Per capita transit ridership in Interior West cities

[Cirrus]

Seattle isn't really building light rail. They're building a metro using smaller trains.

It's easy to say elevated/subway lines are "over-engineered" sitting in SLC, which has the widest streets in the known universe. You can take the equivalent of 3 lanes out of the middle of an arterial main street and dedicate them to light rail, and nobody cares because the street is so wide there's still more than enough room for all the car lanes you could ever need. Other cities just aren't like that.


by photo dean on flickr

It's impressive as hell that a city SLC's size has been able to build so much rail. Absolutely impressive as hell. But make no mistake: The path to make it happen in SLC is easier (and therefore cheaper) than just about anywhere else.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Seattle isn't really building light rail. They're building a metro using smaller trains.

It's easy to say elevated/subway lines are "over-engineered" sitting in SLC, which has the widest streets in the known universe. You can take the equivalent of 3 lanes out of the middle of an arterial main street and dedicate them to light rail, and nobody cares because the street is so wide there's still more than enough room for all the car lanes you could ever need. Other cities just aren't like that.


by photo dean on flickr

It's impressive as hell that a city SLC's size has been able to build so much rail. Absolutely impressive as hell. But make no mistake: The path to make it happen in SLC is easier (and therefore cheaper) than just about anywhere else.

Yeah, one thing we've found is that 132 foot rights of way are incredibly useful. There are plans to make Cesar Chaves Blvd/MLK pair in to a " grand boulevard" pair with intensive landscaping. We are still going to end up with two lanes of parking and 5 of general traffic... I can find it somewhere if you guys reeeeaaallyyy want to see it. We also have plans for 2nd east to turn almost all (except two travel and two parking lanes) in to a linear park to reduce summer temperatures of buildings and shit. We can also build light rail wherever the hell we want. Many des are finding problems because everyone is so confused why we are building streetcar on 11th east (very narrow carriage way)... Portland wouldn't bat an eye. We have a larger set of issues but also a much larger set of assets with our 132 foot row. Technically at 10 feet lanes we could build a one way street (no sidewalks) with 13 lanes... But we also have options for both wide sidewalks and wide transitways like we've done with Main Street, almost eliminating the traffic on Main Street. I feel like because of what has been done to Main Street (and the fact that there are no driveways on to main between university and south temple) that we could easily move most of the Davis Co expresses on to main and make it a full transit mall. It is very walkable and vibrant but also has very little traffic so it wouldn't be like we are making I-15 in to a transit mall, but because of our ROW, we could also have very wide sidewalks. Issues would be pedestrians crossing the light rails (I know meandering pedestrians is an issue on 16th street) but safety precautions (cow gates along the tracks? Jk) and tons of mid block walkways could help ease this.

[CharlesCO]

Do ox carts give ROW to light rail in SLC then?

[justiny]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Do ox carts give ROW to light rail in SLC then?

150 years later... Yes.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Seattle isn't really building light rail. They're building a metro using smaller trains.

It's easy to say elevated/subway lines are "over-engineered" sitting in SLC, which has the widest streets in the known universe. You can take the equivalent of 3 lanes out of the middle of an arterial main street and dedicate them to light rail, and nobody cares because the street is so wide there's still more than enough room for all the car lanes you could ever need. Other cities just aren't like that.

It's impressive as hell that a city SLC's size has been able to build so much rail. Absolutely impressive as hell. But make no mistake: The path to make it happen in SLC is easier (and therefore cheaper) than just about anywhere else.

I get this for sure. I know we have it easy mode with space for multi modal transit.

Still though, was it really necessary to tunnel though Beacon Hill (the most expensive part of the Seattle light rail project)? Again, unlike metro trains, LRTs have no issues hauling balls up a hill like that and we aren't taking about an area of Seattle with heavy traffic (it's a cute neighborhood hill next to the city core).

You have to understand where I am coming from Cirrus. This is the most complexly engineered part of our light rail system.

• Video Link

And then I saw this monstrosity with its two separate escalators for each side of the platform in the middle of a park and ride lot. And this was, with regards to engineering resources expended, was just a meh for Seattle.

[Cirrus]

Nobody goes to the huge expense of elevating anything without a good reason. In exchange for spending more on a higher quality line, Seattle is getting more riders.

SLC: 50 stations, 68k daily riders. Average of 1.3k daily riders/station. And that's with the light rail system essentially "complete," with a relatively large network already in place.

