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 June 18th, 2007, 03:43 AM   #801
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequoias View Post
That's right. The tunnel is basically too small to handle heavy rail trains. The trains are taller than light rail trains and it will require a lot of retrofitting and a bigger tunnel for that. ...
Actually, light rail vehicles are taller than heavy rail subway cars. The height from rail to roof is about the same for both but light rail vehicles must have extra space above the roof for the pantographs:

Bombardier Flexity Swift - London-Croydon


Bombardier - Toronto Subway


The typical light rail vehicle has a minium pantograph operating height of about 13 feet (4 meters) from the top of the rails to the overhead wire. This is about 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) beyond the roof of the vehicle. (The precise dimensions vary depending on the particular model.) Additional clearance must be provided between the overhead wire and the roof of the tunnel.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 18th, 2007, 04:11 AM   #802
sequoias
Registered User
 
sequoias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 1,612
Likes (Received): 14

Hmmm, interesting information.
sequoias no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2007, 04:55 AM   #803
pwalker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Native Seattleite
Posts: 1,438
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities View Post
Downtown tunnel disappoints me. I was expecting they would modernizate this tunnel. I guess they didn't do that. It still look ugly 80's design. Sighs.
I agree, some of the Seattle undergrounds need to be modernized, (perhaps adding some retail would be good!)...but have you been in some of New York's old subway stations? Now, THAT is old school! But still entirely functional.
pwalker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2007, 07:07 AM   #804
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The following is the information that I have regarding the Kinkisharyo light rail vehicles that are being used for Central Link:



Based on comparisons with other light rail vehicles, I am fairly certain that the 12.1 foot height is the rail-to-roof height and does not include the height of the pantograph.

Several of my recent posts have concerned comparisons with the Washington Metro. The following is the information that I have for those trains:



Finally, just in case any member of this forum is interested, the following is the information that I have regarding the dual power buses that were previously used in the downtown transit tunnel:



The new single-wire 1500 VDC electric power supply in the tunnel is not compatible with the two-wire 700 VDC system needed by electric trolley buses, so the tunnel will now be shared with hybrid buses.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2007, 07:12 AM   #805
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker View Post
I agree, some of the Seattle undergrounds need to be modernized, (perhaps adding some retail would be good!)...but have you been in some of New York's old subway stations? Now, THAT is old school! But still entirely functional.
Add retails? Not bad idea... It could help tunnels more attractive and busier than ever by adding shoppers plus commuters. That reminds me of underground shopping mall at World Trade Center before 9/11 attacks. I shopped there before, its was really neat! I have been to some New York's old subway stations, they're okay and dirty. I like Grand Central Station better!
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 03:45 AM   #806
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities View Post
Add retails? Not bad idea... It could help tunnels more attractive and busier than ever by adding shoppers plus commuters. That reminds me of underground shopping mall at World Trade Center before 9/11 attacks. I shopped there before, its was really neat! I have been to some New York's old subway stations, they're okay and dirty. I like Grand Central Station better!
One thing that I find neglected is Taiwan's impressive subway system built not too long ago. Quite modern, complete with an underground shopping mall with not too bad looking trains, six cars per set, depending on the line, there are above ground grade separations. It would probably fit well in Bellevue. Check these out.

Plain, but sleek trains.


Photo of normal usage. That is NOT peak-time ridership.


The ending section of an underground shopping mall, complete with 7-11s about every city block or so, bakeries, toy stores, art-show displays, restaurants, heck I remember seeing Starbucks in there or maybe it was Tully's but it's quite nice. I'd estimate the width of the main passage to be about 30 feet or so with some sections in excess of 50 feet. The length, considering it took me about 20 minutes to walk straight through, I would place a bet that it's at least a quarter-mile long.



Platform and some visible rail



Underground station



Aboveground station



Taiwan's recent increase in rail-road development is quite impressive, and it recently commissioned a high-speed Shinkansen bullet-train bought from Japan that runs the length of the island. Just some inspiration for Satellites.

