daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 6th, 2007, 04:46 PM   #381
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Will there be any sort of fare gates at the stations? The driver can't check...so will this be an honor system with random sweeps?
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 6th, 2007, 05:29 PM   #382
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Actually, 200 is the "routine" crush load. The absolute crush load of the vehicles was quoted to me today as 280.
I'm claiming that this value has no practical usefulness in any sense.

Observation of exisiting conditions do not reveal systems that exhibit 200 people per "routine" load, like rush hour. It doesn't happen, except in the busiest densest cities like NYC, and even then rarely at 200 people per 95-foot car. I think an estimate of 120 is pretty reasonable for Seattle, a little higher than average. In Baltimore, on our 75-foot, 10+foot wide Metro cars, when there are 100 people on board per car at rush you are bumping and brushing up against people. At this point, most would subjectively consider this tight for refererence purposes.

This has significant determinants on capacity, pariticularly peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded location. Do you have numbers for that?

Nate
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2007, 05:41 PM   #383
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
You know, let me address something here. We'll be operating our system at a minimum headway of 2.4 minutes upon buildout, when you start to see these loads. I'm not sure where you're getting some kind of inherent difference between LRT and HRT in minimum headway - is it possible you're confusing the term "LRT" with the definition "not grade separated"? The highest capacity portions of Link will be entirely grade separated.

How are you differentiating LRT and HRT, other than strict passenger capacity and overhead wire versus third rail (which is the most common distinction I'm aware of).
If the system is set up the way it appears in the above color maps, than my point may be moot. If the the high-frequency service areas are all grade seperated, than the concern diminishes somewhat.

Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!

I would consider HRT at minimum to be exclusive ROW with no auto or pedestrian crossings and high-platform cars. This is not necessarily full grade-seperation as the FRA would require it, but a few "HRT" systems operate as such like Chicago and PATH with at grade line crossovers and sharing with other systems.

I'd simply like to see some numbers, because I'm very skeptical about whether this system will be able to handle the loads properly, or whether the numbers are accurate and not inflated.

Any other technical data you may have would be helpful. I've never been to Seattle, so have mercy on my ignorance of your metro area. I've read numbers and looked at maps a bit, but despite not being actually familiar, I feel my points are cogent.

Thanks,
Nate
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2007, 08:39 PM   #384
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post
I'm claiming that this value has no practical usefulness in any sense.

Observation of exisiting conditions do not reveal systems that exhibit 200 people per "routine" load, like rush hour. It doesn't happen, except in the busiest densest cities like NYC, and even then rarely at 200 people per 95-foot car. I think an estimate of 120 is pretty reasonable for Seattle, a little higher than average. In Baltimore, on our 75-foot, 10+foot wide Metro cars, when there are 100 people on board per car at rush you are bumping and brushing up against people. At this point, most would subjectively consider this tight for refererence purposes.

This has significant determinants on capacity, pariticularly peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded location. Do you have numbers for that?

Nate
I think you're looking at the 200 maximum number and thinking that has something to do with ridership projections. It doesn't. That's just the maximum rated capacity of the vehicles. All our stations are built for 4-car trains, so a "reasonable" load would be 450-500 people.

I don't have information about peak hour load per direction at maximum loaded direction, but Sound Transit does. You'd want to email them: http://soundtransit.org/x2161.xml
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2007, 08:50 PM   #385
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post
If the system is set up the way it appears in the above color maps, than my point may be moot. If the the high-frequency service areas are all grade seperated, than the concern diminishes somewhat.

Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!

I would consider HRT at minimum to be exclusive ROW with no auto or pedestrian crossings and high-platform cars. This is not necessarily full grade-seperation as the FRA would require it, but a few "HRT" systems operate as such like Chicago and PATH with at grade line crossovers and sharing with other systems.

I'd simply like to see some numbers, because I'm very skeptical about whether this system will be able to handle the loads properly, or whether the numbers are accurate and not inflated.

Any other technical data you may have would be helpful. I've never been to Seattle, so have mercy on my ignorance of your metro area. I've read numbers and looked at maps a bit, but despite not being actually familiar, I feel my points are cogent.

