Don't Skimp on Grade Separation

In this video, I discuss a problematic section of the 1-line to explain why it is important for transit to be grade separated.
Sources:
King County Metro | MLK Corridor Grade Crossing Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Report - 2019
www.scribd.com/document/62679...
Sound Transit | MLK Corridor Rail at Grade Crossing Safety Review Technical Memorandum
www.documentcloud.org/documen...
Sound Transit | Pack your patience for 1 Line disruptions from Jan. 13-Feb. 4
www.soundtransit.org/blog/pla...
UrbanistOrg | Sound Transit Says 1 Line Headaches Will ‘Smooth Themselves Out’
www.theurbanist.org/2024/01/2...
SeattleTimes | Light rail repair work in Seattle leads to overflow crowds and delays
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...
SeattleTimes | Prepare for Seattle transit delays as downtown light rail work begins
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...
Crashes Tweets:
/ 1752725507182088225
/ 1752802622741057824
MAX Tunnel Study:
www.oregonmetro.gov/max-tunne...
SeattleTimes | Seattle’s most dangerous light-rail stretch - and how to make it safer
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...
UrbanistOrg | Safety Strategies Abound for Rainier Valley Link, Yet Urgency to Implement Lags
www.theurbanist.org/2023/03/0...
MyNorthwest | New safety feature for Light Rail in the Rainier Valley
mynorthwest.com/3684124/new-s...
Internally Illuminated Raised Pavement Markings
www.iirpm.com/

[@bryan89wr]

"Don't Skimp on Grade Separation" is exactly why Surrey voters rejected light rail in favour of SkyTrain.

[@qjtvaddict]

GOOD

[@AaronTheHarris]

A rare moment of voter intelligence

[@cjspeak]

very rare surrey W

[@FuckYouTube385]

Well there was actually other reasons like dedicated police force but yeah..

[@mma0911]

Straight Outta Surrey brotha

[@RoboJules]

As a neighbor to the North in Vancouver, I can attest to the benefits of proper grade separation. Building an entirely closed, separated system means that it can be safely automated without conflicts with any other form of traffic. Automation means a lot more than saving money on drivers - it means a smooth, consistent operation that provides a service as reliable and frequent as possible. This is currently a train every 3 minutes, but the technology has been shown to be able to handle frequencies of up to one train every 45 seconds. It also means that Translink can afford a larger fleet of bus drivers to operate the frequent local bus lines that interface with Skytrain.

[@creaturexxii]

Hello there fellow BC resident 👋

[@leozixiliu4646]

I don't feel it's smooth tho 😂

[@InflatableBuddha]

We also have a downtown tunnel (Dunsmuir tunnel), formerly used by CP Rail. There were significant cost savings in being able to use an existing tunnel and rights of way for the original Expo line but the system has undoubtedly benefited from grade separation from the start.

[@kiosk5595]

The willpower here, though *much* better than other US cities, isn’t enough to overcome the desire to build cheaper, yet efficient, light rail in place of expensive metros. Seattle is a big NIMBY hotspot, and old money always shows up at the ballot or in the mayor’s office to reject much needed projects. Vancouver on the other hand, has a deep history of rejecting freeways to the point in which there’s zero in the core city and transit is a necessity. Trust me, I would LOVE a Skytrain in Seattle, everytime I go to Vancouver I never have to sprint if I hear a missed train while heading to the station because I know another will show up in 4 minutes. But we’re working with what we have here

[@HowlingWolf518]

I believe the minimum headway was 75s, not 45. Point still stands though.

[@stever4899]

Didn't you know? Neighborhood activists in the Rainier Valley complained that an elevated would be ugly. That's why we have North America's deadliest light rail line running down the median of Martin Luther King.

[@sonicboy678]

Yet they have stroads...

[@CyanideCarrot]

this is not NA's deadliest light rail. that dishonor goes to Boston's Green Line, and it's not even close

[@Abrothers12]

@@CyanideCarrotI still can't get over how planners thought that route was a good idea.

[@MrBirdnose]

I think they somehow thought an elevated would be noisier than a grade level train too.

[@marxel4444]

looks to me like people making turns without beeing allowed to making turns. Seems like drivers dont pay attention or are stupid.

[@hhvhhvcz]

this sounds so insane, like here in my city in Europe (Prague), we usually close whose section, reroute the trams line other way and for that section use alternative bus service along the street. If it's emergency or the section goes through too dense area, we use a temp track cross-over. Also, you don't need full grade separation, you just need exclusive road line for the trams, ideally with grass median but like, slight height separation lowkey like for bicycle. also in our legislature, trains and trams has always full exclusive priority over anyone else

[@Rollersox]

To be fair, your first sentence is what Link light rail planned - close off the stations and replace with a bus service. Problem is, Seattle traffic is abysmal especially downtown and that's where the closed stations were.. plus the public communication and actual execution of the plan was quite poor imo. All in all, right idea, bad execution and direction from leadership.

[@TrueBelievers]

Why don't they use a temporary track cross over, it's used constantly on Melbourne's tram network when there's a disruption?

[@ronclark9724]

@@Rollersox Speaky frankly, the trainsit company should have routed this line along a rail corridor, not in the middle of a thoroughfare highway. A downtown street can be sacrificed for a rail line on the surface with much slower speed, a downtown rail/pedestrian mall, not in the middle of a thoroughfare highway.

[@aoilpe]

In Basel/Switzerland we use temporary crossovers to, only the main corridor in the heart of the city is shut down every 15 years to be rebuilt entirely within two months…used by 7 lines.

[@groundzero_-lm4md]

Reminds me of the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto. A mostly underground metro using light-rail trains with an at grade section in the east end to cause delays whenever a driver runs a red light and collides with a train.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

I always thought a tram was the wrong sort of light rail for Eglinton Avenue. Renovating, extending, and upgrading the Scarborough No. 3 Line to skytrain would have been the better solution.

[@Mart_7512]

We need proper roundabouts then

[@TheRandCrews]

@@Mart_7512for what?

[@TheRandCrews]

@@edwardmiessner6502Eglinton west was started back in the 1990s but new government went and fill the hole where the construction started. 🤷‍♂️

[@Mart_7512]

@@TheRandCrews For drivers to actually yield instead of running red signs

[@joshdoeseverything4575]

meanwhile here in austin they fucking nerfed our light rail plan we all voted for. it was supposed to be below grade completely through downtown and consist of 2 light rail lines and 1 brt. Now it's just one light rail line and completely at grade through downtown. Makes me wanna cry and scream

[@erikgustafson9319]

That’s what happens when you don’t manage costs and give out to contractors like there candy.

[@erikgustafson9319]

The state legislature should make a law requiring all agencies have in house planning

[@thexalon]

Almost like they're *trying* to make it suck.

[@ronclark9724]

@@erikgustafson9319 The state of Texas has nothing to do with Austin's CapMetro transit... In house planning was done by CapMetro, not any state bureaucrat...

[@longiusaescius2537]

Good, build a metro not a subway tram

[@Mrcake0103]

“Build it right the first time or cheap out and pay the price.” Indeed. The DC Metro is almost exclusively two track only. So any maintenance that can’t be done in one shift means single tracking, massive slowdowns, and 17 minute headways. Oh, and no express services, say, between the two airports the system now links.

