WA: Judge tosses speeding ticket because speed limit signs are too wordy

Started by wanderer2575, July 16, 2017, 11:38:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AlexandriaVA

Most of your post sounds like largely your own preferences, which are not irrelevant, but the market (e.g. investors) are just looking to see what the best return on investment is.

My state, Virginia, has desperately tried for decades to reinvigorate rural and small-town Virginia, but nobody wants to work there and companies won't invest there without heavy subsidies. I think your state, New York, as a similar issue and tries to tackle it with a corporate subsidy fund (https://esd.ny.gov/doing-business-ny)

However, there's only so much you can do to influence the market. Just because you personally don't like or see the attractions of big cities doesn't mean that others, or investors, don't.


KEK Inc.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
OT:
Quote from: compdude787 on July 19, 2017, 10:44:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2017, 07:01:21 PM

The view from the driver's seat tends to distort things. You have to remember that a living, breathing city like Seattle is not destined to be for cars for much longer.

Thank God I don't actually live in Seattle proper! Although I'm not the only person in Seattle who is sick of the war on cars, and yes, there IS a war on cars.

Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Not with the mentality bicyclists have.  I saw a bicyclist blatantly run 5 stale reds in a row in Ballard and ultimately caused an accident.   Seattle has inferior bike enforcement and facilities.  (However, this was on Leary and the Burke-Gilman bike trail is literally a block parallel to the street though). 

I'm fortunate that I can walk to work.  My work gives out a bonus for green commuting.  I live close to SR-99 and I-5 in Wallingford, so I have convenient access to get out of the city too so I use my car to visit suburban friends and go on hikes/camping. 
Take the road less traveled.

jakeroot

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:39:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
Of course there's a war on cars. It's physically impossible to accommodate as many cars as there are people. Cars and dense cities just don't work together.

That said, cars and pedestrians/bikes can coexist. They just shouldn't be the primary mode of transport. They're very inefficient in terms of space economy. Buses and trains can, potentially, carry far more people per square foot.

Not with the mentality bicyclists have.  I saw a bicyclist blatantly run 5 stale reds in a row in Ballard and ultimately caused an accident.   Seattle has inferior bike enforcement and facilities.  (However, this was on Leary and the Burke-Gilman bike trail is literally a block parallel to the street though).

I don't think the behaviour of a few cyclists necessarily has anything to do with the benefits of cycling as a whole. Cycling is a still a very economical mode of transport. I'm disappointed that they caused a collision, though. Collisions involving cyclists generally only harm the cyclist, but they can occasionally involve more than one car.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:39:27 PM
I'm fortunate that I can walk to work.  My work gives out a bonus for green commuting.  I live close to SR-99 and I-5 in Wallingford, so I have convenient access to get out of the city too so I use my car to visit suburban friends and go on hikes/camping.

I think that kind of lifestyle is reflective of many of the city's residents. I'm not sure how many people in Seattle own cars (I'd guess the vast majority of those outside of the OCC and areas north of that), but building infrastructure that supports more than one mode of transport is the goal. Cars can still be a part of the mix. They just shouldn't be the main mode for all trips.

Bruce

Seattle has inferior transportation enforcement, period. So many single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes (passing by parked patrol cars that should be making bank); tons of cars in the clearly marked bus lanes; and of course, cyclists and cars blowing through reds and stop signs, ignoring pedestrians. I've been nearly hit a few times in the last few weeks because I stupidly expect drivers to follow basic traffic laws.

Duke87

Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
I suppose the question is why focus all our growth on big metro areas in the first place?

Because we live in an era of hyperconsolidation. When a handful of large companies dominate most major industries, it naturally follows that a handful of large cities dominate the country's economic potential.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

sparker

Quote from: Bruce on July 21, 2017, 09:40:38 PM
Seattle has inferior transportation enforcement, period. So many single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes (passing by parked patrol cars that should be making bank); tons of cars in the clearly marked bus lanes; and of course, cyclists and cars blowing through reds and stop signs, ignoring pedestrians. I've been nearly hit a few times in the last few weeks because I stupidly expect drivers to follow basic traffic laws.

