Harper
@harlander.bsky.social
I read transit budget documents for fun
Transit | Housing | Photography
23
She/her
🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
Train good car bad
Transit | Housing | Photography
23
She/her
🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
Train good car bad
Also, if these people don't like downtown seattle, I'd be happy for them to take advantage of the better access to Bellevue mall
December 20, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Also, if these people don't like downtown seattle, I'd be happy for them to take advantage of the better access to Bellevue mall
20 to 15 unless you count the 215 and 269 which for some reason dont force a transfer to the 556 off peak -_-
However, Link gains back time by being faster between S Bellevue and ID and even more time by being faster between ID and Westlake
However, Link gains back time by being faster between S Bellevue and ID and even more time by being faster between ID and Westlake
December 20, 2025 at 10:17 PM
20 to 15 unless you count the 215 and 269 which for some reason dont force a transfer to the 556 off peak -_-
However, Link gains back time by being faster between S Bellevue and ID and even more time by being faster between ID and Westlake
However, Link gains back time by being faster between S Bellevue and ID and even more time by being faster between ID and Westlake
Greatest state in the union
December 20, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Greatest state in the union
every 120-180 seconds since you are garunteed to have trains miss their 60s padding window, especially if you have an at-grade segment. NYC can put trains on express tracks or express platforms and even they have substantial problems.
December 19, 2025 at 8:18 PM
every 120-180 seconds since you are garunteed to have trains miss their 60s padding window, especially if you have an at-grade segment. NYC can put trains on express tracks or express platforms and even they have substantial problems.
very well and has a lot of delay issues. full CBTC in the tunnel will help but you really cant run trains closer than every 60-75 seconds since your main limitation is dwell times and thats an amount of time where you will have delays propagate through the system if youre running trains...
December 19, 2025 at 8:18 PM
very well and has a lot of delay issues. full CBTC in the tunnel will help but you really cant run trains closer than every 60-75 seconds since your main limitation is dwell times and thats an amount of time where you will have delays propagate through the system if youre running trains...
NYC, it doesnt have a bunch of platforms at each station like Melbourne) and the transbay tube has fewer trains per hour than what link would have with 3 lines running every 8 (which I still maintain wouldnt be enough for the 2 line during peak or during events) and in spite of that it doesnt work..
December 19, 2025 at 8:18 PM
NYC, it doesnt have a bunch of platforms at each station like Melbourne) and the transbay tube has fewer trains per hour than what link would have with 3 lines running every 8 (which I still maintain wouldnt be enough for the 2 line during peak or during events) and in spite of that it doesnt work..
2-3 minute headways on a single line are perfectly fine, but when you start interlining you start introducing more points of failure and with every new line added the buffer you need grows. The closest analogue is the transbay tube (it has no alternative express tracks/platforms for padding like...
December 19, 2025 at 8:18 PM
2-3 minute headways on a single line are perfectly fine, but when you start interlining you start introducing more points of failure and with every new line added the buffer you need grows. The closest analogue is the transbay tube (it has no alternative express tracks/platforms for padding like...
we are only limited in the RV to 5 minutes which is more than adequate (and sound transit is keeping grade separation plans in the back of their heads)
December 19, 2025 at 8:07 PM
we are only limited in the RV to 5 minutes which is more than adequate (and sound transit is keeping grade separation plans in the back of their heads)
The main thing would be establishing the experience within the system to run ALMs since they would make things like Aurora Link, Denny Link, 3 Line extensions etc muuuch cheaper to build and operate
December 19, 2025 at 8:06 PM
The main thing would be establishing the experience within the system to run ALMs since they would make things like Aurora Link, Denny Link, 3 Line extensions etc muuuch cheaper to build and operate
situation) but you'd want to run every 2.5 minutes at least meaning your maintenance hours are going to be at least the same. You could save a little money by building 60m platforms but running, say, 40m trains most of the time but youd be saving pennies on the dollar probably
December 19, 2025 at 8:06 PM
situation) but you'd want to run every 2.5 minutes at least meaning your maintenance hours are going to be at least the same. You could save a little money by building 60m platforms but running, say, 40m trains most of the time but youd be saving pennies on the dollar probably
For a line as short as WS-BL the opex might actually be about the same since you are forced to stand up a brand new OMF. Your trains should also not be less than 500pax (about 60m) in order to enable future proofing and deal with peak loads for things like games (dont want a Vancouver...