[@jmchristoph]

This is a common refrain among people who've seen the 4-track tunnels in NYC, but it's incorrect. DC Metro *does* have the equivalent of NYC's express services, in terms of average speeds & distances b/w stations. What it lacks is the *local* services, which if superimposed onto the DC Metro map would require 2-3 additional stops between every existing station pair, & which would make trains take far longer to cross the city. Likewise, DC does, in fact, have track redundancy. It just achieves that redundancy with reverse-branching instead of quad-tracking, so passengers usually still have two ways to get where they're going for most trips. This is actually an advantage over NYC, because unlike MTA, WMATA isn't burdened by the upkeep costs of redundant third tracks that can't be used except at peak time, or by extra "local" stations that could never be served by the full capacity of the "express" tracks that run through them. If there's any lesson WMATA should learn from NYC, it's in not expanding too far into the suburbs. The most distant NYC Subway stations from downtown Manhattan are only half as far out as the most distant DC Metro stations are from downtown DC (and that was true even before the Silver Line).

[@alainterieur4837]

9:45 It really pains me to see the train stopping for cars at intersections. There is no excuse for prioritizing cars over such large trains! The M1 line in Lausanne, which is a single track tram with trains that are 4 times smaller and a frequency of service of one train every 5min can do that without much problems (and the tracks also have gates as seen at 6:16).

[@tristanridley1601]

Even CALGARY figured this out, and the C-Train has rail crossing gates and light synchronization to ensure the train has complete priority. CALGARY. If Calgary can figure it out...

[@jasonreed7522]

Even freight rail has figured this out, admittedly it would take them nearly 2 miles to stop, but still. If we can make drivers wait for a frieght train for 5 minutes, we can make them wait for a passenger train for 30seconds. (Automatic gates plus traffic lights are relatively cheap and effective.) Realistically even busses should have signal prioritization where traffic lights detect approaching busses and give them a green light before returning to normal behavior. (I'm sure some cars would incidentally benefit from this as well, but the main goal being that busses shouldn't be stuck in traffic)

[@ElmerCat]

Then there's Brightline in South Florida: High-speed intercity rail with dozens of busy, at-grade crossings. There's nothing that can possibly go wrong!

[@OneTrueCat]

@ 3:58 I think the word you're looking for is circumventing. Going around or avoiding a thing. Circumnavigating is traveling all the way around a loop, like a beltway or the globe.

[@HMPerson2]

"to circumnavigate" also means to avoid or to go around according to wiktionary, merriam webster, and the cambridge dictionary

[@tristanridley1601]

@@HMPerson2 It's so sad when erroneous uses are so common they "become valid". :(

[@cheef825]

the RV at grade section sucks, but its also worth noting why this area is at grade to begin with. MLK's existence as a stroad was in preparation to plow a freeway through the RV and CD (Empire Freeway), but rich nimbys in madison valley killed that around 50 years ago. when it came time to build sound move, this area was intended to be elevated. neighborhood interests then raised an issue of equity, as move was elevated in minority-heavy areas, then underground in white areas like beacon hill and roosevelt. they wanted a tunnel like the other areas, which had it been chosen almost cetrainly would have killed the project entirely, just like forward thrust and the 1915 subway proposals before it (we now obviously have modern guideways that are far less intrusive than the els of nyc and chicago, which is the type of structure neighborhood interests were concerned about in the 90s). at grade was seen as the compromise. honestly, the "seattle process" is real and its surprising that link was built in a competent manner in the first place

[@rokksula4082]

Yay for the Bus Tunnel. Lets keep this name alive forever

[@cheef825]

it will always be the bus tunnel to locals 🙏

[@stevenwagner983]

still is for me

[@michaelvelik8779]

When I lived in the Seattle area, I was dumbfounded when I learned that Link had street running on MLK Boulevard. This is especially puzzling since it is a NEW purpose built system.

[@goldenstarmusic1689]

This is a similar issue we are dealing with in the Twin Cities, particularly with University Ave and the downtown Minneapolis 5th St sections of the light rail system. We very well could elevate the downtown light rail system between USBank Stadium and Target Field, integrated with the skyway network, and could have had underground/elevated rail along University Ave for the Green Line. Unfortunately we did not make those investments initially, but I also wonder how much more expensive and how much longer construction would have gone on. The Green Line is a little over a decade old now, and is an established transit corridor. At this point, the Twin Cities transit advocates including myself have their eyes on transforming I-94 into a proper S-bahn type regional rail connection between the Twin Cities, as a faster alternative to the Green Line and upgrade to the 94 bus. Great video, crazy how much this hit home.

[@BrandonThetraincarbusguy]

Yeah you made a good point and also I've heard lots of people were upset with the Minneapolis green line extension going through the suburbs to Eden Prairie instead of uptown. And they chose the suburbs instead of putting it on the Greenway through uptown which required a tunnel and they didn't want to do that because of how costly a tunnel would be.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

At grade LRT is okay so long as it's on its own right-of-way. If it's in the middle of or right next to a heavily travelled, high-speed stroad you are just asking for trouble. But what if it's already there? The solution is to block ALL the cross streets from going through the intersection, i.e., make them right-turn only plus through traffic for the stroad. Vehicular traffic that wishes to cross the stroad will need overpasses or underpasses built for it.

[@jmchristoph]

Phoenix begs to differ. You don't necessarily need to restrict traffic turning; you just need adequate signal priority.

[@HowlingWolf518]

Which is fine for _vehicle_ traffic (depending on how critical the intersections are)... but then many streets also have a lot of _foot_ traffic, at which point you either have to accept the decrease in walkability or grade-separate.

[@jasonreed7522]

​@@HowlingWolf518 i think we can also accept automatic gates in lieu of full grade separation (tunnels, viaducts, and overpasses) for less busy lines. Most rural crossings of train tracks and roads use an automatic gate to force traffic to stop while a frieght train passes through. Personally this should be done for all crossings where grade separation is infeasible.

[@HowlingWolf518]

@@jasonreed7522 Like I said though, that's going to lower walkability because you have to detour to the nearest gate (and wait for the train) just to cross the tracks. Everything's got a trade-off.

[@jasonreed7522]

@@HowlingWolf518 I'm assuming gates are installed at all existing crossings which means you don't have to detour, just wait for trains. At that point the delay is based on how heavily used the rail corridor is. 1 train every 15min causing a delay of 1 minute isn't terrible, a constant stream of trains where the gates are closed more than open should be true grade separated. Ultimately it all comes down to cost, and whether an upgrade in service (gated corridor upto full grade separation) is viewed as worth the cost of that upgrade.

[@robk7266]

I really like the crossing gate idea. This would make the system very similar to the Edmonton light rail

[@x--.]

Likely the best, time-responsive fix. Get the gates! Though that path sure looks like cut and cover would be relatively easy, maybe?

[@robk7266]

@@x--. The problem is that service would have to be shut down for years. I did hear of another proposal: build a new viaduct on Rainer Ave, and connect the existing section to the first hill streetcar

[@x--.]

@@robk7266 Yeah, a shutdown for that long would be unacceptable but I was thinking more like take a section of MLK, convert one side to two-way traffic and then cut and cover the other side with new tracks underground. Keep train service running. Separate crew doing intersection and station boxes. Probably not the cheapest option but has to be cheaper than tunnel boring or guaranteed death toll.