Last edited by HAWC1506; June 20th, 2007 at 03:51 AM.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 06:25 AM   #807
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

Wow! Not bad! The design is okay but the concept of having shopping mall that involved subway station is great! You're right it would be great fit for downtown Bellevue for sure. It should do same thing for downtown Seattle as well.
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 08:49 AM   #808
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

I'm not sure a decent subway system would be possible for Seattle anytime soon. Their ST2 project doesn't seem to allow cross-city transport very well. The design is limited to a couple city blocks and to only part of the city and not the "one-station-per-five-blocks-whichever-way-you-go" system in densely populated cities like Taipei or Tokyo. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's probably impossible to convert the bus tunnels to accommodate longer trains than the proposed Light Rail because the turn radius in the tunnels itself are so small and the tunnels are so narrow that it would be impossible for longer train cars to make it through. And if ST is still proposing to convert the I-90 express lanes for light rail, I heard that they will have to modify the two tunnels between Lake Washington in terms of height, which could be a costly process. However, I am happy with what is going on right now. Hopefully this project will lead to even more projects and improvements in the future. About the mall, we'll just have to wait until private companies make proposals. An extension of Lincoln/Bellevue Square in a Bellevue underground Light Rail System will be awesome. Same goes with Seattle bus tunnels.

But guys you have to admit, Seattle is being bombarded with transportation projects it's quite overwhelming. I'm not the one paying taxes because I'm not old enough to get my drivers license yet but I can feel all the chaos going on here, we have:

-SR520 bridge replacement
-Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement
-Light Rail to Sea-Tac
-Proposed Light Rail to Bellevue and Redmond
-Road widening projects on I-90 to add a carpool lane
-Tacoma Narrows bridge tolls

Right now, I think taxpayers have enough to deal with. It's probably inevitable that they're going to set up tolls on the 520 bridge as well. I think the Bellevue/Redmond extension of Light Rail is probably as far as light-rail supporters would want to go in terms of cost, but a problem is, what's going to happen to the Issaquah Highlands when they finish the 3200 proposed homes? So far I've only seen TWO park and rides up there.

Last edited by HAWC1506; June 20th, 2007 at 09:07 AM.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 08:58 AM   #809
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

A little reading for your entertainment

To me:

Your inquiry was forwarded to me by city of Bellevue staff, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I’d be happy to talk with you over the phone if you have additional questions. Thank you for taking an interest in regional transportation!

Sound Transit is currently in the planning stages for Sound Transit 2 (ST2), the next set of regional transit investments. The plan will build upon the investments that voters approved in the 1996 Sound Move plan, which included regional bus service, park & ride lots, transit centers, sounder commuter rail and the initial segmant of Link light rail which when completed in 2009 will run from SeaTac Airport to downtown Seattle (you’ve probably seen this construction if you’ve been out to the airport lately!).

The ST2 package, along with a significant roads package that will address major highway needs will go before voters next November. The ST2 plan in its current draft form calls for the following throughout the 3-county region:

§ 42-45 miles of new link light rail

§ 20-22 new light rail stations

§ 12,000 new park & ride stalls

§ 9 additional cities connected by light rail

§ 7 new or improved Sounder stations

§ 2 new I-405 BRT enhancements

§ 1 mile of new or improved Sounder tracks

§ 1 new streetcar line

§ The projected system-wide (light rail, buses & sounder) ridership by 2030 is 351,000 weekday riders and 106 million annual riders.

There are significant projects in the ST2 plan for the Eastside:

§ The East Link project would extend light rail transit via I-90 to downtown Bellevue, through the Bel-Red corridor and into Redmond.

§ Make enhancements to the I405 bus rapid transit system by providing park and ride facilities in Bothell & Renton

§ Provides funding for planning studies for extensions of future high capacity transit on SR520 and out to Issaquah

I’ve attached the ST2 draft plan. Again, please let me know if I can answer additional questions, and thank you for your inquiry!

http://www.soundtransit.org/Document...%20Package.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The East Link project would utilize the center lanes of I90 which now serve as one-way HOV lanes (west bound in the morning and east bound in the evening). However, before light rail is implemented on the bridge, there is a plan in place (called R8A) which calls for one new HOV lane to be added in each direction on the outer bridge decks. Both WSDOT and Sound Transit are partners in the R8A project.