December 19, 2025 at 8:06 PM
For a line as short as WS-BL the opex might actually be about the same since you are forced to stand up a brand new OMF. Your trains should also not be less than 500pax (about 60m) in order to enable future proofing and deal with peak loads for things like games (dont want a Vancouver...
You would also be upsetting powerful stakeholders which would also cause a lot of problems
December 19, 2025 at 6:24 PM
You would also be upsetting powerful stakeholders which would also cause a lot of problems
You would have to completely redesign the alignment from the ground up which would require a whole new EIS process
December 19, 2025 at 6:24 PM
You would have to completely redesign the alignment from the ground up which would require a whole new EIS process
We used to run every 6, sound transit considered and ultimately didnt vote on a plan that would have 5 minute frequencies through the RV
December 19, 2025 at 6:11 PM
We used to run every 6, sound transit considered and ultimately didnt vote on a plan that would have 5 minute frequencies through the RV
Long term we would save money though, I want to make that clear
December 19, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Long term we would save money though, I want to make that clear
This would definitely be ideal, however, I think it would end up being more expensive by requiring redesign, new rolling stock, and a new OMF
December 19, 2025 at 5:46 PM
This would definitely be ideal, however, I think it would end up being more expensive by requiring redesign, new rolling stock, and a new OMF
I personally disagree with the assessment that CBTC would allow 3 lines running in the tunnel would work reliably and certainly not with trains running better than every 3m20s (10 minites per line) which is not enough capacity for crosslake
December 19, 2025 at 4:50 PM
I personally disagree with the assessment that CBTC would allow 3 lines running in the tunnel would work reliably and certainly not with trains running better than every 3m20s (10 minites per line) which is not enough capacity for crosslake
I mean, we can run every 5-6 through the RV no problem
December 19, 2025 at 4:47 PM
I mean, we can run every 5-6 through the RV no problem
One they realized first hill sits on a giant patch of sand which makes building a station almost impossible, especially with how deep the station would have to be
December 19, 2025 at 9:12 AM
One they realized first hill sits on a giant patch of sand which makes building a station almost impossible, especially with how deep the station would have to be
Especially since such a tunnel would be forced to also go under the foundations of skyscrapers. When I say deep, im talking order 200'+
Secondly: the reason we don't already have a First Hill station and instead have the FHS and G Line is because when ST tried to build...
Secondly: the reason we don't already have a First Hill station and instead have the FHS and G Line is because when ST tried to build...
December 19, 2025 at 9:12 AM
Especially since such a tunnel would be forced to also go under the foundations of skyscrapers. When I say deep, im talking order 200'+
Secondly: the reason we don't already have a First Hill station and instead have the FHS and G Line is because when ST tried to build...
Secondly: the reason we don't already have a First Hill station and instead have the FHS and G Line is because when ST tried to build...
The 1 and 3. The DSTT2 would ideally go Chinatown-YT-First Hill-Westlake but there are a couple major factors that stand in the way. Firstly: station depth. Seattle's hills are very tall meaning any station on the hill would be incredibly deep (read expensive)
December 19, 2025 at 9:12 AM
The 1 and 3. The DSTT2 would ideally go Chinatown-YT-First Hill-Westlake but there are a couple major factors that stand in the way. Firstly: station depth. Seattle's hills are very tall meaning any station on the hill would be incredibly deep (read expensive)
The DSTT2 cant go straight to mount baker because it has to collect either Central Link south or WSLE. Now, you COULD do it if you terminated the 2 Line at ID (and in my view there are a lot of reasons to do this) but even then, youd want to fully de-interline...
December 19, 2025 at 9:12 AM
The DSTT2 cant go straight to mount baker because it has to collect either Central Link south or WSLE. Now, you COULD do it if you terminated the 2 Line at ID (and in my view there are a lot of reasons to do this) but even then, youd want to fully de-interline...