[@greasher926]

@@x--.a better alternative is to build a bypass line through Georgetown and alongside the Boeing field airport. This would give a faster more direct route between downtown and the airport as well as faster commute time for south sound users. The MLK route can then be treated as a local street car line similar to the Tacoma link.

[@justsamoo3480]

@@greasher926 I think it could serve as a link to Renton, which is relatively dense and will probably eventually be connected to the Link

[@TNickel555]

The MLK surface line is perfect example of Sound Transit short sightedness: MLK was widened and completely rebuilt to include relocation of utilities, and to make room for the surface trackway. At that point cut & cover would've been only marginally more expensive.

[@loganb.1984]

Yes, I can confirm that the Link was sooooo annoying last month. Never mind the ever 30 minutes thing, the screens inside the trains were going crazy, their were random delays, the stops downtown would give completely incorrect information on the timing of the next trains (but the stations north of downtown gave correct information), one the weekends downtown stops were replaced by shuttle busses, and the trains were noticeable jerky for some reason (like braking too had and randomly). Anyway it is so very nice that the Link is back to normal.

[@creaturexxii]

I am biased, and you can call me smug, but as someone whose is from British Columbia, Canada who tried out the Link Light Rail during that maintenance period, I hate to say it but I love my SkyTrain ❤️🚇 Sorry Link 😢 I will say, I DO like the Siemens S700 that Link uses on Line 1 as they are much smoother than the SkyTrain rolling stock, and taller as the SkyTrains have a rather smaller loading gauge. And sure, the SkyTrain may have automatic and open gangway trains, but most importantly, it's grade-separated, allowing trains to run at high frequency without worry of collisions with cars and pedestrians. As you mentioned, frequency is one of the most important aspects of a transit system, and the only way to realistically achieve that is for it to be grade-separated. For real, the frequency of the SkyTrain's is that during rush hours, sometimes the trains have wait behind each other like they're the ride vehicles at a theme park like Disneyland. So yes, a train traffic jam. I do hope that Seattle can improve the Link Light rail and provide a better service and experience for riders.

[@jmchristoph]

A comparison with Phoenix's Valley Metro light rail is warranted here. It opened at the same time as Seattle's Link, runs the same Kinkisharyo & Siemens vehicles, & has comparable average speeds, but took less time & cost to complete, & has been able to be expanded much more rapidly since then. It's also fully at-grade with traffic signal priority, running in the separated median of 2-to-4-lane roads for the entire length except a short river crossing. There are only two intersections with crossing gates, & in fact those two intersections cap the frequency trains can run along the whole line because the time the crossing gates are down is significantly longer than the time a normal light cycle would stop traffic at those intersections. If not for those two crossings (which Valley Metro is currently studying ways to eliminate), Phoenix would be able to enjoy the same 6-minute frequency as Seattle, instead of the 12-minute frequency it did before COVID. The answer isn't "grade separate at all costs," but rather, build & operate at-grade light rail with adequate signal priority, taking into account motorists' (mis)behavior.

[@satiric_]

Complete signal priority was found to be impossible on the Rainier Valley section of the link: there's no way to meet the cross traffic demands while always keeping the trains running.

[@jmchristoph]

@@satiric_ Phoenix addressed the same problem on Central Ave by eliminating cross-traffic except at arterial road crossings every half-mile. If the street layout of Ranier couldn't have been redesigned similarly, then that's the real issue, not grade separation.

[@alainterieur4837]

But what is the problem with letting motorists wait? The M1 line in Lausanne is goes through fairly large intersections as well and the trains always have signal priority and never stop to let cars through, and on top of that the line as a frequency of one train every 5 minutes and is single track (except at stations). Sure the wait times to cross the tracks can be a bit long, but motorists have adapter to this and changed their habits

[@jmchristoph]

@@alainterieur4837 there's no problem with making motorists wait longer in the abstract. The reason this particular crossing (University Drive in Tempe, AZ) is a problem, is that it's an extraordinarily high-traffic road through an incredibly dense area. The local transit agency actually started diverting bus routes away from University Drive, because at peak time in the afternoon it can take over half an hour to traverse a distance of less than 500 meters in either direction from the light rail crossing. With traffic so backed up, it's often the case that when light rail trains approach the crossing, the gates can come down on top of stopped cars, or trap cars in the middle of the crossing in the train's path. The delay is especially bad when trains in opposite directions are slightly early or slightly late, causing the gates to be down continuously for the equivalent of two full cycles, or about 90s. Imagine a high-traffic arterial being blocked for 1-2 minutes out of every 5, and the 10-20% reduction in the road's throughput becomes a serious problem. So the agency addressed the issue by limiting frequencies to every 12 mins. Meanwhile, at similarly busy crossings where the train passes through a signalized intersection without gates, this is a complete non-issue. Could one solve the issue on University Drive with a road diet, instead of grade separation or re-signalizing the intersection? Probably! But because of the arcane way that Arizona road planning works, that's not in the hands of either the transit agency nor the city, but a superceding agency run by people who are fully car-brained. They actually insisted on *widening* the road immediately east of the crossing, over the objections of several municipal officials.

[@seamusrichard]

Lol it makes me giggle to still hear it called "the bus tunnel." Haven't heard that term in a good bit

One thing I see as a problem for pedestrians is that there are no pedestrian islands, so you are caught trying to avoid cars while running straight into a rail line. If they do narrow the roads, then they could add the pedestrian islands. I’d also generally try to find solutions that are static, rather than more maintenance dependent technology. I’d also be curious how other cities addressed the problems, using low tech solutions?

[@alainterieur4837]

I think moving the track to the side of the road instead of the median would help a lot. And then add gates and signal priority so that the trains never have to stop to let cars through. That's how the M1 line in Lausanne is set up and it works very well. It's only single track but handles a frequency of 1 train every 5min in each direction. The only problem is that wait times can get a bit long if you're unlucky and want to cross the rails (especially for cars)

[@LimitedWard]

Hey are you planning on attending The Urbanist meetup in Capitol Hill next Thursday? Gonna be the first in person meetup since the pandemic!

[@Roma_eterna]

WHAT? I didn’t even know about that! Would it be this coming Thursday then? I live in DC, so I can attend if so!

[@Cyrus992]

Is this annual visit?

[@LimitedWard]

@@Roma_eterna sorry it was in Seatle's Capitol Hill, not the one in DC.

[@LimitedWard]

@@Cyrus992 The meetup is monthly! It's at Stoup Brewing on Capitol Hill along Broadway. It's hosted every third Thursday

[@Cyrus992]

@@LimitedWard ok thanks

[@gaelansteele9224]

2:50 - There are crossovers within the tunnel. They were used (at least) last year, when all trains terminated at Pioneer Square, with a transfer required to get from stations north of Pioneer Square to stations south.

[@user-uy7vh8sm6s]

Love it! Thank you for calling this out!

[@jonathanstensberg]

Sure, but the whole point of LRT is that it is a compromise: you trade off benefits for greater flexibility and less expensive construction and maintenance. When you start talking about grade separation, you’re really just rejecting the basic bargain that was made by building LRT and saying “we should have built a metro instead.” You’re no longer saying “make LRT better”; you’re just saying “ built metro instead of LRT.”