Thanks,
Nate
Hm. Well, the only high-density parts of the line are indeed completely grade-separated. Once you get south of downtown, the Rainier Valley is pretty low-density (and low car ownership). That map looks accurate to me - there's not going to be high frequency travel in the at-grade portions because there won't need to be for decades. By the time we need grade separation there, we'll have the density to separate or close the crossings.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2007, 09:34 PM   #386
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post

Nevertheless, given the user-benefits from FTA New Starts I once read, the passenger-miles/route mile of this system is projected to be like 30,000, IIRC---double the threshold for HRT!
30,000? I'm not familiar with passenger miles/route mile or how it's calculated. But with about 42,000 people using 15 miles of track; that's 2,800 pax/mile. Compared to 5000 for Houston and 8000 for Boston. When UW link is built, it should double to over 5000.
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 02:22 AM   #387
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The passenger capacity numbers seem to vary widely depending on the source. A couple of years ago, the Seattle Times ran an article that was critical of the now defunct Seattle Monorail Project for projecting a passenger capacity of 206 passengers for a two-car Hitachi monorail train. The Seattle Planning Commission took the position that the capacity should be 155. The full article can be viewed at the following link:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...ew+york+subway

The article featured the following graphic:



The graphic shows the capacity of a four-car Central Link light rail train as 592 people, which works out to be 148 people per car. The capacity of a two-car Portland MAX light rail train is given as 266 people, which works out to be 133 people per car. Both numbers are well shy of the 200 people that is sometimes cited as the capacity of a Central Link light rail car.

The following are the dimensions for the Hitachi monorail train:
Length: 107 feet
Width: 9.5 ft
# of Seats: 70

The following are the dimensions for the Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles to be used for Central Link:
Length: 95 feet
Width: 8.7 ft
# of Seats: 74

The monorail train is longer and wider than the light rail vehicle but it should also be noted that the monorail train was to be totally automated with no cabs at the ends and the floor of the monorail train was entirely flat. By comparison, each light rail vehicle loses space to cabs for drivers at both ends and has a stepped floor design.

Based on the adverse comments concerning crowding on the monorail train with 208 passengers and the comparison of the dimensions with the Central Link light rail vehicles, I would conclude that the light rail vehicles would not be very comfortable with 200 passengers.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 03:56 AM   #388
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

^Informative chart.

Based on the evidence, 148 per a narrow 95-foot car is still probably not realistic, given the evidence of other transit agencies (unless Seattle (potential) riders are more willing to tolerate high crowding as a daily commute--a possibility(?)). This chart implies as many standees as seated--pretty darn crowded.

---

"Passenger-miles/route miles" is the most sigificant statistic that is used to justify higher modes of transit e.g. (van<bus<tic-bus<streetcar<mixed-traffic LRT<exclusive ROW LRT<grade seperated station elevated/tunnel LRT<HRT) because they would have an operational economy versus a lower mode.

It is a measure of system utilization and ridership density. It essentially measures how many people are using the system for a given distance throughout the day.

Passenger-miles/route miles are calculuted by multiplying daily ridership by the average travel distance (ATD) of the passengers, in other words, the distance the average rider travels per trip. That product is divided my the total route miles of the system.

Experience and studies have born out that to operate HRT more efficiently than a lower mode, you'd generally need at least 12,000-13,000 passenger-miles per route mile. (There are also studies that factor in capital costs into the figure).

"Passengers/route mile" is a useful stat to gauge the number of riders controlled for the length of track, but the former statistic is most useful in determining system performance.

The factor that can dictate which mode must be constructed is capacity. HRT is the only choice in some cities, because LRT can't handle the capacity due to grade seperation issues and low-platform cars limit service frequency. (One could use lots of buses, but that would be quite expensive to operate--that's directed at you, Wendell Cox.)

All this had lead me to the questions about the Seattle system. I'm trying to determine why modes in new projects have been selected as they have. Seattle certainly paid a high price for LRT.

Thus far, the only system built as LRT in the US that I feel should have been built as HRT is the new L.A. Gold Line. That could have been an extension of their Red Line, but they had a ban on HRT. I'm still looking at Seattle and wondering. (The Baltimore Central Light Rail should never have been built.)

Does the entire system have high-platform stations?

Nate

EDIT:"30,000? I'm not familiar with passenger miles/route mile or how it's calculated. But with about 42,000 people using 15 miles of track; that's 2,800 pax/mile. Compared to 5000 for Houston and 8000 for Boston. When UW link is built, it should double to over 5000."

2,800 might not sound like much, but if the average person is riding 7 miles, that would give it a high system utilization. Most systems don't have an ATD that high. I think that if one back calculates the FTA's New Starts data on Link LR, one must conclude that the ATD is quite high to acheive the kind of time-savings, in hours, ST claims to acheive with the line. And time savings is the key metric in cost-effectiveness, which is the key component of Project Justification, which is the largest piece to getting the federal bacon along with your operating expense plan......

Last edited by getontrac; March 7th, 2007 at 08:09 AM. Reason: Second edit: clarity
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 03:58 AM   #389
guinessbeer55
Registered User
 
guinessbeer55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 687
Likes (Received): 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post

Does the entire system have high-platform stations?

Nate
I read somewhere that they were 14inch platforms...
guinessbeer55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 06:18 AM   #390
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point now.

Maybe you might just have a problem with the fact that we're calling it LRT?