So, today you have 8-lanes, and after light rail is implemented, you will still have 8-lanes.

Capacity…

One light rail vehicle at maximum capacity can carry 200 people in one car. The train can be extended to 4 cars (although currently our planning calls for 2 car trains).

At maximum capacity, light rail can carry 8,000 to 9,000 people per hour in each direction at full build out with 4 car trains running every 4 minutes across Lake Washington.
----------------------------------
Enjoy!
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 09:06 AM   #810
mhays
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 14,328
Likes (Received): 2598

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities View Post
Downtown tunnel disappoints me. I was expecting they would modernizate this tunnel. I guess they didn't do that. It still look ugly 80's design. Sighs.
If they had, they'd have gotten huge complaints, and justifiably so. People expect them to spend money on systems, not redecorating a tunnel from less than 20 years ago. This sort of thing is crucial to passing the November vote.
mhays no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 09:21 AM   #811
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
If they had, they'd have gotten huge complaints, and justifiably so. People expect them to spend money on systems, not redecorating a tunnel from less than 20 years ago. This sort of thing is crucial to passing the November vote.
I guess it's one of the few options, if not the only one, they have to connect Light Rail to Bellevue without spending more on right of way and a new tunnel. I would prefer that they didn't convert the tunnels. The rails that would be implemented on the I-90 floating bridge will be built to withstand movement of the bridge so my guess is that it will be very flexible but I would be a little tentative to ride on bending rails...
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 08:35 PM   #812
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
I guess it's one of the few options, if not the only one, they have to connect Light Rail to Bellevue without spending more on right of way and a new tunnel. I would prefer that they didn't convert the tunnels. The rails that would be implemented on the I-90 floating bridge will be built to withstand movement of the bridge so my guess is that it will be very flexible but I would be a little tentative to ride on bending rails...
The rails don't bend so much as slide across each other. Where movement must be accommodated, there are basically two sets of rails that slide back and forth along the length. The train wheels treat them as one rail, due to the specifics of the design. It's been done successfully in many other countries, nearest, Canada.
__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 10:38 PM   #813
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
Capacity…

One light rail vehicle at maximum capacity can carry 200 people in one car. The train can be extended to 4 cars (although currently our planning calls for 2 car trains).

At maximum capacity, light rail can carry 8,000 to 9,000 people per hour in each direction at full build out with 4 car trains running every 4 minutes across Lake Washington.
----------------------------------
Enjoy!
Wouldn't it be more like 10-12k? I think you used 5-minute intervals in your equation.

But more about capacity: So I read in ST's communities workshop pdf that Eastlink is expected to carry about 45,000 riders a day. That's about double what an HOV conference predicted in 2005 (about transit demand across I-90 bridge). But either way, I thought 45k was a bit low for a high capacity line, so I did some calculating to see how full the trains would be.

About 11% of all transit trips occur during the busiest peak hour (for Moscow's metro at least; from russian wikipedia), and an old 1990 article about I-90 shows that about 60% of peak hour traffic is seattle-bound. So it's not all the most accurate info, but it gives a general picture.

45,000 riders x 11% x 60% = 2,970 pphpd. That's the busiest East Link will ever get during its peak Seattle-bound commute. Divide that number by 10 trains (initial 6-minute frequencies), and it's about 300 pax/train. For 2-car trains, that's a bit above comfort level...which is expected for peak hours I guess.

Nonpeak usage is basically half that; about 1500 pphpd. At 10-minute frequencies, that's 250 pax per train, which is about 60% of the crush load.

For East Link to fully utilise its buildout capacity of 10,000pphpd, it'd need a daily ridership of almost 200,000! That's double what I-90 handles each day, so I doubt we'll be reaching that number any time soon.

