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 25th, 2007, 04:49 AM   #841
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
In eliminating transfers, there's a curve. No transfers is best, one transfer sucks but doesn't kill ridership, two transfers almost completely kills ridership, and three is laughable. With Link, from Bellevue, you'll have no transfers to downtown Seattle, Northgate or the University, your by far largest possible destinations of the three you mention. One transfer on rails to Sea-Tac or Tacoma. We will still have direct buses from Bellevue to Sea-Tac (the 560) and from Bellevue to the U-district (the 271), but buses can't handle the number of people who will be making this trip in 2030.
A commuter who lives in a suburban area east of Lake Washington and works in the South Lake Union area might be expected to take a bus to the nearest Central Link light rail station and then transfer to the South Lake Union Streetcar. That is two transfers. I have my own doubts regarding the viability of such a commute; however, my doubts center on the awkward transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar rather than the fact that there are two transfers.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 25th, 2007, 08:53 AM   #842
guinessbeer55
Registered User
 
guinessbeer55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 687
Likes (Received): 13

yeah seriously... why couldnt they have continued the streetcar line just a little bit farther down 5th ave.??

btw the streetcar construction looks excellent!!!
guinessbeer55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2007, 07:23 PM   #843
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
Maybe you're confusing it with the Seattle Times article about the low ridership of the Sounder North Line? They mentioned that x number of people boarded Sounder north, but since they were all roundtrips, you'd half that number to see the real number of people using it.
They're not all roundtrips at all - you're just assuming that if someone takes the train in the morning, they take the train in the evening. Many of those people use the bus one way and the train the other.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2007, 07:31 PM   #844
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
1. Like any construction contract, the Cascadia Monorail contract was in actual dollars rather than theoretical dollars from some other year. Cascadia Monorail was not a party to the financing of the project. If Cascadia Monorail had been involved in the development of the finance plan, they might have saved the Seattle Monorail Project the humiliation of Joel Horn’s infamous $11 billion finance plan. The Cascadia Monorail contract had a grace period of just a few months for the Seattle Monorail Project to sign the contract and obtain financing. The grace period had already lapsed by the time of the fall 2005 election that terminated the project; however, the contract had already been mooted by the revised plan to build a truncated line.

2. The plan for Central Link that was presented to the voters in 1996 called for the line from the University to the Airport to be completed by 2006. The present plan is for the initial segment of the line to open in 2009. Most of the initial segment didn’t even go to bid until 2004 and 2005. In the most optimistic scenario, the extension to the University won’t open until 2016. Inflation was much less of a factor in the delay than the original cost estimate being much too optimistic. If the Seattle Monorail Project had the luxury of collecting taxes for almost 10 years prior to beginning construction, there would have been no finance problem.

3. The discussion concerning inflation raises a serious concern regarding the cost estimates for Sound Transit 2. All of the cost estimates given on the Sound Transit website < http://www.soundtransit.org/x3951.xml > are in 2006 dollars despite the fact that the election will be in late 2007. If the 2006 construction inflation rate was 14%, the cost of the projects should be reported as $12.3 billion (2007 dollars) rather than $10.8 billion (2006 dollars).
I have no idea where you're coming up with this "actual" dollar value. The baseline was 2002, the contract was never awarded, so the dollar value of the contract was never solidified. Numbers reported for negotiation were in 2002 because the new costs weren't calculated until the 2005 ballot measure was presented.

As I said, the line wasn't truncated. I wasn't making a judgment about when construction started or when it would finish. I simply pointed out an inaccuracy in your statement.

Construction cost inflation wasn't 14% in 2006. There's no reason to recalculate cost in 2007 dollars because the costs are being offered in 2006 dollars. A recalculation would be functionally equivalent, but it would cost the agency (and the taxpayers) more money to do. Note that Sound Transit would have gone to ballot in 2006 (and planned to), but were prevented by the state legislature.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2007, 07:31 PM   #845
Jaxom92
Urban Studies Grad
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 203
Likes (Received): 0

You're probably right, kub, about my confusion on the articles.

There's a short article today about the Beacon Hill station in the Seattle Times:

Underground Link Station a Beacon of Engineering

Here's the two pictures from that article:





And this is another picture from Rainier Valley:

__________________
Jax
Jaxom92 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2007, 07:36 PM   #846
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
A commuter who lives in a suburban area east of Lake Washington and works in the South Lake Union area might be expected to take a bus to the nearest Central Link light rail station and then transfer to the South Lake Union Streetcar. That is two transfers. I have my own doubts regarding the viability of such a commute; however, my doubts center on the awkward transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar rather than the fact that there are two transfers.
Suburban dwellers aren't well served by transit, and never will be: as a result of that, they don't use it. The scenario you've presented leans toward using a car.

