U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2017, 02:03 PM
 
61 posts, read 45,478 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
I was also going to say Seattle. Seattle voters actually rejected Federal funding to build a heavy rail subway in Seattle back in the 70s, and now since that city is booming they are investing so much time and money just for a light rail. So clearly that was a huge mistake.

And the dumbest part about this is that Federal funds were going to pay for it, so why turn it down...?
That light rail will function almost entire like heavy rail in terms of grade-separation, travel time, and reliability. It will have two subway tunnels running through downtown and one all the way up to Northgate. The majority of the rest of the network will be elevated.

As an example of how different Link is from more typical surface light rail: They just added two new subway stations in 2016 (Capitol Hill and the University of Washington) and ridership increased by nearly 40,000. The full build out includes dozens of new stations. Trains will be able to run at 2-minute headways and there is a projected ridership of 600K by the time the network is built out.

Do these stations look more like traditional light rail station or a subway system? Keep in mind the majority of stations will either be underground or elevated like this once the build-out is complete. And there will be ~20 new subway/elevated stations in the city proper once the funded build-out is complete.

UW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oXJKH6fpZs

Beacon Hill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCUhy0Zc05s

Capitol Hill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlpFRiZ3Jco


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJNZ8Utle8o

Westlake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AztSglNzKbI

University Street:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw2byJ_dYjg

Pioneer Square

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlWQZpIbYUk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VMq8SHvquI

Mt. Baker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqv9L3s309E

Angle Lake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hACdvCUWXHk

Tukwila:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaZ1g6weXo4

Last edited by Eric324; 10-30-2017 at 02:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2017, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,569 posts, read 10,296,040 times
Reputation: 9839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borntoolate85 View Post
Denver

This city is still not quite dense enough like SD, but it also has an extensive grid systems with the potential for TOD development. Simply make Colfax Ave the primary East-West line with a bend toward DIA, Broadway/Washington Boulevard the main North-South line, with a third line a diagonal from Centennial to Broomfield )
Denver has an HRT line from Union Station to DIA (A-Line), and another from Union Station to Westminster (B-Line). Both opened last year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
6,074 posts, read 3,402,168 times
Reputation: 7722
I think Minneapolis-Saint Paul could do a subway. I don't see why not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 05:24 PM
 
161 posts, read 182,080 times
Reputation: 128
I think Pittsburgh would've been a good candidate connecting some dense neighborhoods across the river to downtown, the Oakland area and dense neighborhoods beyond there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,582 posts, read 3,722,675 times
Reputation: 4158
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
I was also going to say Seattle. Seattle voters actually rejected Federal funding to build a heavy rail subway in Seattle back in the 70s, and now since that city is booming they are investing so much time and money just for a light rail. So clearly that was a huge mistake.

And the dumbest part about this is that Federal funds were going to pay for it, so why turn it down...?
This is true. The "Forward Thrust" movement of the late 60's and early 70's was for a heavy rail system in Seattle. When voters, (not the city), turned it down, the federal funding went to Atlanta, and is known today as MARTA.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ad-jon-talton/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,123 posts, read 1,314,886 times
Reputation: 1831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric324 View Post
Do these stations look more like traditional light rail station or a subway system? Keep in mind the majority of stations will either be underground or elevated like this once the build-out is complete. And there will be ~20 new subway/elevated stations in the city proper once the funded build-out is complete.
The platforms do resemble rapid transit but the trains themselves are light rail in capacity, size, and speed. I have actually ridden on the Seattle light rail before and it is very nice, clean, and modern. But it is not a heavy rail RT, itís still light rail. And itís not the only city that has a light rail that goes underground. I know Toronto, SF, and Philly have that as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2 View Post
This is true. The "Forward Thrust" movement of the late 60's and early 70's was for a heavy rail system in Seattle. When voters, (not the city), turned it down, the federal funding went to Atlanta, and is known today as MARTA.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...ad-jon-talton/
I honestly just donít understand this. If it was local City or State taxpayer money I could maybe see why people would vote no (but still disagree with it), but why turn down Federal funding for anything at all? You would think if anything Seattle wouldíve voted yes and Atlanta no. Thatís great for ATL though. Iím sure it has paid off for them and will only continue to do so even more in the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,090 posts, read 1,630,581 times
Reputation: 1517
St. Louis was the 4th largest city in 1900. Private investors couldn't get an elevated system going in the late 19th century, the depression killed a subway in the 20s, and regional infighting killed metro rail in the 70s when it's metro was considered a peer to SF, DC, and ATL (who all built their version). We finally got light rail in the early 90s, but by then the urban core was already so hollowed out it would have made no sense to build a heavy rail. I think St. Louis would benefit from completing it's current light rail system and offering something similar to Denver. There is still enough urban density and good bones to make a more comprehensive system worthwhile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 08:40 PM
 