I'm a bit weary of STs estimates though. Current transit demand across I-90 is about 10,000 a day (according to that HOV report), and less than 25,000 by 2025. Those might've been predictions for a bus-only option, but I'm not sure. I just hope ST is right with its own ridership estimates of at least 45k a day!
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 11:30 PM   #814
mhays
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 14,328
Likes (Received): 2598

On the positive side, this region is doing a great job of concentrating its office growth in our downtowns rather than spread around freeway corridors. Downtown Bellevue in particular is growing its workforce faster than predicted, and also suddenly turning into a high-density housing node. If Downtown Bellevue's growth continues at even 1/4 of the current pace between now and 2016, it'll be crying out for the rail line before it opens.

If you factor this along with the planned growth at Overlake and continued growth at Mercer Island (getting to be high-density residential node), the Eastside line should be well-used.
mhays no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 12:28 AM   #815
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Regarding the now defunct Seattle Monorail Project, the following was the cost for the construction portion of the proposed contract with Cascadia Monorail:

Seattle Monorail Project
Design/Build portion of Cascadia Contract:
$1.6 billion / 14 miles = $114 million/mile
The monorail didn't build double track along its length - you're also comparing 2002 dollars (monorail) to 2006 and in some cases YOE dollars for light rail. You're also comparing projected to actual - projected monorail likely wouldn't have been actual monorail, just as projected ST initial segment wasn't actual ST initial segment. The difference with ST2 is that they're projecting for construction cost inflation at a much higher percentage than ST or Monorail did initially.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 02:06 AM   #816
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
Wouldn't it be more like 10-12k? I think you used 5-minute intervals in your equation....

...I'm a bit weary of STs estimates though. Current transit demand across I-90 is about 10,000 a day (according to that HOV report), and less than 25,000 by 2025. Those might've been predictions for a bus-only option, but I'm not sure. I just hope ST is right with its own ridership estimates of at least 45k a day!
Well, I got that information from an employee at Sound Transit and I just forwarded the reply I got directly to this forum. However, that information was sent around December of 2006, so I am not sure what sort of changes have taken place recently and if they reestimated the ridership. I agree with mhays, Bellevue's going to need the rail. The current densely-populated area in Bellevue and the area of Downtown Bellevue is not too large and a rail system would probably be unnecessary AT THIS POINT, but in a couple years, as it expands even more, we can't all rely on cars anymore. But think on the bright side, more rail, less cars, and most likely they will offer frequent-rider passes.

I don't know why Seattle isn't developing a circulatory system within cities though. That to me would probably benefit us even more. So let's say instead of having an unnecessarily long rail line that runs from Seattle all the way to Bellevue, wouldn't a circulatory system in Seattle and a separate circulatory system in Bellevue with a direct Seattle-Bellevue line that connects the two be more economical?

Current plans call for a train every 4 minutes, and if they want to do that, they have to keep the trains running at 4-minute intervals at every single stop. But let's say in Bellevue, there is less ridership than in Seattle. Then the 4-minute intervals that serves Seattle will become a waste at Bellevue because Bellevue probably only needs a train every 5 or 6 minutes. It will offer more flexibility as well. So at peak times, depending on ridership estimates, a circulatory system could run in Seattle with train intervals of 3 minutes, while a separate circulatory system in Bellevue probably at 5 minutes, and a line that runs between the two circulatory systems via I-90 express lanes (or other route) can run every 4 minutes. That also allows ST to vary the number of train cars per train and would probably give more flexibility for fares as well. Then at noon, because most people leave their offices for lunch but will not travel long distances to other cities, maybe you can have a circulatory system in Seattle run at 3 minute intervals, one in Bellevue that runs at 4, but an inter-city line that runs every 15 minutes between Seattle and Bellevue.