Seattle: 18 stations, 34k daily riders. Average of 1.9k daily riders/station. Seattle has almost 50% more riders per station than SLC. And that's with only the first line, no overall network effects (ie more people ride when you can get to more places), meaning Seattle's advantage will probably increase as Seattle's lines that are under construction start to open. So Seattle is already getting more use out of its investment than SLC, relative to the size of the system, and Seattle has a much higher potential ceiling.

This doesn't necessarily mean Seattle did it better than SLC. All it really means is that faced with a different set of constraints and opportunities, Seattle and SLC each decided that a different level of investment is appropriate. Suggesting Seattle "over-engineered" its line without considering why they would have or what the benefits would be is no more correct than saying SLC "cheaped out" and built a shitty discount system. Both cities built what works in both cities, depending on the demand in both cities.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Nobody goes to the huge expense of elevating anything without a good reason. In exchange for spending more on a higher quality line, Seattle is getting more riders.

SLC: 50 stations, 68k daily riders. Average of 1.3k daily riders/station. And that's with the light rail system essentially "complete," with a relatively large network already in place.

Seattle: 18 stations, 34k daily riders. Average of 1.9k daily riders/station. Seattle has almost 50% more riders per station than SLC. And that's with only the first line, no overall network effects (ie more people ride when you can get to more places), meaning Seattle's advantage will probably increase as Seattle's lines that are under construction start to open. So Seattle is already getting more use out of its investment than SLC, relative to the size of the system, and Seattle has a much higher potential ceiling.

This doesn't necessarily mean Seattle did it better than SLC. All it really means is that faced with a different set of constraints and opportunities, Seattle and SLC each decided that a different level of investment is appropriate. Suggesting Seattle "over-engineered" its line without considering why they would have or what the benefits would be is no more correct than saying SLC "cheaped out" and built a shitty discount system. Both cities built what works in both cities, depending on the demand in both cities.

I understand what you are saying. I understand topographical challenges. I understand different priorities. But Cirrus, you are like the biggest transit nerd around in the Mountain West, you understand the differences between heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcar, BRT, etc, better than all of us. I know the strict requirements for heavy rail: grade separation, gentle grade descension and ascension, gentle turn radius. The amount of elevation and the emphasis on gentle turn radius for the Seattle light rail is built like BART or other heavy rail. It's literally like they hired the people who did BART and then last minute decided, "well shit, we still want busses underground and we want street level engagement in one of our poorest neighborhoods, let's just keep the BART design, edit a few things, and switch the mode to light rail." Why does the station I posted a pic of have two sets of escalators on each side of the platform? Because you can't cross electrified rails for heavy rail, but it's light rail... You build heavy rail because of speed and capacity needs. If Light Rail isn't capping out either of those needs, you don't need heavy rail. If you plan on running a LRT at varying speeds from 45 mph to 60 mph, you can build a system with some 90 degree turns and have it drop down fast to ground level after it leaves the built part of the airport and have it haul up a bridge over the freeway and back to ground level at the next station. You can't do that with heavy rail, you can with light rail and it doesn't impede the speed.

They spent 2.4 billion on 16 miles of light rail (bearing in mind the tunnel under downtown was already built in the 80's and cost very little to outfit with rail as part of those 16 miles). We spent about the same to get 44.8 miles of light rail and 60 plus miles of commuter rail with more overall riders (over twice as many riders not counting commuter rail). Seattle is more dense and populated than the region served by our Metro Area's light rail and commuter rail. And all these new SLC metro area corridors are now all potential TOD areas in the future which means we have a greater area of giving people a choice between depending on a car or transit.

Here are the numbers that I think are important. Seattle has a slightly better transit ridership per person than Denver and Salt Lake City and yet it has way more density and the third worst traffic congestion in the United States. The amount of money Denver and Salt Lake City have expended on light rail (we'll say pre FasTracks) opened up transit options to a greater amount of the population. Denver and Salt Lake City = Less money with more people out of cars.

[idiot206]

As a Seattleite, I for one am grateful that we've decided to spend more for grade separation. There simply is no way to run trains at grade through downtown without massive delays. I also don't know how Capitol Hill or the U District could have physically been accessed by surface LRT.

If Link ran down I-5 like in most cities, it would have been 10x less useful. Nothing about Link is 'overbuilt'. If anything, people have been fighting hard for MORE grade separation.

Also, I don't think you can compare the transit needs of Seattle with that of SLC.