[@harlander-harpy]

I think there are two super important things people miss about the whole "ew LRT" 1: Early on Link didn't have the political power it has today and so the cost savings of Rainier Valley allowed it to be built at all. The same can be said for systems like Minneapolis Light Rail. 2: RM Transit is a liar, low floor light rail vehicles aren't substantially lower capacity than metro trains of the same length. You're absolutely right, this constantly droning on about how LRT is bad and you shouldn't build it "look at these systems that were stupid enough to fall for it" misses political contexts and takes away from the important discussion: how to make LRT work

[@TheRandCrews]

@@harlander-harpy Low floor trains are still less capacity than high floor trains depending on the seat design. If you have an LRT and metro both having transverse seating there wouldn’t be much of a difference. But if you have longitudinal seating one a metro trains, there is more capacity due to replacing seats with standing room which is more dense, even more if it has open gangways. Edmonton is great example on having both high floors and low floors with similar dimensions. The seats are both wide, but high floors have more space to stand around in compared to low floors with seats having to be on top of the bogies. If you’re running practically a discount metro, why run services and vehicles like it is a local tram.

[@kallmeej9106]

That's the thing tho, Seattle needs a metro. There isn't really any compromise here, it's decent and reliable service with a heftier price tag, or subpar unreliable service but we save some money. I would rather have decent service.

[@harlander-harpy]

@@kallmeej9106 no, you don't understand, your choice wasn't between this or something better, your choice was between this or nothing. Sound Transit has said that going forward it will no longer have at grade center running segments. It is able to do this because it has more political power and thus more money ST3 is a real metro, the at grade segment is such a small part of the full map that it would be innacruate to call it light rail because it is much more similar to BART than Minneapolis

[@harlander-harpy]

@@TheRandCrews Link Series 3 LRVs will have single cab units similar to Portland. This will mean a 120m train can carry 932 people. A 120m long WMATA train can carry 957 people. The difference is pretty small. Also, calling Link a local tram service is just patently stupid when the at grade center running segment makes up just 5 of its 25 miles and in a few years at grade segments will make up 6 of the 60 miles. By the end of ST3 construction it will make up just 6 of the 120 mile system.

[@vanadium1603]

Last year i got early to take the link to a job interview. Because im always prepared, i went to take the train that was scheduled 2 hours before my interview. I waited there, with dozens of hours. 10 minutes became 20 became an hour. It took them 6 missed trains and nearly an hour and a half before they notified us the train was down. I ended up calling an uber and I was still 5 minutes late. Luckily, they hiring people were accomodating

[@CaseysTrains]

I'd agure that LINK outside of the Valley is pretty much a low-floor Subway/Metro in terms of how it operates.

[@barryrobbins7694]

2:24 Cross-platform transfers should be standard practice whenever possible.

[@erik_griswold]

I assure you as a witness to the process that the system *would not have been built* had the route through Rainier Valley had not been used. There were MANY MANY obstacles needing to be overcome to get rail transit of any sort built in Seattle. There was even a plan to make the Beacon Hill tunnel single-track with trains alternating in directional use *in order to save money*. I am aware it is not perfect, but look at the future option of building a bypass down the Duwamish Valley to the infill Boeing Access Road station which has always been planned to be built. Having the line run down MLK was also considered Social Justice for the fact that the roadway had been widened and “prepared” (businesses and homes, mostly owned by people of color, wiped out) for the Empire Freeway. It could have been built on viaduct for 3 times the cost or tunneled for 10 times the cost but again, that would have killed the system south of SODO and thus would have likely killed frequent electric rail transit as a part of the Sound Move project. I’ll take what Seattle got over the other suggestions (Van platoons! Seriously) any day.

[@cheef825]

dont forget the multiline monorail system proposed in the 90s...

[@sonicboy678]

What the hell is a van platoon? Is that some sort of glorified dollar van/minibus service like the unchartered stuff we have in NYC?

[@erik_griswold]

@@sonicboy678 Pulsed vans leaving various centers. This was a seriously proposed alternative from some members of the local and regional government bodies

[@sonicboy678]

@@erik_griswold Somehow, that's even worse than I imagined.

[@Matty002]

the lack of grade separation here in la is maddening because many parts of many lines ARE elevated or tunneled, and then go back to dealing with traffic, defeating their purpose because people would rather be stuck in traffic in their cars than with other people. luckily they are introducing more grade separations in these lines but its so backwards when they couldve just done the entire line elevated in the first place 😮‍💨

[@justsamoo3480]

Washington-Flowers junction is physically painful to experience. E and A need to be separated until Washington and Jefferson/USC stations

[@Abrothers12]

My personal preference for a system like this is to follow in the footsteps of Edmonton Transit Service and have more shorter tactical tunnels running under some of the busier intersections. If we had a chance to redesign the corridor, I would keep the light rail tracks on one side of the road with these tunnels integrated. In any case, it's much cheaper and nearly as effective as full grade-separation

[@ZorenManray]

Probably at this stage the more sensible thing would be just to build a separate parallel line bypassing the Rainier Valley and then turning that into a sort of parallel shuttle route. could be done fairly cheap running the line through the industrial areas of Georgetown or for more expense go through South Park. Either way a grade separated right of way is essential to keep good headways as the 1-line continues to expand.

[@realadrieno]

Here’s the thing: grade separation isn’t possible everywhere. Sometimes it’s ok to have at-grade crossings. That said, the fewer the better, but the busiest ones should always come first

[@AmurTiger]

Grade seperation is always possible, it's just a question of costs. Either in monetary terms or in terms of sacrifices to the ideal alignment or links. Perfect example of this is Vancouver's musings about a north shore connection to Metrotown. While I entirely agree with the rough direction of it I really strongly intensely think they should shift the transfer station 1km west to Patterson where it will be far cheaper since you're not forced underground but at the cost of not having the interchange on the perfect station.

[@withdoug93]

Portland is considering building a tunnel for MAX, but I highly doubt it will happen in our lifetimes. It's a shame, because going through downtown on MAX is a painful and slow experience, and people often drive or park on the tracks. It's so obnoxious. MAX also has several intersections similar to the MLK section of Link. Where MAX Yellow Line runs along Interstate Ave, and where the Blue Line runs along E Burnside. Those are less because of NIMBYs and more because they were trying to build the system on a bit of a shoestring budget.

[@maxwellwagoner-watts4747]

These need to be elevated. 😊

[@nicholaswastakenwastaken]

I've been riding the 1-Line a few times when I went to Seattle and especially when I'm going to the airport I see cars struggling to turn left with 2 REALLY long light rail vehicles passing by the intersection, and right after the light turns red. I suppose that cars really have a short window of time to do those.

[@SandBoxJohn]

The entire reason for building surface running rail transit (light rail) is to reduce the upfront capital cost of building fully grade separated heavy rail rapid transit. If you going to call for grade separating as much of half of a light rail line it might be best to pay the upfront capital cost and build heavy rail rapid transit. The platform lengths for heavy rail rapid transit do not have to be long enough for 600' long trains, example Baltimore heavy rail rapid transit line.