For the passengers, a circulatory system within cities will allow the train to cover more distance, so instead of let's say, a single line that runs the Seattle bus tunnels, we have a circular train route that runs not only the bus tunnels, but to the Space Needle, down through places like the waterfront, and up to the International District, and then back to the bus tunnels on the opposite end. Same goes for Bellevue. So if you work near the Space Needle, you can ride the Light Rail to the International District for some Chinese food during lunch and then return to your office within the hour. The increased convenience would probably boost ridership as well as the distance covered would probably allow the train to not only serve commuters, but even tourists and visitors as well.

Last edited by HAWC1506; June 21st, 2007 at 02:30 AM.
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 04:53 AM   #817
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAWC1506 View Post
I don't know why Seattle isn't developing a circulatory system within cities though. That to me would probably benefit us even more. So let's say instead of having an unnecessarily long rail line that runs from Seattle all the way to Bellevue, wouldn't a circulatory system in Seattle and a separate circulatory system in Bellevue with a direct Seattle-Bellevue line that connects the two be more economical?
Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.

By the way... trains running every 4 minutes in Seattle does *not* equate to trains running every 4 minutes in Bellevue. Southbound from, say, Northgate, trains would run every 4-ish minutes. Some of those trains would continue to Sea-Tac, while some would continue to Bellevue. As I understand it, peak service to Bellevue/Redmond would be every 10 minutes at start - so more than half of those trains (every 6 minutes) would split in the international district to continue south. Since ridership will have been built considerably on the initial line, that makes sense.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 04:59 AM   #818
HAWC1506
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bellevue, WA + Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 1,280
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.

By the way... trains running every 4 minutes in Seattle does *not* equate to trains running every 4 minutes in Bellevue. Southbound from, say, Northgate, trains would run every 4-ish minutes. Some of those trains would continue to Sea-Tac, while some would continue to Bellevue. As I understand it, peak service to Bellevue/Redmond would be every 10 minutes at start - so more than half of those trains (every 6 minutes) would split in the international district to continue south. Since ridership will have been built considerably on the initial line, that makes sense.
Ahhhhh your way makes sense. I didn't think of that one. But what about longterm?
HAWC1506 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 05:12 AM   #819
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
The monorail didn't build double track along its length - you're also comparing 2002 dollars (monorail) to 2006 and in some cases YOE dollars for light rail. You're also comparing projected to actual - projected monorail likely wouldn't have been actual monorail, just as projected ST initial segment wasn't actual ST initial segment. The difference with ST2 is that they're projecting for construction cost inflation at a much higher percentage than ST or Monorail did initially.
The Seattle Monorail Project had a fixed priced contract with Cascadia Monorail to design and build the 14-mile Green Line for $1.615 billion. The total project cost was $2.016 billion; however, this included costs not directly associated with the construction of the line such as operating subsidies from the opening of the line in 2009 until 2020.

The point is well taken that the cost numbers tend to creep upward as the design of a transit line matures. The Green Line was advertised to the voters in 2002 as having a construction cost of $1.3 billion and a total project cost of $1.75 billion. The fixed-price contract negotiated with Cascadia Monorail in 2005 featured a design and construction cost of $1.615 billion. The total cost for the project was $2.016 billion. The cost overrun came on top of a 20% revenue shortfall on the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was to fund the project. Joel Horn, the Executive Director of the Seattle Monorail Project proposed paying for the project with a finance plan that involved a total debt service of $11.4 billion over 48 years. The board rejected the finance plan and forced the resignation of the Executive Director. A subsequent finance plan that reduced the total debt service to $7 billion over 40 years was developed by Kevin Phelps, who had previously been involved in the development of finance plans for Sound Transit. The plan was predicated on the MVET rising at the historic average of 6.1%. Many thought that a more conservative MVET growth rate should be used to take into account the possibility of an economic downturn. Mayor Greg Nickels and the city council rejected the finance plan and terminated the right of way agreement with the city. The Seattle Monorail Project board developed a new plan that truncated the line to 10.6 miles and reduced the design and construction cost to $1.334 billion with a total project cost of $1.687 billion. The total debt service would have been $3.9 billion over 31 years based on the MVET growing at 6.1% per year. The terms of the 2002 ballot measure that funded the monorail required that any change in the route be approved by the voters. This in conjunction with the termination of the right of way agreement with the city led to the fall 2005 vote that terminated the project.