[bunt_q]

Keep in mind that just because a light rail trade can haul at grade up a street slope doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to do it operationally - it's just not accurate to say those sharp turns and grades have no impact on speed. Also, there's something to be said for running a smaller train at shorter headways, versus a higher capacity vehicle less frequently. I'd venture that is part of Seattle's thinking. Their over engineered system will probably allow them to run <= 5-minute headways someday, which they couldn't do if they were slogging up hills at grade.

[Hatman]

This is such an interesting discussion. I remember being amazed how much of Seattle's LRT was on viaducts, but I was amazed in a good way. Grade separation all the way! Still, some parts had me perplexed. Like this part, where the ROW parallels a highway that is built on an embankment but the LRT is still on a viaduct anyway (back ground, not foreground):

In comparison, Salt Lake City built LRT parallel to a highway this way, with ballasted tracks (not expensive slab track) built directly on the ground (no viaducts).

But of course I have no information on why either method was chosen, so I will withhold judgement. All I can say is I can see where S P Hansen is coming from.
Overbuilding is not a sin when exceptional growth is expected.

As for LRT being able to climb steep grades, Bunt makes a nice point of 'can' vs 'should.' SLC has one of the steepest grades of any modern LRT alignment - on the S-curves up the hill towards the university. The rate of climb is only 7 percent, but because of the seep curves the 'compensated' grade is much worse. Because of the steep grades and tight turns, UTA had to order a modified version of Siemens S-70 LRT vehicles that are 10 feet shorter than the standard version but with the same horsepower. This gives them an exceptional power-to-weight ratio for LRT vehicles.
(Granted, the 10 feet saved per vehicle also allows UTA to run 4-car trains, but big decisions are never made for only one reason).

I have no idea how much more the steeper grades/curves cost on an operational basis. I know UTA is very careful to schedule the university trains so that the ascending and descending trains are in the same centenary zone (whatever that's really called) so that the descending train sends its regenerated power to the ascending one. They do this to cut the costs of running up the steep hill. But whether or not that offsets all the associated costs I have no idea.


And the last point of a station that may appear to be over-built... is it at lest a nice place to wait for the train? More and more transit planners are realizing that if they spend the extra money to make a station a sort of 'destination' in its own right, ridership increases as well.
Nicer Transit Stations Attract More Riders - CityLab
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...e-riders/8260/
How Design Can Help Build A Transit Culture - CityLab
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...-culture/8633/

Station design matters to the people who use it every day. If it doesn't enhance their day, it is probably a drain on their day. In this regard, Denver may have an advantage over my home of SLC in this category, because their Union Station really does have a sense of place. It is a 'destination station' and it will certainly attract more riders to Denver's system than 'Salt Lake Central' (an empty concrete plaza next to Amtrak's double-wide trailer station) ever will.
In fact, for the Mountain West region, I can't think of another transit hub that could rightly be called a 'destination station'.

[bunt_q]

That photo is interesting, building like that along the highway ROW. I wonder what soil conditions were like? Perhaps they were going to have to build so much structure anyways, it was a wash...

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by idiot206

As a Seattleite, I for one am grateful that we've decided to spend more for grade separation. There simply is no way to run trains at grade through downtown without massive delays. I also don't know how Capitol Hill or the U District could have physically been accessed by surface LRT.

If Link ran down I-5 like in most cities, it would have been 10x less useful. Nothing about Link is 'overbuilt'. If anything, people have been fighting hard for MORE grade separation.

Also, I don't think you can compare the transit needs of Seattle with that of SLC.

The below grade segment of the light rail isn't much it the 2 billion plus dollar cost as that portion was already built as a bus tunnel before I was born...

Seattle built the most expensive light rail. It's not protected from a conversation about expense priorities. Also, I find it curious you bring up the route, yet the route has never been the issue for me, its been the execution of the route. The parts that parallel I-5 are the parts I find the hardest to understand the level of engineering (I.e uses of viaducts and gentle grade ups and downs).

And for the record, it is a great light rail to ride on and very useful. I love it. I'm not saying it's shitty, I'm only suggesting that perhaps with that route you could have done the same thing with a hammer instead of a sledgehammer.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Keep in mind that just because a light rail trade can haul at grade up a street slope doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to do it operationally - it's just not accurate to say those sharp turns and grades have no impact on speed. Also, there's something to be said for running a smaller train at shorter headways, versus a higher capacity vehicle less frequently. I'd venture that is part of Seattle's thinking. Their over engineered system will probably allow them to run <= 5-minute headways someday, which they couldn't do if they were slogging up hills at grade.