[@Aidan_Au]

How are you holding up with the winter in Seattle? Your viewers are cheering up for you!

[@emma70707]

It's been sunny. Lol. We've had barely any rain this winter.

[@GaigeGrosskreutzGunClub]

IDK if this is parasocial, but he sounds a little less frustrated in his Seattle arc lol

[@Aidan_Au]

Well that's because he used to live in Nevada/Vegas area and that's a "car paradise".....@@GaigeGrosskreutzGunClub

[@cheef825]

@@emma70707 el nino has been kind to us this year lol

[@pavld335]

Winter in Seattle doesn't seem that bad. In fact, I would imagine it would be worse in Reno.

[@HarvestStore]

Great video.

[@Ranman242]

Is it possible to completely block through traffic from the side streets like what is shown at 11:00 for all intersections? If money is to be spent, I would spend it on bridges and/or tunnels for pedestrians and cyclists to easily get across while still blocking cars (although now that I think about it, this would probably block buses too).

[@1224chrisng]

yes, but if you're elevating every street, you might as well elevate the railway instead. At that point, you just have the Vancouver Skytrain

[@KingBobXVI]

They can't do that because they need thru-traffic. With the passthrough, there would be no way to get from one side of the track to the other.

[@Brianrockrailfan]

great video could you talk about the Seattle, WA waterfront streetcar line seattle had 😥

[@aaronallblacks]

Coming to WA from Baltimore, DC, and NYC I was surprised to see how skimped-on public transport is here in comparison. I'm up on Whidbey where our free bus line is pretty dang good all things considered, especially for those who really need it. But down in Seattle there doesn't seem to be a "good" mode of public transport at all which is just wild imo. In short, on an effectiveness:pop ratio I wouldn't expect the Island County bus service to trump Seattle but yet

[@NeonNion]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why isn't maintenance done at night? At least I understood that you're talking about regular maintenance.

[@Mir_Teiwaz]

This wasn't regular maintenance. It was work that needed to be done or the light rail wouldn't have been able to continue running on the tracks that had been set in the downtown stops. The tunnels were originally built so that buses could also go down there until the light rail had more work done.

[@NeonNion]

@@Mir_Teiwaz Thanks, that solves it for me. [And proofs my dumbness, hah]

[@Novusod]

Transit agencies don't have infinite budgets to build tunnels everywhere. Most likely if they were forced to build a tunnel the entire length of the corridor it wouldn't have been built at all.

[@TheTikeySauce]

This really is the important part that people seem to miss. People need to keep in mind that Link did not have the same political and public support in the 90s. The original ballot measure for Link failed in 1995 and had to be scaled back so voters passed it in 1996.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

Some extra context specifically to LINK (but it isn't the only which suffer from this): Seattle was chosen to receive federal funding for a metro system similar to the Bay Area and Washington DC but its residents rejected it multiple times and Seattle built LINK as a tramway instead. Then came in the decision to build the rest of the network almost entirely grade separated (in part because of the downsides of at-grade sections) which results in this weird system where most of a single line (with no branches) is grade separated except for a portion which runs in a street's median, serving Seattle's metropolitan region with low-floor vehicles when high-floor ones are better suited for this task.

[@maddiejaksa]

Something kind of important to bring up here is that these left turn crashes are also very common between two cars! It's necessary to increase the safety of left turns on these large suburban roads.

[@Rahshu]

Seeing as how the vast majority of the Seattle system is grade separated and that the Rainier Valley section is a bottleneck:YES! Just close it and rebuilt it at an accelerated schedule. It'll be worth it for so many reasons. It'll make the whole system faster, more reliable, safer, and allow for higher frequencies. Remember, the USA is the richest nation that has ever existed in the history of the world. It can afford to not only reubuild this but ALSO build additional lines around Seattle and its environs. This isn't and shouldn't be an either or proposition. Americans need to really let themselves think big again and be more demanding of their government and not tolerate the austerity that is its central obsession with regards to its people and not their welfare. Yeah, maybe that's pie in the sky for the US, but that's a far bigger issue than building trains. America once went to the Moon. Grade separating a train should be nothing. Elevated and underground railways in the US go back more than a century at this point, for God's sake!

[@SeriesShower]

It's ok, Sound Transit won't do this again, right? Right? (NE Bellevue section of 2 line)

[@metrofilmer8894]

Tbf. That’s the final section of grade running track that ST is building and even then is only 1/2 a mile along a not busy road with 3 total grade interactions

[@JanSuerth]

Elevated tracks and tunnels both come with their own set of challenges. Notably, they significantly increase operational costs. Elevators and escalators, essential for accessing elevated tracks, are expensive to maintain. However, I propose that the focus should shift from altering the tracks themselves to modifying the adjacent roads. For instance, prohibiting left turns over the tracks at all intersections would be beneficial. To enforce this, we could use more than just signs-raised curbs could serve as a physical barrier. While gates work well at large intersections for both vehicles and pedestrians crossing straight over, they pose issues when vehicles make left turns across the tracks. Additionally, pedestrian walkways that guide people to face the direction of oncoming trains would enhance safety. Considering the statistics you’ve presented, the highest priority should be placed on physically preventing vehicles from turning left onto the tracks. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) offers a comprehensive guide on intersections.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

Underground vs on street is the difference between intercity and intracity transit. Massive metro stations in big cities are essentially intercity stations, where each neighborhood, borough or district is its own city. This is why even when some megacities cities implemented security checkpoints in metro stations, people were still willing to put up with x rays and metal detectors in addition to the long walk underground. Trams are attractive because they are the last mile solution, stopping at the front entrances of many businesses and apartment complexes. For transit that serves an intercity function (regardless of where municipal borders are), grade separation is hugely important as the railway is essentially an interstate. For transit that serves a more intra city function, grade separation and increasing station distances can reduce convenience and change its nature. I would argue that all transit should be intercity since last mile neighborhood transit is better served by micromobility, but if the city does not have proper infrastructure for people on bikes and scooters and wheelchairs, then measures that increase speed but reduce convenience can be a bad things.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

The real solution for scenarios like MLK is to just physically block off most left turns and add in a few high quality uturn solutions. Drivers going long distances will just put up with the longer drive, while the added inconvenience of driving short trips will give transit more comparative advantage.

[@jus4795]

That looks like a tram, not a LRT. They should have replaced the route with busses for the duration of maintenience and the problem would be solved.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

To be fair, LRT is a very broad category and LINK does switch between grade separated metro and tramway multiple times.

[@jus4795]

​@@MarioFanGamer659 Trams sometimes have grade separated sections of the line, but they are still trams. For LRT to function properly it has to have fully or nearly fully grade separated route. (As in the same as heavy rail) Usually LRT has even more grade separation than heavy rail as it tends to function as a metro, and trams tend to have much less grade separation as they serve a similar function to busses, but with higher capacity...

[@SpectreMk2]

Building light-rail with some sections in tunnels is fine as long as it is placed where it needs it the most (downtown or in difficult urban landscape). Considering light rail tunnels and underground stations are quite expensive, I think a split of 80 - 20 % or less between on street and tunnel sections is fine. It is however a complete waste of money if you go for 50 - 50% as a true metro could have been so much faster and not that much more expensive. A metro allows much higher frequencies (2 to 3 more frequent than light rail in rush hour) and therefore, for the same capacity, shorter trains can be used hence they require shorter platforms. Shorter platforms mean less expensive underground stations to build and maintain. Nice's tramway line 2 (on the French riviera) strikes this balance well in my opinion. Eglinton Crosstown, a lot less...