The point of rail transit from an urban planning perspective is more to shift demand away from suburban expansion by providing transportation infrastructure to support infill. New residents, rather than buying houses farther out, will have the option to buy next to stations and have a single transfer or zero transfer commute trip. There's massive demand for this: In-city condos are selling out before the buildings are even constructed.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2007, 08:05 PM   #847
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
They're not all roundtrips at all - you're just assuming that if someone takes the train in the morning, they take the train in the evening. Many of those people use the bus one way and the train the other.
Well since the ridership figures for both ways are practically identical, I think it's okay to assume they're roundtrip riders. ST calls Sounder passengers "round trip commuters."

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
A commuter who lives in a suburban area east of Lake Washington and works in the South Lake Union area might be expected to take a bus to the nearest Central Link light rail station and then transfer to the South Lake Union Streetcar. That is two transfers. I have my own doubts regarding the viability of such a commute; however, my doubts center on the awkward transfer between Central Link and the South Lake Union Streetcar rather than the fact that there are two transfers.
Aren't most stations located at park & rides? Aside from downtown Bellevue, I think the others are park & rides. I'm going to bet most people will drive to the station like they do to Sounder stations. Sure, buses go there, but hardly anyone uses them (speaking from Puyallup station experience...). Of course bus-culture is more widely accepted in King County so it's probably a different story.

And the SLU transfer is probably just as awkward as the King St station - Int'l station transfer where the hundreds of people coming off sounder trains make the trek across a wide busy street and around a block or two to get to the bus tunnel. Most Sounder riders don't work in the immediate vicinity (the int'l district). Since that hasn't deterred the 6000 daily riders (or 3000 'roundtrip commuters') from using the Tacoma train, I don't think an awkward SLU transfer will deter any potential riders from transferring to SLU if they need to...it'll be annoying, but nothing to change minds over. Of course the long headways for the streetcar might make some people just walk instead.

Edit: Here's an article about the streetcar line from May 21st. It mentioned that the line would be marketed as a tourist attraction...which reminded me of our monorail---but in this case, there's nothing "special" on the other end.
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...uth+lake+union

Last edited by kub86; June 25th, 2007 at 08:18 PM.
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 12:23 AM   #848
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
Well since the ridership figures for both ways are practically identical, I think it's okay to assume they're roundtrip riders. ST calls Sounder passengers "round trip commuters."
It's not okay in service planning, where you're trying to figure out where to add the next train to entice new passengers. I guess it is okay in raw numbers, it's just less correct than simply counting boardings.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 02:00 PM   #849
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
I have no idea where you're coming up with this "actual" dollar value. The baseline was 2002, the contract was never awarded, so the dollar value of the contract was never solidified. Numbers reported for negotiation were in 2002 because the new costs weren't calculated until the 2005 ballot measure was presented.

As I said, the line wasn't truncated. I wasn't making a judgment about when construction started or when it would finish. I simply pointed out an inaccuracy in your statement.

Construction cost inflation wasn't 14% in 2006. There's no reason to recalculate cost in 2007 dollars because the costs are being offered in 2006 dollars. A recalculation would be functionally equivalent, but it would cost the agency (and the taxpayers) more money to do. Note that Sound Transit would have gone to ballot in 2006 (and planned to), but were prevented by the state legislature.
1. As of June 2005, the Seattle Monorail Project had fixed-price contract pending with Cascadia Monorail to build the entire 14-mile Green Line Monorail for a cost of $1.615 billion in dollars in actual year of expenditure dollars. The Seattle Monorail Project projected that the contract cost was $1.35 billion in 2005 dollars. This is described on the following website:

http://www.elevated.org/project/repo...overview_4.asp

The pending contract with Cascadia Monorail was fixed-price It would be impossible to define the price to any greater certainty prior to actually building the line. Please note that the cost numbers for the University extension of Central Link are estimates generated by Sound Transit. There has not yet been a bidding process to build the line. The cost numbers for the Sound Transit 2 extensions are even more tenuous as the exact alignment of the lines has not yet been determined.

2.. Central Link is shorter than advertised to the voters (25 miles advertised vs. 14 miles for initial segment and 19 miles for the University to Airport), more expensive than advertised to the voters ($1.7 billion advertised vs. $2.44 billion for the initial segment and $4+ billion for the University to Airport), and well behind schedule (2006 opening advertised vs. 2009 opening for the initial segment and perhaps 2016 opening for the University to Airport).

The original plan was for the line to extend at least as far as the University District adjacent to the campus with Northgate being the intended terminus. The present plan is for the University extension to reach no further than the stadium at the southeastern corner of the campus. The planning documents now refer to the station as “Husky Stadium” rather than “University of Washington“. There won’t be a station serving the University District until the extensions to be built under Sound Transit 2.

The following figures illustrate the station location:





The document at the following link describes the “Sound Move” plan as advertised to the voters in 1996:

http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf...ndMovePlan.pdf

3. Sound Transit already has the cost estimates in 2006 dollars. All they need to do to convert the estimates to 2007 dollars is multiply by one plus the inflation rate. They could have their summer intern do the calculations in one afternoon!
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2007, 02:02 PM   #850
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
Suburban dwellers aren't well served by transit, and never will be: as a result of that, they don't use it. The scenario you've presented leans toward using a car.

The point of rail transit from an urban planning perspective is more to shift demand away from suburban expansion by providing transportation infrastructure to support infill. New residents, rather than buying houses farther out, will have the option to buy next to stations and have a single transfer or zero transfer commute trip. There's massive demand for this: In-city condos are selling out before the buildings are even constructed.
You should call Sound Transit at once and alert them that they should not waste any money on connecting streetcar lines and bus services as nobody will ride them!
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 12:48 AM   #851
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
You should call Sound Transit at once and alert them that they should not waste any money on connecting streetcar lines and bus services as nobody will ride them!
Suburbs aren't suburbs after they've filled in - they're urban. If you're making transit connections in an area that *will* be urban (and it's a capital investment), you're making things easier later.

By the way, your link to the sound move plan shows that the voter guide says... "University District". The station's name is... "University District". It's in... the "University District".
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2007, 12:49 AM   #852
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Sound Transit already has the cost estimates in 2006 dollars. All they need to do to convert the estimates to 2007 dollars is multiply by one plus the inflation rate. They could have their summer intern do the calculations in one afternoon!
If the calculations were that simple, they would have done them. Why don't you ask them how their inflation calculations are done, since you don't care to listen to me?
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 04:51 AM   #853
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
Suburbs aren't suburbs after they've filled in - they're urban. If you're making transit connections in an area that *will* be urban (and it's a capital investment), you're making things easier later.

By the way, your link to the sound move plan shows that the voter guide says... "University District". The station's name is... "University District". It's in... the "University District".
1. So urban dwellers are willing to make transfers and suburban dwellers are not? I will stand by my earlier statements. Transit passengers will be willing to make transfers provided that the transfers are convenient. The service frequencies must be high so that the wait times are short and the distance that passengers must walk when transferring must be short. The South Lake Union Streetcar to Central Link transfer seems awkward. The Sounder to Central Link transfer at King Street Station also seems awkward.

2. The Sound Move voter guide is from 1996 < http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf...ndMovePlan.pdf >. Yes, the plan that was presented to the voters in 1996 featured a University District Station, which to most people implies a station convenient to the neighborhood adjoining the campus. The present plan for the University Link extension features a station in the southeastern corner of the campus next to Husky Stadium. The line won't reach any further north until the Sound Transit 2 extensions are built.

Last edited by greg_christine; June 28th, 2007 at 05:03 AM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 04:55 AM   #854
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
If the calculations were that simple, they would have done them. Why don't you ask them how their inflation calculations are done, since you don't care to listen to me?
The calculation of the cost of the Sound Transit 2 projects in 2007 dollars is no more difficult than the calculation of the costs in 2006 dollars. I would be surprised if Sound Transit does not already have the numbers. Of course, the cost numbers in 2007 dollars would be higher, which may be a motivating factor for publishing the costs in 2006 dollars.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:01 AM   #855
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

There is at least one area in which Sound Transit has done an excellent job. Despite the cost and schedule problems with its various projects, Sound Transit continues to have strong support from area politicians. Unlike the Seattle Monorail Project, Sound Transit has excelled at building support among elected officials. Broad support among regional political leaders is ensured by the make-up of the Sound Transit Board of Directors:

John W. Ladenburg, County Executive, Pierce County (Chairman)
Connie Marshall, Councilmember, City of Bellevue (Vice Chair)
Mark G. Olson, Council Vice President, City of Everett (Vice Chair)
Julie Anderson, Councilmember, City of Tacoma
Mary-Alyce Burleigh, Councilmember, City of Kirkland
Fred Butler, Deputy Council President, City of Issaquah
Dow Constantine, Councilmember, King County Council
David Enslow, Mayor, City of Sumner
Doug MacDonald, Secretary, WA State Dept. of Transportation
Richard L. Marin, Councilmember, City of Edmonds
Richard J. McIver, Councilmember, City of Seattle
Greg Nickels, Mayor, City of Seattle
Julia Patterson, Council Vice Chair, King County Council
Larry Phillips, Councilmember, King County Council
Aaron Reardon, County Executive, Snohomish County
Ron Sims, County Executive, King County
Claudia Thomas, Mayor, City of Lakewood
Peter von Reichbauer, Councilmember, King County Council

To the best of my knowledge, the Seattle Monorail Project board did not have a single member who held an elected office in the city or county government. The Seattle Monorail Project was the product of a group of community activists. This is in sharp contrast to the original Sound Move plan that founded Sound Transit, which was originated by elected officials. The following is the history of votes for conventional rail transit in the Seattle area:

1958 - Voters reject rail transit plan.
1962 - Voters reject rail transit plan.
1968 - Voters reject rail transit plan.
1970 - Voters reject rail transit plan.
1988 - Voters approve planning for rail transit.
1995 - Voters reject regional transit plan that includes rail.
1996 - Voters approve a scaled-down transit plan with a 25-mile light rail line to be completed by 2006.

The existence of the Sounder commuter services and the initial segment of the Central Link line ensures the long-term survival of Sound Transit. No other government agency is positioned to manage those lines. If Sound Transit 2 fails at the ballot box this year, there will be a revised plan sent to the voters within a year or two. It is the reverse of the monorail political process. The plan will be revoted until it is approved.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2007, 05:15 AM   #856
guinessbeer55
Registered User
 
guinessbeer55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 687
Likes (Received): 13

Majority of voters favor big Puget Sound transpo tax package, poll shows
Fifty-seven percent of voters in the Central Puget Sound area are inclinced to vote for a $33.3 billion roads and transit package that will likely be on the November ballot, according to a new Elway Poll.

The $9.7 billion roads package includes numerous projects in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties like replacing the state Route 520 bridge across Lake Washington and widening Interstate 405 on the Eastside. It will be combined with a $23.6 billion proposal to expand the Sound Transit light rail system.

If approved, the overall package will increase sales taxes by an estimated $150 annually for a typical family and will increase yearly car-license fees by $80 per $10,000 of vehicle value.

Politicians and transportation planners have been quietly worrying that the roads and transit package may be doomed. Elway's latest poll of 400 voters last week suggests there's some hope. The survey, which has a margin of error of 5 percent, did reveal that only 38 percent of those questioned had heard of the tax plan. That's not surprising because interest groups, both pro and con, haven't started their ad blitz yet.

Pollster Stuart Elway said of the transpo package:


Simply put, voters will take action to effect a solution which they deem viable, aimed at a problem which they think is important...The Road and Transit proposal attempts to resolve the age-old Roads versus Transit debate by chaining two packages together like Sidney Poitier andd Tony Curtis in "The Defiant Ones." (OK, you have to be a certain age.) They both make it or neither does...There is still plenty of time for opponents to make their case and support to erode. The Achilles heel may be in the finding the more familiar respondents were with the proposal the less likely they were to support it. And those most likely to vote were least likely to support it. But this initial sounding of public oopinion about the proposal is probably more positive than anyone expected.
guinessbeer55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2007, 06:30 AM   #857
guinessbeer55
Registered User
 
guinessbeer55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 687
Likes (Received): 13

Im really angry with sound transit...

Ive emailed them twice now to ask when they will be testing their light rail trains and then I go down to sodo and theyre not there!!! uhhhhhh.
guinessbeer55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2007, 07:23 PM   #858
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by guinessbeer55 View Post
Im really angry with sound transit...

Ive emailed them twice now to ask when they will be testing their light rail trains and then I go down to sodo and theyre not there!!! uhhhhhh.
Who are you emailing? You might want to try Roger Pence: [email protected]
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2007, 09:09 AM   #859
JasonB52
Pokémon Master
 
JasonB52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 21

It might interest some of you to know that the Tukwila International Blvd. Station is progressing very quickly. The glass has been completed for weeks now and they are in the process of getting everything painted. I also saw the poles for the overhead wires going in on the Tukwila segment. Looks like that section could be completed in the near future.
JasonB52 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2007, 11:34 PM   #860
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonB52 View Post
It might interest some of you to know that the Tukwila International Blvd. Station is progressing very quickly. The glass has been completed for weeks now and they are in the process of getting everything painted. I also saw the poles for the overhead wires going in on the Tukwila segment. Looks like that section could be completed in the near future.
Oh, you saw poles up already! That's good news. Last I saw of the station a couple of weeks ago, they were doing interior wiring trays and installing escalators (with most of the glass and the roof in place).
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 01:43 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