DLW and Erie who also used Catenary... Unlike Overhead 3rd Rail is easier to maintain and lasts longer then Catenary , aside from the NEC , the original 1910-1930 wires were replaced due to age and breaking. The Original 3rd rails , many which go back to the 1890s and 1910s haven't had any issues to date with the exception of flooding and snow which damages the 3rd rail.... MNRR and LIRR have plans for another 270 miles of 3rd rail lines mostly restorations by 2050. Theres over 9,740 miles of planned Catenary lines , theres currently 3060 miles of electric commuter rail....so outside NY , there aren't anymore 3rd Rail lines planned. As for Auto Trains , Septa is thinking about converting and extending its Norristown High Speed line into a Skytrain type system.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by UrbanBen

If Google can build driverless cars that interact with pedestrians and bicycles safely, it's going to be a simpler task to make a train driverless as well, even surface rail.

Let me know when those cars are deemed street legal.

[earthtoandy]

Originally Posted by alexjonlin

Well, there haven't been any real ridership projections for any of these. It's just based on slightly-educated guesses on ridership. And anyways, it could turn out that the Ballard-Downtown-West Seattle line would get more ridership than the Ballard-U District line, but would cost so much more that it makes more sense to build the crosstown subway.

Actually this isn't correct. These lines are based off of all the work and research put into the Monorail project. These lines even match closely with what the city has in mind for really slow surface rail. You can see the very recent Transit Master Plan here: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/tmp_bbook.htm

But these have been formally researched and much of that work from the Monorail can likely be used to plan/engineer a future subway/grade separated rail. Also i know the Lines drawn by the Seattle Subway guys are simply general suggestions to show what a system could look like, Sound Transit will have to do all the work to decide on specific alignments, the kind of stuff that is being discussed in this thread.

Also here is a proposed map back from the Monorail days: http://www.seattlemonorail.org/images/sysmap.jpeg
You'll notice it's pretty similar... except the Subway lines are certainly more polished, direct and don't involve using a silly ugly monorail.

Let's get this built! Ballard to Downtown (and eventually to West Seattle) first!