Excluding Rainier Valley, we'll have 4-car articulated trains running at frequencies of 2.5-5 minutes underground from downtown to Northgate. That sounds like HRT to me. What would be the difference?

When compared to TRAX (utah's 18-mile line with 60,000 daily ridership) or MAX, where shorter trains are running at-grade with cars and pedestrians and maybe slower frequencies...you can see that Seattle's Central line is more HRT-oriented than LRT. ...That's just my opinion.

Also, what does platform height have to do with anything?
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 06:54 AM   #391
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

High-platform cars allow much quicker loading and unloading, which has an effect on service frequency. Rush hour LRT stops can have a very long station dwell time (like 45+ seconds). Quicker loading is esp. the case with wheelchair users. AFAIK, all HRT systems worldwide have high-platform. I know all those in the US have it. (I'd be interested to hear of those that don't )

On many stops of the Baltimore LR, the driver has to stop get out of his cab to lower the handi-cap lift.

Loading times for high-platform is generally half that for low-loading cars.

Seattle's certainly LRT, because it has to obey the speed limit on MLK. I estimate that portion of the line would be 50% faster elevated or tunneled. LRT has to build more contigency time into it's running schedule, knowing it will have more conflicts (it also must worry about accidents at intersections). The system cannot ever run automated. HRT is a closed system, so it only concerns itself with itself.

Nate
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 07:06 AM   #392
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
I think I just read the most recent plan (dec 06)...and Everett wasn't involved. It only went up to Lynnwood. Redmond has 1st priority for lightrail and Everett is 2nd, while Issaquah and Redmond via 520 are being studied for "high-capacity transit".

There are 3 lines:
1. Northgate - Port of Tacoma:...........4 car-trains 10mn peak; 15 offpeak
2. Lynnwood - Overlake via Bellevue:..4 car-trains 6mn peak; 15 offpeak
3. Lynnwood - Kent-Des Moines Rd:.....3 car-trains 15mn day; 20 night

So the northgate - downtown segment will have about 3 minute headways peak combined while offpeak will have about 5 minute headways!

I found it on one of their December reports online.

i made a simple map that shows the breakdown of the 3 lines with some stops. Of course this is waaay into the future and most likely will change.


3 minutes is pretty darn tight for high-speed LRT (unlike Boston/Philly/SF)--but near the practicable limit exhibited elsewhere. But someone mentioned 2.4 minutes earlier, so maybe the figures were rounded?

One accident on MLK, and the day is ruined for the whole system. Well, several hours anyway. This is going to be a difficult system to keep on time, I bet.

Nate

Last edited by getontrac; March 7th, 2007 at 07:15 AM. Reason: Did the math wrong--got 1.93 minutes!
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 07:35 AM   #393
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

I'm unsure of the definitions of high-platform, or low-loading cars, but each platform will be level with the boarding surface of the train. That is a special wheel chair ramp/lift is not required. The vehicle specs fact sheet says "low floors for easy, level boarding." You can see the whole vehicle spec sheet here:

http://www.soundtransit.org/Document...hicleSpecs.pdf

It sounds to me that we will have easy and quick boarding.

To answer the question about honor system on tickets, I'm fairly certain it will be such, with random checks. If Sound Transit continues to put a security guard on every train car like they do on Tacoma Link, then random checks won't exactly be random, but ensured.

As for the headways, I think it's reasonable predictions for an almost exclusively grade separated alignment. I don't think we'll be having as many problems on MLK way as some think. It'll be separated from the traffic and normal traffic lights will control traffic at crossings.

Tacoma Link is almost always on time, and they run in mixed traffic for a portion of the alignment, which is something I disagree with, incidentally. They only time I've seen a train seriously delayed there was yesterday when some police action was taking place and they required shutting down the line for five minutes as an ambulance came into the scene.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 08:04 AM   #394
getontrac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore
Posts: 907
Likes (Received): 0

Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is flush with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.

I'm guessing Tacoma isn't or wasn't intended to be a "rapid transit" type system. Please, correct me if I'm wrong . The slower the trains run and more infrequent the service, the less there is a problem when something goes wrong. When you're running a high-speed system like what Link LR is intended to be--26mph average?--and uber-tight headways, one chink and the whole thing can go down on a 2-track system. (Thank God it's not like Baltimore's was until recently, only 2/3rds was 2-track. Half the time I rode the thing--it would stop mid-track, sometimes for more than 5 minutes--because of an accident, repairs, or just to let another train pass.)

I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work. It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!

Nate
getontrac no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 08:39 AM   #395
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

No, Tacoma's system isn't supposed to be rapid. More street car like than light rail, though they call it light rail anyhow. And the headways are 10 minutes, which doesn't pose as many problems in the event of a service interruption as a 3 minute headway would.
__________________
Jax

Last edited by Jaxom92; March 7th, 2007 at 07:33 PM. Reason: clarifying "problems"
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 03:59 PM   #396
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post

I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work. It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!

