Posted by unregistered user at 5/5/08 4:29 p.m.

Right on!

To quote Andrea True; "More, More, More"!

Posted by vito98103 at 5/5/08 4:30 p.m.

Why is this so expensive - just putting track down the middle of the street and adding the overhead wire? Are the trains that expensive? A breakdown of the costs would be helpful. Is the City throwing out a bunch of big numbers so the citizens will drop the idea?

Why not extend the existing line down to the stadium(s)? Then the streetcar to 'nowhere' would actually go someplace! South Lake Union to Safeco Field would actually make sense; what a concept!

Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 5/5/08 5:59 p.m.

Well, one reason the streetcars are so expensive, is that we successfully ran out of business the last US Builders, Pullman-Standard and St. Louis Car, San Francisco bought the last new PCC cars in the early 1950s, and for good reason. Re-equipping the fleet for the routes that would stay streetcar, could be accomplished very easily with a glut of new cars on the market from cities that were switching to bus. There is one new attempt for a new US Manufacturer, United Streetcar, though.

http://unitedstreetcar.com/

Something interesting about Streetcars and Light Rail Vehicles, they can last a long time, as noted in San Francisco, Melbourne(about 50 W Class Trams still run in Melbourne), and now Portland! In the next few years, Portland TriMet could sell and replace the original MAX Cars, which cannot run in single-car trains as they lack wheelchair lifts. By 2011, these LRVs will reach 25 years old, the FTA minimum for retirement of an LRV(Buses cannot be replaced until after 12 years of service, Metro usually goes a little longer, though), but right now at Ruby Junction where TriMet does heavy repairs and maintenance for not only the MAX Light Rail trains, but also Portland Streetcar, they are going through a rebuild with the Bombardier Cars. The goal? Another 20 years of service. Too bad they can not do what Dallas did, but there was a different reason in Dallas. THey had just bought the High Floor LRVs when the ADA took effect, so they added a Low Floor Section to the LRVs, something that had been done in Switzerland for years. Streetcars cost more, but you get more service life out of them.

Posted by Apostle at 5/5/08 7:52 p.m.

An articulated bus costs about $750,000 and carries almost as many riders as a streetcar (bus carries about 90, streetcar about 100). What a stupid waste of money streetcars are. If more capacity is needed on these proposed routes, just buy a few more buses and put them on those routes for a fraction of the cost of building streetcar lines.

Just take the first proposed street car line: A line through Downtown on First Avenue, connecting the King Street Station area with Downtown, then extending north to Seattle Center. Estimated cost: $180 million; 4 miles

First of all, the downtown bus tunnel goes between King Street Station and downtown, and soon there will be light rail running in that tunnel, so where is the need for more little trains between King Street Station and downtown? You can take a bus or light rail in the tunnel to Westlake Center, then take the monorail to from Westlake Center to Seattle Center. We already have that route covered, right? $180 million to duplicate a route we already have grade separated transit on? Talk about stupid.

Take another route, for an example of how buses are far more cost-effective: A line to the University District from Westlake Center, extending the South Lake Union line north and northeast up Eastlake Avenue and over the University Bridge into the University District, extending to University Way as far as 50th Street. Estimated cost: $179 mil, 3.5 miles.

The S.L.U.T. is a route of about 1.1 miles, and it has 3 streetcars (only 2 operate at any given time). So let's say this 3.5-mile route would have 3 times as many streetcars, or 9 streetcars to cover that route. That is a capacity of about 900 riders. It would take about 10 articulated buses to have a capacity of 900 riders. You could buy 10 articulated buses for about $7.5 million.

So, you could add the same capacity on this route with buses for $7.5 million, as you get with $179 million spent on a streetcar line.

Let me see........$7.5 million for 10 buses, or $179 million for 9 streetcars. Hmmmmmm. Difficult choice.

Posted by JonSM99 at 5/5/08 8:51 p.m.

*Many more people will ride rail than buses.
*Rail, including streetcars, don't need the fuel or spew the greenhouse gases buses do.
*Rail catalyzes development and land use patterns; buses follow them.
*Train rides are smoother than buses.
*Rail stops are farther apart, reducing travel time. They are much clearer to find and provide more information to riders than bus stops. The SLUT tells me when the next train is coming. If a Metro bus gets delayed or taken out of service, I have no way of knowing.

The UW extension could actually turn a profit and help fund other streetcar lines.