I agree with the sharp turns, but being able to do 40 mph up a big hill probably isn't too different from a tunnel...

But you bring up the first real point in this convo that actually swayed me a bit. Higher frequency with smaller trains would be more facilitated by these overbuilt gentle rails.

I'm not knocking experts and I'm not some anti transit libertarian. I do think we should examine with a critical eye the most expensive light rail. It warrants discussion. I'm sure if it were bike lanes or HSR from Denver to Apen you'd have something different to say about evaluating agency options and priorities. Seattle in my view has the kind of pragmatism that doubles the cost of everything instead of the kind that spreads the resources further out to more people. The next big project for the city is an agreement that they can't live with the Alaskan Way Viaduct and need to remove it like San Francisco did with the embarcadero viaduct, but they also can't let go, so they are building a 4 billion dollar plus tunnel to burry it. It's Seattle and they have the right to do whatever the voters want, but I also have the right to look at this stuff and say "oh you."

[jubguy3]

I thought the exclusive reason the streetcar s70 is used is to fit in to platforms. I didn't know about the hp to weight ratio thing.

For reference, the s curve there is one of the loudest parts of the system. UTA needs to get working on sound prevention,

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I agree with the sharp turns, but being able to do 40 mph up a big hill probably isn't too different from a tunnel...

But you bring up the first real point in this convo that actually swayed me a bit. Higher frequency with smaller trains would be more facilitated by these overbuilt gentle rails.

I'm not knocking experts and I'm not some anti transit libertarian. I do think we should examine with a critical eye the most expensive light rail. It warrants discussion. I'm sure if it were bike lanes or HSR from Denver to Apen you'd have something different to say about evaluating agency options and priorities. Seattle in my view has the kind of pragmatism that doubles the cost of everything instead of the kind that spreads the resources further out to more people. The next big project for the city is an agreement that they can't live with the Alaskan Way Viaduct and need to remove it like San Francisco did with the embarcadero viaduct, but they also can't let go, so they are building a 4 billion dollar plus tunnel to burry it. It's Seattle and they have the right to do whatever the voters want, but I also have the right to look at this stuff and say "oh you."

Are you familiar with the Honolulu system under construction? I wonder how you'd feel about that. This discussion we're having also happened in Hawaii, in a very heated, very public manner. The American Institute of Architects (of all people) led the charge against the rail, in no small part because they don't like the elevated structures, and pushed for an at-grade light rail solution that would've cost significantly less.

In the end, Honolulu went with an all-elevated third rail system... using small people-mover style vehicles (like Vancouver Skytrain) that have about the same capacity as light rail. But they can run reliably at 2.5 minute headways with 2-car consists, 5-minute headways with 4-car trains, because they're fully automated and fully-grad separated. What it also does is go exactly where it needs to. I was very happy to vote for it for exactly that reason. I suppose some places (like SLC and Denver) value quantity over quality. I do not.

Stats on the Hawaii line - one line:

Cost: $5.2 billion
Length: 20 miles
Stations: 21
Ridership: 119,600 (weekday)
Fleet: 20 four-car trains (800 person capacity) by AnsaldoBreda

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

The next big project for the city is an agreement that they can't live with the Alaskan Way Viaduct and need to remove it like San Francisco did with the embarcadero viaduct, but they also can't let go, so they are building a 4 billion dollar plus tunnel to burry it. It's Seattle and they have the right to do whatever the voters want, but I also have the right to look at this stuff and say "oh you."

I, for one, think burying the Alaskan Viaduct is an awesome project. Just like the Big Dig in Boston was an awesome project. I don't consider it progress to solve our infrastructure woes by saying we no longer need infrastructure - stop driving, all y'all, and hop on a bicycle - kumbaya. We need more big plans, not fewer.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Are you familiar with the Honolulu system under construction? I wonder how you'd feel about that. This discussion we're having also happened in Hawaii, in a very heated, very public manner. The American Institute of Architects (of all people) led the charge against the rail, in no small part because they don't like the elevated structures, and pushed for an at-grade light rail solution that would've cost significantly less.

In the end, Honolulu went with an all-elevated third rail system... using small people-mover style vehicles (like Vancouver Skytrain) that have about the same capacity as light rail. But they can run reliably at 2.5 minute headways with 2-car consists, 5-minute headways with 4-car trains, because they're fully automated and fully-grad separated. What it also does is go exactly where it needs to. I was very happy to vote for it for exactly that reason. I suppose some places (like SLC and Denver) value quantity over quality. I do not.