[@hobog]

0:40 yeah is it really worth keeping the pavement in that tunnel? I guess that requires replacing with new track support, which is also excruciating

[@dallenford9592]

SLC's Trax light rail system has a few intersections where not only is there no grade separation, but the tracks actually share space with a left turn lane (with the train going straight, although cars go left). It is super weird - and always a bit scary - to be sitting legally in the left turn lane and see a whole train coming up right behind you....

[@MarioFanGamer659]

"few intersections where not only is there no grade separation" This implies that TRAX is more grade separated than it actually is but it's actually a mostly at grade system.

[@Cyrus992]

I would put a rail system on the grade level if it was a pedestrian only street

[@rpvitiello]

Do what New Jersey does, and ban left turns on divided roadways. If you want to turn left, you need to make 3 right turns/ make a “jug handle” turn instead.

[@IceArdor]

Easy solution: discourage single occupant vehicle trips through congested downtown areas. Light rail, bus, biking, and walking aren’t the problem in Portland’s downtown area. Cars are. Moving light rail underground further promotes automobile trips into and through the city, making it less friendly for pedestrians, cyclists, and tourists. Some of Portland’s character as a city comes from the transit-focus of Pioneer Square. Moving transit underground there will cause Pioneer Square to turn into yet another area for drugs and tents to pop up. My proposal: keep surface rail in downtown Portland for trips within city center, but add a few underground express stations to help people get in and out of the city without so many stops. This also addresses Trimet’s longstanding issue of limiting train consists to 2 cars due to downtown Portland’s short city blocks. Trimet could run their entire network with longer trains, as long as those express trains transit through the city underground, then run their short cars on the surface for local service in downtown. Their short trains could either continue on surface routes outside of city center, or turn around and stay in downtown. Having underground mass transit with larger consists would alleviate the bottlenecks on sporting event nights, festivals, and events where train passengers travel in sardine mode.

[@Jasonfallen71]

The issue is education. I live in the very neighborhood where the most crashes happen. Virtually every single car train interaction is with members of the immigrant community and say it with love. The extreme diversity (87% non white) is one of the things I’m proud of here. But people need to be addressed where they live, physically and online. We use 9 languages in some mailings but many are left out. People are set up to fail if they don’t know what is happening with the roads and trains. It’s a matter of safety and education, not ethnicity. I hope that comes across here. And after 8 deaths the pedestrain safety measures are long overdue. The area around Henderson and MLK is wonderful because of the people but people need help knowing how to be safe on a road with trains. I vote for ads in all the small neighborhood newspapers and newsletters these communities enjoy.

[@milliedragon4418]

That is actually seriously hilarious. That road had 25 mph. That's literally the same speed limit as a subdivision or a two way road in dense downtown. Oh that road is like bare minimum design for 35 mph.

[@NickCBax]

9:50 or so.. One of the benefits of making this grade separated with say a cut and cover tunnel, would be that you could make the road narrower from curb to curb, and add better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure..

[@mewosh_]

Don't they have these cool switches you put temporarily over the tracks?

[@mymemeplex]

Designing the pedestrian crossings so you have to do a zig zag towards the oncoming train would help. Adding grass (and maybe even trees) between the tracks and the road would help separate the tracks more. Grass between the tracks is the next level option. As for the intersections with cars, I got nothing. ppl are gonna ppl. There are often stops next to the intersections here so the rail doesn't travel fast, but if this light rail has longer distance between stops as requirement, that's not an option. Also then again, ppl gonna ppl, I was hit by a tram when I was a teen cause I didn't pay attention, I genuinely didn't see him, and I was too into my music. it was just ramping up from the stop, so not much damage, but still.

[@NoirMorter]

Frequency, predictability, and destinations as well as ease of access sound like core tenants of a sound system.

[@TheStickCollector]

I hope to take some highway/road and put a rail line down the middle. That way we can have more tracks and mini trains/trams even

[@placeholdername0000]

Also means that you can reduce the number of intersections, improving road safety.

[@shraka]

I really feel like running the LRT next to the bus through the tunnel rather than integrated with it would be much much better and only cost a little more. Hell as soon as you get to your first scheduled maintenance it'd likely have paid for itself.

[@pavld335]

Okay I see now. Thank you for educating me. This is stupid for these trains to run like this.

[@Kisai_Yuki]

The Edmonton Traffic Snarler would love to have words with the Seattle and Portland traffic snarlers. The best system is always grade separated, anyone who says otherwise is pushing a gadgetbahn.

[@MC_aigorithm]

perhaps rather than an all-or-nothing approach, they can grade-separate certain problematic intersections and not others, keeping costs and disruptions down.. like maybe that Cloverdale intersection and a few others.

[@AricMiller89]

You wonder if Seattle transport planners have ever even been to Vancouver, much less anywhere outside North America! There’s lots to like about Sound Transit but there’s a few critical errors that were likely cost saving measures at the expense of frequency and even safety. 8 pedestrian deaths is insane!!

[@lezautrez]

If you want to sound like a local, it's "ray-NEER" for Rainier

[@mikeschumacher]

It's weird that at-grade isn't as much of an issue when I go to other places in the world with trams and LRT. For instance, in Munich the trams will often have exclusive right-of-way phases and signal priority so all directions are stopped at intersections while the tram runs through. Warsaw trams don't seem to have an issue running in the middle of the road either. Maybe it's familiarity with being around lots of trams, or lower overall speeds, or drivers are more situationally aware of their surroundings over there? I don't think grade separation is cost-effective as a replacement for the 1-line, but I'm also unsure if trying to make things idiot-proof is a good solution either. There's usually a better idiot that shows up eventually.

[@cheef825]

the best thing is probably a road diet on mlk. toss in some sweet bike lanes, shrink the lane width, and people will actually start going 25

[@MrBirdnose]

In other countries people are smart enough not to turn in front of oncoming trains. The carnage with the Brightline trains in Florida is another example of Americans being too dumb to know you can't cut in front of trains.

[@danielkelly2210]

American drivers are terrible, mainly because driver training is minimal and it's nearly impossible to fail your driving test. Also, drivers are very entitled and basically think they are gods of their own worlds when they're inside their shiny metal boxes.

[@Pystro]

@@danielkelly2210 Drivers in Minneapolis are the most respectful ones that I've personally experienced (it's probably the Midwest culture). But even here, the Green Line is known for nailing drivers who do a left turn through a red light. I think it's more the quality of education and less the attitude. Or maybe they just lack the proper motivation to pay attention: Get hit by a train, or get caught by the police making an illegal maneuver across tracks, get 20 years in prison (if you survive). You'd be surprised how much more attention drivers and pedestrians would put into not making an illegal left turn across tracks.