The history of the cost numbers for the Green Line monorail can be summarized as follows:

Green Line Monorail - Original Promise to the Voters in 2002
Design-Build Cost
$1.3 billion / 14 miles = $93 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.75 billion / 14 miles = $125 million/mile

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Contract Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.615 billion / 14 miles = $115 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$2.016 billion / 14 miles = $144 million/mile

Green Line Monorail - 2005 Truncated Project Price
Design-Build Cost
$1.334 billion / 10.6 miles = $126 million/mile
Total Project Cost
$1.687 billion / 10.6 miles = $159 million/mile

The requirement that the monorail plan be revoted if there were any change to the route was a response to what had happened following the 1996 vote that funded the Central Link light rail line. Campaign literature for Central Link described it as a 25-mile line that would run from the University of Washington through the downtown business district to the airport. The campaign literature actually showed a mix of images that included Vancouver Skytrain and the Portland light rail system, so it wasn’t even clear to the voters that the line would be light rail. The cost of the line was to be $1.7 billion and it was to be completed by 2006. As the engineering of the line commenced, it became clear that that the cost would be much higher than the original estimate. A revised plan was developed for a truncated and delayed initial segment. The wording of the 1996 ballot measure allowed the changes to be made without requiring a revote. The initial 13.9-mile segment is now expected to open in 2009 at a cost of $2.1 billion or $2.44 billion depending which numbers are used. A 1.7-mile extension to the airport is expected to open shortly thereafter at a cost of $225 million or $300 million if the cost of necessary changes to adjacent roads is included. A 3.15-mile extension to the University of Washington is being planned. The University of Washington extension is expected to be completed in 2016 at an estimated cost is $1.7 billion.

The history of the cost numbers for University-to-Airport segment of the Central Link light rail line can be summarized as follows:

Central Link - Original Promise to the Voters in 1996
$1.7 billion / 25 miles = $68 million/mile

Central Link - Present Cost - Low Version
$4.025 billion / 19 miles = $212 million/mile

Central Link - Present Cost - High Version
$4.44 billion / 19 miles = $234 million/mile

The electorate is now facing a vote on Sound Transit 2. Sound Transit is now much better at estimating costs than they were in 1996 but there still are questions regarding the accuracy of the cost estimates:

Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - Low Estimate
$8.97 billion / 49.4 miles = $182 million/mile

Sound Transit 2 Central Link Extensions - High Estimate
$10.26 billion / 49.4 miles = $208 million/mile

The credibility of the Sound Transit 2 plan hasn’t been helped by the newspaper headlines screaming that the debt service will extend for 50 years.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 05:32 AM   #820
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
Just to answer that one point: No, it wouldn't be. When you make two transfers necessary to connect most points in Seattle to most points in Bellevue, ridership would be abysmal.
...
I have lived in three different cities where I have been a regular user of rail transit and I have rarely had a single seat ride. Transfers are a reality of life when riding transit. Transferring between lines is not a big deal as long as the platforms are in close proximity to one another and the services operate at a high frequency so that waiting times are minimal.

There will be at last three streetcars that operate as circulators for the Central Link light rail system: Tacoma Link, South Lake Union Streetcar, and First Hill Streetcar. There may be a fourth streetcar if the Waterfront Trolley is not configured as an extension of the First Hill Streetcar. Central Link will also carry passengers who transfer from Sounder, the Seattle Center Monorail, and numerous bus lines. It seems to me that a lot of passengers will have two or more transfers.

The convenience of the transfers does concern me. The transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar seems particularly bad. From the Central Link station in the transit tunnel at Westlake, it will be necessary to climb the stairs to street level and then walk down the block and around the corner to find the platform for the South Lake Union Streetcar.
greg_christine 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 02:56 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