Stats on the Hawaii line - one line:

Cost: $5.2 billion
Length: 20 miles
Stations: 21
Ridership: 119,600 (weekday)
Fleet: 20 four-car trains (800 person capacity) by AnsaldoBreda

First off, isn't the Hawaii line Heavy Rail?

Second, all the arguments against the rail you brought up are based on nimby shit and not system effectiveness or cost effectiveness based on need and so it doesn't overlap with what I'm picking at with Seattle light rail.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I, for one, think burying the Alaskan Viaduct is an awesome project. Just like the Big Dig in Boston was an awesome project. I don't consider it progress to solve our infrastructure woes by saying we no longer need infrastructure - stop driving, all y'all, and hop on a bicycle - kumbaya. We need more big plans, not fewer.

Cute. If you think the Embarcadero Viaduct, the Alaskan Viaduct, and the Gardiner Expressway are analogous to a buried interstate freeway connecting Boston to, you know, the rest of the united states, you don't have very nuanced ways of looking at transportation.

There are these things called expressways and freeways. I think you'll recall a certain man who tried to throw an expressway through Jane Jacobs' neighborhood in NYC. Also, there is this inherent issue with waterfront expressways where they tend to really take a shit on property values and walkability, and when you remove them, it doesn't really change traffic congestion in the city. Remember we aren't talking about an interstate that needs to be widened to get to vail, we're talking about a loop though downtowns. And yes, I totes buy into the idea that these loops just add more cars for funzies and actually don't change the economy of the downtowns they run through. We have over two decades of info about what a post Embarcadero San Francisco looks like. Its removal and replacement with a surface highway with light rail created their version of LoDo and SoDo and did little to change the congestion in the city.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

First off, isn't the Hawaii line Heavy Rail?

Second, all the arguments against the rail you brought up are based on nimby shit and not system effectiveness or cost effectiveness based on need and so it doesn't overlap with what I'm picking at with Seattle light rail.

No, the Hawaii line is not heavy rail in the sense of a metro train. They are small vehicles - roughly the same as light rail in terms of vehicle weight and capacity. They do run on a third rail. But not heavy rail by any conventional definition, and certainly not by capacity.

And their arguments are only NIMBY arguments if you consider your argument to also be a NIMBY argument, excluding the bit about elevated rail ruining sightlines. But they made very salient points about at-grade light being a better value for the money, versus a grade separated system with light rail capacities. It is the AIA, after all, not a bunch of neighborhood rookies. But it lost out to the inherent operational constraints that come with at-grade crossings and turns (grades are less of an issue on Oahu). Your characterization of an at-grade system being generally equivalent operationally is simply not accurate, though, at least not in most contexts. (Maybe SLC has abnormally large and straight streets with lights that are conveniently timed and turning auto traffic that follows the rules and never gets hit by trains - but that's not the case in most cities.)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

The momentum is headed in that direction. Right now several options are being considered. The most powerful part of Utah's Republican Party, The Chamber of Commerce, is very set on getting it raised. The other very powerful wing of Republicans, the real estate developers, want to move the burden to take care of these roads off of property taxes and back onto drivers.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...-bill.html.csp
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...allon.html.csp
http://utahpoliticalcapitol.com/2014...tax-increase/#

Valentine said he figures that if his bill had been in place since 1997 — the last time the state’s gas tax went up — it would have generated another $280 million in revenue for highways.

That's a decent chunk of revenue... but not so much if you divide it by 17 years.

It's always interesting the measure of voters 'n politicians in different states. Interesting approach to fuel taxes. If there's a need and they accommodate oil companies by only adjusting every 3 years one would hope they'd start off with a 3/4 cent bump which would mean a higher "base" I guess as contemplated.

Needless to say, Colorado and I'm sure most states are facing much the same dilemma. Colorado wants to start a $1.8 billion project in 2016/2017 to rebuild, expand I-70 through the heart of Denver.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

My argument is that where it overspent (a lot) in places where it actually avoided being part of the neighborhood.

Well someone should pick on Salt Lake City and Yonah Freemark said he'd be happy to (hehe).

Too bad the S-Line is such a dud when it comes to ridership. According to recent data from the local transit system, the project is serving fewer than 1,000 riders a day, far fewer than the 3,000 expected for the project.

What say you?

[jubguy3]

Hatman, the picture of our TRAX paralleling a highway is the 201, right?