[@rebeccawinter472]

The (hopefully) soon to be opened Line 5 in Toronto is a Light Rail line that’s fully grade separated running as a subway basically through the centre of the city, but popping out to run in a separate right of way in the median of a busy stroad in the east end of the line. I’m very curious to see how many accidents and what preventive measures they have put in place. From what I have seen of the infrastructure thus far, I don’t see anything (no lights, no painted right of ways, no gates, etc…). Anyways, thought it would be another good case study. It’s too bad Toronto didn’t learn from Seattle & built the wrong transit. It’s likely going to be overcapacity within a couple decades, but we’ll see. 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@georgobergfell]

I actually prefer at grade transit. Just build road underpasses at the most accident prone crossings and do them one by one. That way you can continously improve service and keep costs down

[@LVRugger]

The first Sound Transit ballot measure was much bigger and had more - more stations, better tracks, more lines. It failed. The next time it was put to a vote is was pared down and it passed. This is what resulted from that.

[@AaronTheHarris]

They will spend more money on safety mitigation and lost revenue from slower trains / service interruptions than if they had just continued to build it elevated from Mt Baker station.

[@leehaber]

Another benefit of grade separation is you enable potential automation.

[@johnsavard7583]

Skimping on grade separation is exactly what Edmonton has been doing in its LRT expansion!

[@justaguy6862]

The City of Edmonton would seem to disagree with you. (and they are so very wrong!)

[@tylernguy5242]

Tell me about it. I'm still mad at their recent decision to get rid of a grade separated station and crossing over a major roadway in the name of staying on budget/save a quick instead of investing the extra money to make sure that part gets built right. Even with the public speakers saying they want it built right and not to repeat the same mistakes, most of city council didn't listen. The closest thing is they'll do a cost analysis over a possible grade separated crossing, but they can't guarantee it will happen. And I was so excited for this project as well...

[@tonydarcy7475]

Whilst I'm not familiar with the area, in general I don't think grade separation is necessary for light rail. If they were going to go with a cut and cover approach, they should've just used heavy rail. The main advantage of light rail is that it is much cheaper to build because grade separation is generally not necessary, except for maybe at a few key points. If it needs to be grade separated anyway, then just build heavy rail as it wouldn't have been much more expensive than grade-separated light rail. I agree with your suggestions around using boom gates & pedestrian gates though - that should be a relatively inexpensive way to significantly improve safety and hopefully allow speed limits to be increased for both the trams and cars.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

Some context for LINK: The initial construction had different plans compared to what was followed. Basically, LINK started of as a regional tramway (in favour of a regional metro linke BART, Washington Metro and MARTA) with the only meaningful grade separated portion being a BRT tunnel but any expansion ended up being grade separated which caused the initial sections to be an outlier with all the downsides which were inherited.

[@LHSNottingham]

Wondering if the frequency of train collisions on MLK are made worse because the trains can cause the green left turn arrows to be dropped from the light cycle multiple times in a row. Recently heading north on MLK and attempting a left turn onto S. Alaska St we waited through *five* light cycles in a row with no turn arrow (ended up giving up and continuing on to another crossing.) Also, I think would be happy if people "only"drove 35 MPH on MLK (and Ranier); cars routinely exceed 60 MPH on those roads not to mention people who treat the dedicated bus lanes as their own personal VIP lane.

[@everettrailfan]

I'd say I'm pretty much the opposite of an urbanist since I prefer to use my car as much as I can, but I don't like seeing a half-assed light rail system being built in pretty much the same place we already tore OUT an interurban line. If we're gonna commit to it, at least do it well. I don't use public transit at all since I have no use for it, but the fact that so much money is being poured into a system that's already poorly designed just irks me. There are definitely places where light rail works in the Seattle area, but only if it's properly designed.

[@user-ek3hx3tp4u]

Seattle is a good example of a city that desperately needed transit but skimped out on the design and lazily built stations and crossings resulting in a failed system. Seattle hopefully can get better but this is a good reason most of the city doesn’t use it.

[@iseewood]

Where are you going to get the money for grade separation?

[@jeffreyapplesauce]

So frustrating. If they brought back the neighborhood to downtown buses instead of the way they cut the route to drop you off at the station for the broken train. Been riding transit every day for 25 years in Seattle and still not sure what problem this train was trying to solve, but it is so much more headache than when the buses were in the bus tunnel.

[@emma70707]

...really? You don't understand that busses sit in traffic (especially in pinch points like south of University Bridge due to the geography of the city) while the light rail can keep moving on dedicated tracks? You don't understand that bus lines can average 3.8k to 7.2k people per hour while light rail can carry 12.2k to 26.9k per hour? And that's all while you're paying fewer drivers (so much cheaper operating costs) or even setting up the system to be automatic. I'm super happy for you that busses had been serving your needs, and I agree that it's incredibly frustrating that they cut plans for many rapid transit bus lines during the pandemic budget crisis and moved them to pick up/drop at the light rail instead. But there's a reason that all highly developed metros and many small metros outside of NA rely on trams/light rail/heavy rail rather than busses--busses shine for their flexibility and are fine for lower density settings but if you have a lot of people moving in the same direction at the same time, you need something with a higher capacity, speed, and dependability and lower operating costs.

[@cheef825]

this is an old school opinion hahaha

[@MrBirdnose]

During rush hour the 72 bus from UW to downtown used to take three times as long as the light rail takes for the same trip. Seattle's road network is too screwed up for buses to work efficiently.

[@jeffreyapplesauce]

@emma70707, @MrBirdnose I ride the train nearly every day. No one is saying that trains suck. I am saying this train is not the exalted rail to getting around town people think it must be. There is great potential and popular willingness in Seattle to create a great system and this train is not the singular answer, especially the way it’s been integrated. My comment was really trying to get at how neighborhood service connecting the downtown area has drastically been cut to be replaced by hybrid bus+train rerouting. And when the train is not working? It’s awful. KC Metro busses will always have more riders than ST Link light rail and ST Express busses will always outnumber Sounder commuter train ridership. If being generous to both their current ridership figures per hour of operation are 5,000 ST Link light rail and 9,800 KC Metro busses even with diminished services. There is not a 1:1 in ridership when you build a light rail station that all transit in the city will flow to the rail. Rail infrastructure in any implementation has a hardship tax on getting to and from it. Not everyone wants to walk a mile like I will to or from the station. Or transfer between bus and train. Aw, the 72 in the bus tunnel. If you wanted to go anywhere up and down the Ave there was the 71,72,73 each at 15 minute frequencies running in the tunnel and taking the express lanes 1 direction during rush hour. If you wanted to go to 45th, timetables probably said 15 minutes. I remember that being about my usual trip in the late 2000s when I lived there and in 2016 when I saw my friend there often. I went through a few rough rides too, but I also remember days the busses just flew up the freeway. And when it wasn’t rush hour they went up Eastlake. ST Link says 10 min transit time Westlake to U Dist Station. But the station is around the corner from 45th and University, so let’s be real, it’s 10min train ride + 2 minutes leaving station + 3 min walk from the station. 15 minutes. If I want to go to 55th from the tunnel on the Link takes 10min transit time + 2 station + 14 walk. 26 minutes. 72 that went up the Ave to 55th? Typically 18 minutes? But I know, I know, even if only 5 min later, It felt like everything took an eternity when the busses were crowded. And now if the trains not running? There were a good number of these “middle transit” and commuter busses that KC Metro had operating when the tunnel was active. They were something uniquely fit for Seattle and it’s weird we only travel north and south geography. Saying the train is better is not enough to make Seattle’s transit system better. It’s a weird city that needs weird solutions.

[@rebeccawinter472]

In terms of retrofitting Line 1 in Seattle, couldn’t they shut down one direction of the MLK Drive, use cut and cover, while keeping the light rail line open? They could either convert the other side of the stroad into 2-way traffic or, alternatively, make some alternative road changes to handle the traffic changes (converting a 2-way street nearby into a 1-way temporarily during construction, or something to that effect. This way you could keep the Line 1 moving the entire time and may even see higher ridership as it will be better than driving on the route.

[@TheTikeySauce]

Possibly, but it's not something that will be addressed in the ST3 timeline. We would have to see what Sound Transit has planned for ST4 when it goes to the ballot.

[@rebeccawinter472]

@@TheTikeySauce oof, that’s right, bloody direct democracy for transit planning - it’s a wonder anything gets built. 🤦🏻‍♀️ Do new highways or road expansions or suburban developments get out on ballots too? Cause really they should if they’re voting on transit projects.

[@GaigeGrosskreutzGunClub]

North America building infrastructure with the benefit of hindsight and research challenge [impossible]

[@lars7935]

I mean it depends. A town of 600k can be served perfectly fine with (mostly) at grade light rail. A city of 6 million not.

[@jmchristoph]

A 600k "town" would be the 30th largest city in the USA, ahead of Baltimore and behind Detroit. Each of those cities has at-grade light rail, and also a single grade-separated rapid transit line which somehow generates lower ridership.

[@lars7935]

@@jmchristoph Keep in mind that it's perfectly valid to count the metropolitan area instead of just city proper. I grew up near a town of 150k but the immediate urban and commuting area had about half a million people. Such an area can be served with a backbone network of light rail supplemented by bus services and some regional heavy rail. A metropolitan area of 6 million for example can use light rail in its sub centres towards the outskirts and for local connections outside the immediate center. But the center needs to served by proper high capacity rail. In my current case by a high floor light rail subway system and a heavy rail S-Bahn type commuter railway. Regional rail, busses and trams are supplemental only.

[@usernameryan5982]

I’ve always said this and people don’t really like it but if you are not going to do grade separation, I don’t see the benefit for LRT rather than just running dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit. The increased productivity from frequency and automation is unbelievable in grade separated transit.

[@justinterested5819]

Why not put car traffic a level down? Through traffic could be run next to the tracks (no left/right) turns, while the road for the residents with the crossing is a level down. This would remove the need for crossings. Car tunnels dont need to be as deep as train tunnels. One surface level side of the road could be removed or repurposed. The few semis that need to go into that part of town could be given alternatives. There is also potential for other positive side effects.

[@joegladstone7739]

Lots of history behind the Rainier Valley (MLK) corridor. The comment about local advocates opposing elevated tracks might not be fully accurate. It is becoming more gentrified as time moves on, but before the train existed, this was a collection of low-income neighborhoods with equally low political pull. They had a lot of concern about their section of the rail being at grade rather than elevated or tunneled. But like all low-income neighborhoods, they got the short end of the stick when it comes to cost-savings. I-5 cutting through the Yesler neighborhood is another example. On a side note: it is pronounced “Rain-near”, not “runnerr”. 😊

[@NoNotThatPaul]

It would also be helpful to know what city this is 3:20

[@satiric_]

That's Seattle's Westlake station.

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

2.5 minutes is not about people experience it is ALL about profit

[@robertlittlefield1855]

Where are we, btw? Just curious as to why KZbin creators think everyone automatically knows exactly what they're talking about.

[@trainrover]

walkshed? just what must this Washingtonianesqueness actually mean, pray tell..?

[@trainrover]

telegraph wiring looks crappy along streets, yet never bothersome trackside, so I'm idly bemused by corporateers' wish to embed roving lighting instead of stringily suspending it overhead 👀 besides, all that there muckily gloomy rain'd interfere with meddlsome reflectivity, especially at night wouldn't it :pfFt: why can't Corporateria's planners be fired en-masse like all those 'mere' air traffic controllers had been all those years ago there

[@shraka]

It's insane to me that this is centre running. It should at least be running along the side of the road with boom gates.

[@jmchristoph]

Side-running tram tracks tend to have lower maximum throughput & more vehicle conflicts than center-lane tramways. Compare Link with DC's H St line, for example. In Seattle, collisions usually occur at intersections. In DC, collisions can occur anywhere along the line, where a car might turn across the tracks into a parking space or alley. It's one thing if the tramway is along an arterial road with intersections and driveways every quarter to half mile; it's another thing entirely along a dense downtown street with potential entry points every half block.

[@shraka]

@@jmchristoph Why TF would there be driveways and parking lots fronting onto a main road? That’s insanely bad design. Like I said, crossings should at least have boom gates if it’s a metro. Really it should be entirely grade separated.

[@jmchristoph]

@@shraka idk what to tell you, but you'll find driveways & on-street parking along plenty of streets where you might want to build a tramway. Central Ave in Phoenix, H St NE & Benning Road NE in DC, any one of the myriad at-grade light rail alignments in Portland, etc. The solution is to prevent cars from crossing the tracks except at a small number of arterial intersections where the tram can be given signal priority. If you do that with a center-lane tramway, you don't have to disrupt the existing street grid & building access as much as would be necessary to eliminate conflicts on side-running tram tracks.

[@shraka]

​@@jmchristoph The video is showing a 4 wide lane road. I understand the U.S. loves it's stroads, but that's also a bad design pattern. If this is a road, collapse it to 2 lanes and add small side access roads - one of which can be placed on the other side of the tramway. You can probably narrow those lanes too and fit a whole bike path in there. That way half your passengers only have to cross a small street and bike path to access transit rather than everyone having to cross and wait next to a main road. I live in Melbourne. We have a few centre running trams with dedicated ROW. It seems to have mostly been done out of a sense of symmetry.

[@jmchristoph]

@@shraka so what you're describing with the side roads is precisely how K St NW in DC is currently designed. It's historically been both a traffic and pedestrian nightmare, even without transit or bike lanes, because the side access lanes only add additional conflict points for cars. Hence why, as DC is currently redesigning K St NW to include a transitway, the bus/tram lanes are going to be in the center and the side access lanes will be eliminated. There's also room for bike lanes and central pedestrian islands in the new design. And yes, they are narrowing the car traffic lanes, reducing the number of lanes by 2, and reducing the number of side parking & access points. But at the same time, DC has learned the lesson of H St NE, where the streetcar was installed along the sides exactly as you've suggested doing, and it's been a congestion nightmare. We won't fix K St by making it more like H St, or by leaning into the old design.

[@x--.]

8 pedestrian deaths? Jeez.... Guess they weren't worth the few million to make it safer? That's always how it feels to me when transit agencies don't do their job to keep people safe, even if they happen to make a mistake while walking down the road.

[@micbroc6435]

Grade level is cheaper. That is the only reason it was done. We always build on the cheap. Every. Damn. Time.

[@qjtvaddict]

Let’s be honest MOST people DON’T WANT STREET RUNNING

[@MrBirdnose]

It's true, but they wanted an elevated line in their neighborhood even less.