61 posts, read 45,478 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
The platforms do resemble rapid transit but the trains themselves are light rail in capacity, size, and speed. I have actually ridden on the Seattle light rail before and it is very nice, clean, and modern. But it is not a heavy rail RT, it’s still light rail. And it’s not the only city that has a light rail that goes underground. I know Toronto, SF, and Philly have that as well.



I honestly just don’t understand this. If it was local City or State taxpayer money I could maybe see why people would vote no (but still disagree with it), but why turn down Federal funding for anything at all? You would think if anything Seattle would’ve voted yes and Atlanta no. That’s great for ATL though. I’m sure it has paid off for them and will only continue to do so even more in the future.
Have you ridden the light rail from Westlake to UW? It's an 8 minute subway ride (with an additional stop in Capitol Hill) compared to a 45-minute drive with moderate traffic. That's very fast by any standard.

In terms of capacity the current system will be able to run 4-car trains at 2 minute headways, allowing for 1M+ daily ridership, so I don't think it's an issue for a mid-sized city like Seattle. In terms of speed, aside from one section in the Rainier Valley - which will be the only section of its kind in the entire 120 mile built out system - it can go up to 60 miles per hour through congested urban areas. The ride from Downtown to Northgate or Downtown to Ballard will be 15 minutes, which is crazy. With a quick transfer, someone could get from Ballard to Capitol Hill or West Seattle in 20 minutes, which is much faster than driving. Aside from that one portion of the starter line that I mentioned, Link will be far more comparable in terms of speed to a rapid transit system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Seattle WA, USA
3,957 posts, read 2,230,055 times
Reputation: 2634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric324 View Post
Have you ridden the light rail from Westlake to UW? It's an 8 minute subway ride (with an additional stop in Capitol Hill) compared to a 45-minute drive with moderate traffic. That's very fast by any standard.

In terms of capacity the current system will be able to run 4-car trains at 2 minute headways, allowing for 1M+ daily ridership, so I don't think it's an issue for a mid-sized city like Seattle. In terms of speed, aside from one section in the Rainier Valley - which will be the only section of its kind in the entire 120 mile built out system - it can go up to 60 miles per hour through congested urban areas. The ride from Downtown to Northgate or Downtown to Ballard will be 15 minutes, which is crazy. With a quick transfer, someone could get from Ballard to Capitol Hill or West Seattle in 20 minutes, which is much faster than driving. Aside from that one portion of the starter line that I mentioned, Link will be far more comparable in terms of speed to a rapid transit system.
Yeah I'm really disappointed that they didn't do grad separation on MLK, it significantly slows down the trip, it takes about 40 mins to get from the airport to westlake, when the same trip by car can be made in 20 mins. Of course it's still faster than driving in traffic and trying to find parking in a congested city, but still a bit slow on the southern end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2017, 11:22 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,582 posts, read 3,722,675 times
Reputation: 4158
The initial buildout of Seattle link light rail was more conservative, as in "testing the waters", so to speak, and thus you have surface rail in the Rainier Valley. I think there was also not a clear corridor to above or below grade in this area. They were also following the lead of Portland's early track systems. Sound Transit quickly changed course and started planning for full right of ways, either below or above ground and that is what we see being built today.

As for Westlake to UW, yes it is a nice underground trip. As I understand it will continue to be underground up to the Roosevelt station, then see daylight approaching Northgate.

It is exciting to see the system come together. It has taken awhile, and will continue to take awhile for complete buildout, but glad to see this system continue to grow. (I hope the current administration will continue to fund, but that is one uncertainty).

Last edited by pnwguy2; 10-30-2017 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top