Essentially all larger cities have this problem -- unless the particular jurisdiction in question is willing (or politically able) to kick the tax base upwards to pay for a dedicated and comprehensive traffic-enforcement unit (trust me, that idea's been bandied about in more than one venue!) a high percentage of traffic infractions will go unseen and unreported, much less unpunished!  That's one aspect of urban/suburban life that will likely always significantly lag the overall growth rate.   

michravera

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

Keep in mind, I established the "Ravera Criteria" for electric cars back in the 1980s. I *WANT* to buy an electric car. My list basically said "It has to be able to be my only car and has to be able to do what every gas car can do". I didn't say how it had to accomplish those criteria.
What has happened, 35 years later, is that three of my 5 criteria are solved. The big two that are left are "range better than a 1970s era VW bug that can be replenished for less than the cost of filling up a Ford F-150 series pick up in the time it takes for a good bowel movement" and "costs less than a 3-year old 3-series BMW".

jakeroot

Quote from: michravera on July 28, 2017, 12:38:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

People chose to live in the suburbs because they had cars, and it was cheaper. Why live in the smelly, loud city, at a rather steep expense, when you could just as easily live 50 miles away in a suburb, and commute to work on the highway? Unfortunately, everyone subscribed to this lifestyle, and over time, our highways got wicked crowded, and now people are moving back to the city because there's just no way to realistically improve traffic flow while a city is growing (which is the case for almost all US cities 'cept Detroit).

Cities are being made "car-hostile" because cars cannot handle the growth that cities require. Only public transit can truly handle the growth. That's why you see bus and HOV lanes replacing general-purpose lanes (it's more efficient overall), bus priority signals, etc. It's also the reason that you see pedestrian access and cycling infrastructure improvements: both of these modes of transport work brilliantly with public transport. It's essential that we build out our public transit, walking, and cycling network so that cities can handle the growth that is being asked of them. You may not like this growth (vdeane), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

hotdogPi

Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
... and over time, our highways got wicked crowded...

You live on the West Coast. Why are you using that word?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

jakeroot

Quote from: 1 on July 28, 2017, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
... and over time, our highways got wicked crowded...

You live on the West Coast. Why are you using that word?

My mother is from the Northeast.

michravera

Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
Quote from: michravera on July 28, 2017, 12:38:52 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 20, 2017, 07:45:12 PM
Quote from: michravera on July 20, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2017, 04:01:24 PM
Don't know if you ever take the bus or train here, Compdude, but it's extremely popular. Less than 30 percent of traffic to and from downtown Seattle is by single-occupant vehicle; most of it is carried on transit. The light rail trains are packed, even outside of commuting hours, and the double-decker commuter buses are full (carrying 100 people in the space of two cars...remarkably efficient use of road space!).

Suburbs are hated by the urbanist crowd mostly because they pretty much force you to drive, they take up valuable land in an inefficient manner (less and less farmland and protected wilderness for us to enjoy, thanks to sprawl), and it spreads services out way too far, making suburban poverty more likely. Dense cities are popular because people don't want to commute long distances to work and want to be near where everything is. The museums, the parks, the nightlife, the restaurants, the sporting events...all of that is in the city, not the suburbs. Young people especially love urban areas because they value having the freedom to move around as they please by the way they please; it's only when they have kids and have to look for good schools that they really move out into the suburbs.

You can't make a city run more efficiently my making it car-hostile. If you make the city easy to live in without a car, people will live in it and not keep their cars there. Wealthy people who live in cities have always had a car, they just keep it at their country house or in a garage outside of the city.

In first-world countries, poor people live in the city and rich people live in the suburbs. In third-world countries, rich people live in town and poor people live in the suburbs. Do you want Seattle to be like Phoenix or like Rio?

In flyover country cities of North America, sure. Everywhere else (coastal US, Europe, Asia), that's completely wrong.