Rail costs a little more than bus service to start, but its benefits are far greater. To block streetcars, or light rail, because it's cheaper to use buses is to be penny wise and pound foolish.

Posted by JonSM99 at 5/5/08 8:55 p.m.

Streetcars would run more often on all the proposed new routes, as frequently as every 5 minutes, than they do on the South Lake Union line now. They would correspondingly have higher ridership.

When Tacoma's free downtown bus line was replaced with rail, ridership increased significantly. When Seattle's waterfront streetcar was replaced with buses, ridership fell.

Posted by Soul not sold to Road Warriors at 5/5/08 11:17 p.m.

Many more people will ride rail than buses.

Precisely why Apostle hates streetcars and pretends to love buses. He sees our current transportation mess as a way to stem growth....his true agenda. Nothing like sticking your head in the sand to come up with a viable solution to any problem.

Posted by diehardTRANSITadvocate at 5/5/08 11:57 p.m.

JonSM99, I take the bus and train to Tacoma from time to time, and have done this off and on for years. I saw the Downtown Connector route before it was transfered to Sound Transit on the eve of TacomaLINK Construction, it was often empty, and the buses were very small, the interim route under Sound Transit control went up to a 40ft bus at least. As for the Waterfront Streetcar ridership falling off after the buses were introduced, I did not know so many rode the Waterfront Streetcar to begin with, I thought I was the only one not riding the 99 BUS when having business to do on the Waterfront.(Taxi(especially if me and my mother are going to Clearwater) or the 16 Bus for me when I go to the Ferry Dock now).

Here is one the small buses they used:
www.busdude.com/PT/PT_0551_1.jpg

Posted by unregistered user at 5/6/08 12:52 a.m.

Its not so expensive, not that much more than rebuilding the street and upgrading its fixtures. That would be needed anyway sooner or later, and for a relativey few more dollars....voila mass transit. Get out of your car and into the future!

Posted by cman at 5/6/08 3:18 a.m.

Bus service would be more flexible, cheaper, and wiser than streetcars. you could take a small % of the extra cost of a streetcar, put it into bus service, and still have $ leftover to create giant costumes for the busses, so we could have a fremont troll bus, and a ballard swedish or viking bus. I'd like a salmon or halibut bus.

Posted by cman at 5/6/08 3:25 a.m.

Streetcars are far closer to busses in their local impact than they are like light rail. electric bus lines with overhead wires don't use gas engines -- i'd like to consider these options alongside streetcars for cost comparison. I don't understand why DOT didn't present several options showing cost comparisons.

Posted by johnmocha2004 at 5/7/08 7:10 a.m.

Agree with the duplicity of the line to South Lake Union from King Street. As to buses v rail I don't have insight into the scientific reasons but my perception is that rail is cleaner and safer. My guess is as follows:
1) The higher investment in rail results in greater police oversight,
2) Greater police oversight results in increased safety
3) Increased safety makes the choice more attractive
4) More attractive opens rail to a greater audience - i.e. rail appeals to a wider demographic
5) Greater audience, greater ridership

As for trolleys v light rail, I'm disheartened by the lack of coordination in this area in regard to transit. I'm sick of the money spent on studies versus construction. At the end of the day I would guess that the fact that light rail will be a reality shortly may be making some developers who don't have a nearby rail option quite nervous. Especially when coupled with $4/gal gas. While Seattle has its issues, it will be quite interesting to see what comes of the Eastside - particularly Bellevue- when gas gets past $5/gal. I wish we had a leader who was able to orchestrate and execute on an overall transit system as well as Kemper Freeman was at destroying attempts to create one.

Posted by IncredibleScott at 5/7/08 4:51 p.m.

I'm really happy about the new street cars. One can argue how much the city will save with articulating buses, but honestly we need to get a significant rail system in place.

With rising gas costs, bus fares will only increase regardless if they have overhead electrified wires (at the moment it doesn't matter if it's electrified or not, I am still paying the same fare) . In the next ten years, if it starts to cost about $4-5 roundtrip on a bus and $4-$5 a gallon for gas. The Seattle commuter will be begging for alternative options.

You can't argue that businesses are flocking to South Lake Union, and it only makes sense to expand streetcar lines so that it becomes a common transportation option for all of us...not just the lucky few who work for MS or Amazon. It's unfortunate that we only see street cars as a novelty rather than a feasible means of transportation.