Nate
weakest link!! Ha, that's exactly what I originally thought. But I'm thinking this: Since the O&M facility or train barn is placed right between Downtown & Rainier Valley...in case something does go wrong on MLK, they can just make Lander St or SODO the temporary terminus, and have the trains enter/exit the O&M to not cause delay to the rest of the system. Will that work?
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 04:20 PM   #397
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post
3 minutes is pretty darn tight for high-speed LRT (unlike Boston/Philly/SF)--but near the practicable limit exhibited elsewhere. But someone mentioned 2.4 minutes earlier, so maybe the figures were rounded?

Nate
Concerning the 2.5min frequencies...I just did a mock-up timechart of the frequencies (I have a lot of time on my hands), and during peak-hour, it came out to a max 20 trains per hour. So that's 3 minute intervals---not 2.5. Off-peak was exactly 12 trains/hour in nice 5 minute intervals. That's for downtown.

In Rainier Valley, it's 6 minute peak and 7.5-10 minutes off-peak.
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 07:31 PM   #398
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post
Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is flush with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.
I'm still unsure of the difference because our low-floor trains will be flush with the station platform, hence why we will not require a special wheelchair ramp to deploy from either the train or the platform. It seems to me there are multiple methods to achieve the same effect. High platform to match a high floor train and low-platform to match a low floor train. It's just a matter of the height standard of either the train or the platform and conforming the other to meet it and thus create a flush boarding surface between the train and the platform.

As for the maintaince issues, I don't know anything about them. If a low-floor train is more difficult/costly to maintain, then a high-floor platform will be more cost-effective. (Even if the initial investment/capital costs of a high platform are higher than a low-floor train method, the long run cost-effectiveness will be higher.) But this cost-effectiveness has nothing to do with boarding speed and efficiency which again seems to be achievable via either method.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 09:21 PM   #399
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by getontrac View Post
Low-floor is certainly an operational improvment over the traditional steps, but still not like high-platform which is flush with the station platform. IIRC, low-platform for both rail and buses tends to cost more to maintain. I know Boston had a lot of problems with the low-floor Bredas (I think?). They got low-floor to speed up boarding time on the 4-line bottleneck Green Line, which suffers from ridiculous loads.

I'm guessing Tacoma isn't or wasn't intended to be a "rapid transit" type system. Please, correct me if I'm wrong . The slower the trains run and more infrequent the service, the less there is a problem when something goes wrong. When you're running a high-speed system like what Link LR is intended to be--26mph average?--and uber-tight headways, one chink and the whole thing can go down on a 2-track system. (Thank God it's not like Baltimore's was until recently, only 2/3rds was 2-track. Half the time I rode the thing--it would stop mid-track, sometimes for more than 5 minutes--because of an accident, repairs, or just to let another train pass.)

I hope I'm wrong about accidents on MLK, but history indicates otherwise. Hopefully it will work. It just that when it doesn't the whole system comes crashing down. In this sense, Link will only be as good as its weakest link--really no pun!!

Nate
I really wish you'd step back and ask questions before making assumptions. Our system is flush with station platforms. There are no wheelchair ramps, there is no step up or down during boarding.

There's a serious problem here of attacking an improvement as "not good enough". Seattle has buses. We don't have any rail at all right now, and initial designs for this system were at more of a heavy metro level. We compromised, because construction cost inflation is ridiculous, to get any system at all. The warning system we've had in downtown Tacoma - much higher vehicle density than MLK - has had ZERO accidents in its several years of operation. We're using that same system with a higher degree of separation in MLK. Instead of focusing entirely on speculating about how awful vehicle traffic will be, could you take a moment to recognize that we're not making the same mistakes as Portland, Dallas and Denver?
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 7th, 2007, 09:23 PM   #400
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxom92 View Post
I'm still unsure of the difference because our low-floor trains will be flush with the station platform, hence why we will not require a special wheelchair ramp to deploy from either the train or the platform. It seems to me there are multiple methods to achieve the same effect. High platform to match a high floor train and low-platform to match a low floor train. It's just a matter of the height standard of either the train or the platform and conforming the other to meet it and thus create a flush boarding surface between the train and the platform.

As for the maintaince issues, I don't know anything about them. If a low-floor train is more difficult/costly to maintain, then a high-floor platform will be more cost-effective. (Even if the initial investment/capital costs of a high platform are higher than a low-floor train method, the long run cost-effectiveness will be higher.) But this cost-effectiveness has nothing to do with boarding speed and efficiency which again seems to be achievable via either method.
A low-floor train is slightly more costly to maintain, but the cost differential does not overwhelm the capital project cost differential of complete grade separation for 100+ years of operation.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
king county metro, seattle, sound transit, us light rail

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium