Light Rail Boom

[M II A II R II K]

The Appeal of Modern Streetcars Continues to Mount, But There Are Obstacles to It Bringing Mobility Gains


Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...obility-gains/

If the Obama Administration’s push to construct high-speed rail lines has suffered numerous delays as a result of Congressional inaction and state-level criticism, its decision to allow numerous streetcar projects to move forward through the federal funding pipeline has produced a veritable explosion of project proposals across the country. Yet the manner in which cities are pushing these schemes smacks of poor policy making and suggests that a better use of limited transportation dollars is possible. The recent promotion of streetcars in the United States is something of an aberration — at least in terms of recent history. Generally ignoring the successes of the locally funded vintage 2001 Portland Streetcar, the Bush Administration repeatedly informed municipalities across the country that their transportation policies should emphasize bus improvements over road-running rail lines.

Though the SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization bill passed in 2005 specifically included a provision for limited-cost projects such as streetcars (called Small Starts), the Department of Transportation under Bush refused to fund them either in 2006 or 2007 (fiscal years 2007 and 2008), picking BRT projects instead — despite significant local demand for rail. In early 2008, though, the Bush Administration seemed to relent, agreeing to recommend the funding of the Portland Streetcar Loop — and then beginning in 2009, the Department of Transportation under President Obama pressed forward with TIGER and Urban Circulator grants, encouraging cities from Dallas to Seattle to apply for federal funds and more recently allowing project development to move towards construction in cities such as Atlanta, Charlotte, and Tucson.

Over the past few months, the interest of cities in streetcars has seemingly exploded even further. Providence has proposed a two-mile route for $126 million; San Antonio wants a line that will spur real estate development; Milwaukee envisions a $64 million corridor through downtown; Kansas City plans $101 million worth of tracks between City Market and Union Station; and Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Northern Virginia are moving forward with a streetcar down the Columbia Pike. Each plan’s proponents will apply for — and expect to win — federal funds to cover most costs. These are not isolated examples of cities suddenly interested in a new transit mode. Rather, the relatively sudden availability of dollars from Washington, D.C. has encouraged new thinking about what kinds of transit are possible.

The fact that streetcars can be built with lower per-mile costs than other forms of rail transit, their ability to attract denser development in some cases, and the possibility of farming off most of their costs to another government entity has made them incredibly appealing. Washington, seeking transit projects that are visible and reinforce dense communities, has been a willing partner in this effort. For the most part, this has been beneficial policy, since it has encouraged more cities to think seriously about how to invest in high-quality transit. In addition, it has spread rail transit beyond the nation’s biggest metropolitan regions, a trend that arguably will be helpful in encouraging choice riders onto transit systems and simultaneously improve the daily commutes of regular riders.

.....

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by electricron

Have you considered what the costs would be to increase the service frequencies? Apparently not.

You're wrong with "apparently not". Yes, it would cost money. But if your only concern is cost you might as well not even build the line at all. That would be even cheaper. What's the point of doing something half-assed and spending many millions of dollars to provide such a poor service. Apparently it's every 10 minutes now. That's a little better.

To someone having to put up with a long wait because they just missed the last streetcar, they don't justify it in their mind because it would be more expensive to run it more frequently. They just know that it's inconvenient. I'm quite surprised that someone would defend such a poor level of service (I'm talking about the 15 minute headways, not the 10 it's apparently running at now).

To shorten headways to half what it is now, to 7.5 minutes, you'll need to operate twice as many trams. That's twice the costs. To maintain the subsidy as is, you'll need twice the riders paying the same fares. But are the streetcars overcrowded today, is there a latent demand for twice the seats? I suggest not.

Demand is not fixed. The more frequent a transit line's service, and the faster a transit line's service, the higher the demand will be. There are thousands of people working and/or living within a 5-minute walk of the line from Denny Way north (which is about the point the area is no longer easily "walkable" from the south end of the line where it meets the transit tunnel, where most people would be starting the trip in the morning if they took transit). The fact that it only does 2400 boardings a day suggests only about 1000 people (max) are using it to get to work and back daily. So the demand obviously isn't high. But that is expected given the relatively poor service levels.

But since they did use this simple and cheaper track arrangement, it also reduces the number of trams idling at the end stations in half. If it takes 5 minutes elapse time to turnaround the trams, with perfection of operating, the most trams you can have on this route is 6, with precisely 5 minute headways.

Every 5 minutes would be pretty good IMO. Every 10 or 15 minutes is not. At least it wouldn't be to me. Maybe you're more patient and don't mind standing around waiting.

And what is the best headways for streetcars? Shouldn't each line be addressed individually?

Sure each line should be addressed individually. But I don't see why any line should run every 15 minutes. That is just not convenient.

The line I took to and from work every day runs approximately every 2 minutes from about 7:30am to about 9pm. Even at 1am it's still running every 6 minutes. You can see the schedule here:

http://www3.ttc.ca/Schedule/schedule...DAS_SOUTH_SIDE

It's great. It was frequent enough that if I wanted to go to lunch somewhere more than half a mile from my work and didn't feel like walking, I could take the line to lunch, have plenty of time to eat, and take it back to work, knowing that I'd never have to wait long even though it was midday and not peak hour. It's also nice know you're not going to have to be standing outside waiting too long in the middle of winter.

Dallas is building an entirely single track dedicated lane streetcar line less than 2 miles in length with 20 minute peak headways running on just one tram.

Sounds like a complete waste of money to me. At least until they start running it more frequently.

[seaskyfan]

The Pearl District Streetcar in Portland runs every 13 minutes during the day. That's widely considered a success.

The SLUT in Seattle was over 2,800 daily ridership in June - projected to be over 3K/day by now.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

The Pearl District Streetcar in Portland runs every 13 minutes during the day. That's widely considered a success.

Even if it is successful, those kinds of headways are not convenient for people just showing up at the stop and not reading a schedule first. I checked to make sure your numbers were right though, and they are. I'm quite surprised for all the talk Portland gets about it's LRTs/streetcars/"smart growth", etc. I would have expected much better service levels.

[fishrose]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Even if it is successful, those kinds of headways are not convenient for people just showing up at the stop and not reading a schedule first. I checked to make sure your numbers were right though, and they are. I'm quite surprised for all the talk Portland gets about it's LRTs/streetcars/"smart growth", etc. I would have expected much better service levels.

If you're that concerned with how fast you'll get somewhere, wouldn't you look at a schedule anyway? Besides, a 13-minute headway is a hell of a lot more convenient than the 30-minute headways that most bus riders are used to. Not everywhere is New York City; in some places it's simply not justifiable to run trains at 5 minute intervals.

[J. Will]

If you know you're going to need to look at a schedule to avoid a potentially long wait you're much likely to be a regular user of it in the first place. That is evidenced by the SLUT getting less than 3000 boardings per weekday. The "more convenient than 30 minutes" is basically the "better than nothing" argument used earlier in the thread. It may suck less than longer waits, but it still sucks.

[seaskyfan]

^ I don't think you get the role of the SLUT. It's providing service to a redeveloping area - the 3K daily ridership is actually ahead of where they thought it would be by now. It's up 900 daily boardings compared to a year ago (June 2010 to 2011) and the growth should continue at a pretty good pace as Amazon completes their HQ Campus and other biotechs and other companies continue to move into the area. It would be great to have more frequency but the thing is still pretty successfully supporting the redevelopment efforts. Last I saw the job creation in the area is well ahead of where they thought it would be by now (this is one of five areas targeted in Seattle's Comp Plan for higher levels of growth).

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

^ I don't think you get the role of the SLUT. It's providing service to a redeveloping area

I'm quite familiar with the area. I follow South Lake Union developments on this forum and others, and stayed near 8th Ave. and Denny Way when I was in Seattle. Granted that was more than 5 years ago.

Also, according to the posted schedules, SLUT still runs only every 15 minutes, not every 10:

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/arrivals.asp

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I'm quite familiar with the area. I follow South Lake Union developments on this forum and others, and stayed near 8th Ave. and Denny Way when I was in Seattle. Granted that was more than 5 years ago.

Also, according to the posted schedules, SLUT still runs only every 15 minutes, not every 10:

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/arrivals.asp

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/

5 years has seen a huge transformation in that area. It's a completely different neighborhood since then with a lot more restaurants, stores, jobs, and housing units.

I thought the 10 minute frequency was at rush hour - not sure if it's only in the afternoon. I know the City accepted $$ from the businesses in the area to increase the frequency earlier this year. If it hasn't started yet I'm not sure why.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

The Appeal of Modern Streetcars Continues to Mount, But There Are Obstacles to It Bringing Mobility Gains


Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...obility-gains/

It's worth mentioning that also among these projects Obama is supporting is LA's Crenshaw Corridor LRT line. Phase I will run from the Expo Line (U/C) to LAX (or at least Century blvd - much better than the green line tho).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by J. Will

If you know you're going to need to look at a schedule to avoid a potentially long wait you're much likely to be a regular user of it in the first place. That is evidenced by the SLUT getting less than 3000 boardings per weekday. The "more convenient than 30 minutes" is basically the "better than nothing" argument used earlier in the thread. It may suck less than longer waits, but it still sucks.

I would love to live in a mansion on a beach, but I don't because I can't afford it. Life in general sucks for most of us because we can't afford to live a better life. SLUT would love to have 5 minute headways, but they don't because they can't afford it. Get off your high horse and come back to reality....

A half, a quarter, or even a tenth of something is better than nothing.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by electricron

I would love to live in a mansion on a beach, but I don't because I can't afford it. Life in general sucks for most of us because we can't afford to live a better life. SLUT would love to have 5 minute headways, but they don't because they can't afford it. Get off your high horse and come back to reality....

No, you're lying. I'm not on a "high horse". All I said was that hopefully future streetcar lines in Seattle would have better service frequency. The discussion wasn't even the SLUT line. I was using that as an EXAMPLE of the poor service frequency they currently have on their streetcars. YOU are the one who got your panties in a bundle and went on multiple diatribes trying to defend the current level of service. What I stated is factually correct. If you just barely miss a streetcar, you might as well just walk. Even if you're going from end-to-end you'll get there at about the same times as you would waiting for the next one. If you're travelling anything less than the entire length of the line, you'd get there faster walking. If you think that is great service, you're entitled to. I personally think it's terrible service. And no, I am not on a "high horse". In fact, I wasn't even addressing you AT ALL until you decided to butt on in the conversation.

A half, a quarter, or even a tenth of something is better than nothing.

I never said it wasn't "better than nothing". In fact, I acknowledged explicitly that it WAS "better than nothing". That's pretty faint praise though. It could run once every hour and it would still be "better than nothing". The service level right now sucks, but yes it is "better than nothing". I guess that's good enough for you.

[M II A II R II K]

Agreement on Downtown Tunneling for Seattle Region’s East Link Light Rail


Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...nk-light-rail/

At a cost of $2.5 billion, Seattle’s planned East Link light rail extension project is one of the nation’s largest and most expensive transit expansion programs, which makes it remarkable in itself. A new connection across Lake Washington and into the cities of Bellevue and Redmond will significantly decrease transit times for intercity trips in the region and attract about 50,000 riders a day once it is completed in 2023. The real achievement of the project, though, is its response to local demands in the form of the construction of a tunnel through Downtown Bellevue, agreed upon by the transit agency Sound Transit last week.

The passage in 2008 by Seattle region voters of the Sound Transit 2 package of bond releases guaranteed that local funding would be available to construct new lines extending the original Seattle light rail line from downtown to Sea-Tac Airport, which opened in 2009. East Link is the largest funded segment, though additional lines running north and south are also planned.

Once it became clear that light rail would be running through Bellevue, the city council made apparent its interest in tunneling the section of the line through the business district. From a point of regional equity, that might have made sense (since Seattle had its own downtown tunnel), but according to initial studies it would cost up to $1 billion more than a surface-level line. With broad streets and thus plenty of potential right-of-way, there would be little reason to spend so much. But further engineering studies suggested that the tunnel would cost only about $320 million over the surface line, and the city agreed to chip in half of the extra costs, making it feasible to include the underground segment in the project.

.....

City of Bellevue will get its desired underground segment through downtown thanks to an agreement from Sound Transit.

[electricron]

What the final costs the subway portion in Bellevue will be is to be determined. What the news article overlooked is how much more money the subway in downtown Seattle cost taxpayers; even though it already existed tons of money was spent on it making it compatible for the trains. Eventually the buses in the subway will be removed, forcing them onto already overcrowded downtown Seattle streets. Funny how Seattle wasn't expected to help fund that.

[seaskyfan]

^ Sound Transit has sub area equity requirements where taxes raised in a certain sub area (Snohomish/Pierce/North King/South King/East King) are supposed to fund improvements in those areas. My understanding is that the tunnel improvements were covered by the subareas it serves (at least North which includes Seattle). The Bellevue tunnel is controversial locally because there's a concern Sound Transit will need to use North King Subarea funds to pay for it. So not only did the folks in Seattle pay for a majority of the Seattle tunnel improvements but they could conceivably be on the hook for Sound Transit's portion of the Bellevue tunnel.

More info:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/0...-for-bellevue/

[electricron]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

^ Sound Transit has sub area equity requirements where taxes raised in a certain sub area (Snohomish/Pierce/North King/South King/East King) are supposed to fund improvements in those areas. My understanding is that the tunnel improvements were covered by the subareas it serves (at least North which includes Seattle). The Bellevue tunnel is controversial locally because there's a concern Sound Transit will need to use North King Subarea funds to pay for it. So not only did the folks in Seattle pay for a majority of the Seattle tunnel improvements but they could conceivably be on the hook for Sound Transit's portion of the Bellevue tunnel.

More info:

http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/0...-for-bellevue/

Which subarea would the bridge over Lake Washington be? Or is it's cost split 50-50?
I realize subareas exist at Sound Transit, but do you really believe passengers care? Aren't Bellevue riders going to ride the trains in Seattle, and vice-versa?

[mhays]

It's about voters and elected officials, not passengers. Subarea equity was in substantial part about winning Sound Transit funding at the ballot box, including the recent $17 billion round.

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by electricron

Which subarea would the bridge over Lake Washington be? Or is it's cost split 50-50?
I realize subareas exist at Sound Transit, but do you really believe passengers care? Aren't Bellevue riders going to ride the trains in Seattle, and vice-versa?

The bridge already exists - the improvements would likely be paid for by the East Sub Area.

I frankly think the whole sub area thing is ridiculous. The folks who were behind it include current Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna who was a county councilmenber from Bellevue at the time they came up with it. The intent was to keep Seattle from sucking all the transit $ but as it's worked out the North King Subarea has actually been doing fine with the East and particularly South subareas having more challenges.

My response was intended to address your point about Seattle folks not being on the hook for the Downtown Seattle retrofit. We likely paid for that and may be contributing towards Sound Transit's share of the Bellevue tunnel.

[min-chi-cbus]

There is a transit organization called "SLUT"????? Is this a joke or is it for real? Maybe I'm being childish but that's hillarious!

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by min-chi-cbus

There is a transit organization called "SLUT"????? Is this a joke or is it for real? Maybe I'm being childish but that's hillarious!

Officially it's the South Lake Union Streetcar. Everyone calls it the SLUT for South Lake Union Trolley. You can even get a "Ride the SLUT" t-shirt:

http://ridetheslut.com/