If, by "flyover", you mean the areas of the country occupied by people who don't subscribed to the  agenda of deciding what is best for other people, you are 100% correct.

People have chosen to live in the suburbs and make a commute for a variety of reasons. Making the cities more car-hostile won't fix that.

People chose to live in the suburbs because they had cars, and it was cheaper. Why live in the smelly, loud city, at a rather steep expense, when you could just as easily live 50 miles away in a suburb, and commute to work on the highway? Unfortunately, everyone subscribed to this lifestyle, and over time, our highways got wicked crowded, and now people are moving back to the city because there's just no way to realistically improve traffic flow while a city is growing (which is the case for almost all US cities 'cept Detroit).

Cities are being made "car-hostile" because cars cannot handle the growth that cities require. Only public transit can truly handle the growth. That's why you see bus and HOV lanes replacing general-purpose lanes (it's more efficient overall), bus priority signals, etc. It's also the reason that you see pedestrian access and cycling infrastructure improvements: both of these modes of transport work brilliantly with public transport. It's essential that we build out our public transit, walking, and cycling network so that cities can handle the growth that is being asked of them. You may not like this growth (vdeane), but that doesn't change the fact of the matter.

I have nothing against public transportation and use it whenever it makes sense to my mission. What doesn't make sense are the following:
1) Roads that don't actually go anywhere. It is fine to have a block or nine where motorized vehicles aren't permitted during the work day. But, not having a road that permits one to get to the other side of the city unimpeded is suicide. Especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco that will have to deal with earthquakes and tsunami.
2) Roads that actually do go somewhere with unsynchronized traffic signals. There is no point in posting a thoroughfare for 45 MPH when you will have to stop every 3 blocks. Even if most vehicles today expel cleaner air than they take in, there is no point in making people wait.
3) Not separating vehicular traffic from other traffic when they both get in each other's hair in dense areas. Reroute the bus. Build a pedestrian walkway. Go over or under. Connect buildings via skyways. Get the bikes off of the street (onto bikeways) or have them observe vehicular traffic laws.

I could go on. The idea is to solve problems as the state of nature presents itself rather than just to say "we will do it this way and you will have to adapt or die".

triplemultiplex

Quote from: SP Cook on July 18, 2017, 11:04:19 AM
Lastly, school zone limits IN SOME PLACES are vastly too low.  In my part of the country, there are plenty of schools where 100% of students are taken on a yellow bus to school,  No student walks to school.  Further these schools are fenced in and whatever outdoor activities exist, which is to say recess, is done behind that fence 100s of feet from a road.   Traffic cop scum use these places as speed traps and in most states the penalty for such infractions is higher than even the ordinary random tax.  In such a scenario, there need be no reduction in the SL whatsoever.

School speed zones are not just for reducing vehicle-pedestrian collisions.  The lower speed allows more opportunities for the surge of traffic leaving or arriving to enter or exit the thru street.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

sparker

Now that this thread has completely morphed into a discussion of urban planning philosophy, the only thing left to be added is the following:  while there's a certain school of thought that points toward densely-packed central cities as the "wave of the future", so to speak, the fact remains that under current economic circumstances those area are and will continue to be the costliest in which to live (expressed in $$ per occupied square foot).  All but the top few percent of earners can afford anything more than run-down downtown apartment -- and even those are now going for a premium in areas of relative economic vitality.   Newer "dense" housing -- apartments, condos, townhouses, row houses, etc. -- are sized to accommodate people with a reasonable modicum of belongings -- usually 800+ square feet, including bathrooms and kitchen space.   Very few developers are willing to recreate the 300sf "tenements" of the past (at least outside NYC), despite entreaties to do so by some urbanist writers anticipating a "post-consumer" movement that has yet to materialize; in most venues there's no market for these save fully subsidized public housing. 

The continued appeal of suburbs and exurbs is and has been markedly lower housing costs (of course, largely offset by commute expenses) -- but where essentially all housing in generally salable areas falls into the "expensive to the point of unattainable" category (which describes most of the Bay Area!) -- that differential has been exacerbated; a newer 2500sf home in the San Jose area sells for about $2M; a similar house in Brentwood or Discovery Bay, considered the "outer edge" of the Bay Area, comes in about 40% of that, while out in Manteca or Modesto it's down to  15-20% for a house of similar size on a similar lot configuration.  The differences are so stark that the cost of commuting -- both in time and dollars, spread out over time as it is, is thought of as at least tolerable given the circumstances.  And while the pay scale endemic to the localized technology industry is generous compared to other businesses, it's not such enough to allow all but top management to reside near their employment.  In fact, one of the "perks" of these firms -- particularly those who regularly "poach" management personnel from other regions, is that they will partially subsidize roomy 1500sf+ condos for a couple of years for their recruits while those folks amass the requisite down payment toward a local "mini-mansion"; this is deemed particularly useful for new management coming with intact families -- as opposed to collegiate recruits, who are usually more unencumbered and are able to at least initially tolerate somewhat smaller living quarters.     

Firms -- particularly thriving ones -- prefer to locate in areas with a lot of amenities considered attractive to potential employees -- meaning, on this coast, San Diego, L.A., the Bay Area, Seattle, and, to a slightly lesser degree, Portland.  All those areas have one thing in common -- huge/outsized housing costs; and all have spawned suburban and exurban outgrowths to accommodate the influx of population needing more moderately-priced accommodations.  What it will take -- at least IMHO -- is for viable firms in the fields experiencing growth and expansion to consider alternate locations with a reasonable amenity level (e.g. Fresno, Bend, the WA Quad Cities) for any expansion (particularly firms in the information -- or other-- fields not needing high level of material transport between facilities).  However, this needs to be accompanied by some coordination of development between the target regions and both the business and developmental entities to deploy housing inviting enough to attract a broad spectrum of potential residents -- while avoiding those choices that on one hand require significant downsizing on the part of those residents and on the other require undue amounts of land (i.e. -- no tiny condos only attractive to the masochistic or self-loathing, and no suburban properties that can double as horse ranches!).  The idea here is to start with as clean a slate as possible -- and do the employment/housing/commute equation as effectual as possible from the beginning.  Of course, attractive public transport (clean buses on a consistent schedule, shuttle rail, etc.) would be necessary to complete the package.  But it'll take a change of attitude at both the corporate and civic level to even get this notion off the ground.         

kkt

Quote from: compdude787 on July 20, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Less and less people like mass transit. Ridership has been decreasing around the US since the 60s. It makes no sense to continue subsidizing a mode of transportation whose ridership has been decreasing for the past fifty years, and will continue to do so thanks to more consistent--and lower--fuel prices as a result of fracking being a thing, causing Saudi Arabia to actually have to make their oil prices lower to compete with us. Also, this continued reduction in public transit usage is also thanks to services like Uber and Lyft. A coworker of mine always takes a Lyft car home from work, despite the fact that it's more expensive than the bus.

Apparently Seattle and King County are an exception, as they just passed the third and largest transportation bond issue to build another 62 miles of light rail, costing $54 billion, 53.9% voting yes to 46.1 voting no. https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2016/11/09/sound-transit-3-approved-king-pierce-snohomish.html

It's understandable that people would vote for such an expensive issue when you see how awful city traffic is and how little chance there is for relief through new freeways or expressways.  The line that's completed so far is carrying a lot of riders and offers by far the most efficient way of getting into downtown in the morning or afternoon.  10 minutes from UW to downtown is typical even at 4:00 on a weekday, that could easily take an hour on surface bus or taxi, or even longer by private car if you include parking.


Bickendan

Light Rail in Seattle makes sense. What's the typical length of train? Two or three cars?

jakeroot

Quote from: Bickendan on August 01, 2017, 08:45:20 PM
Light Rail in Seattle makes sense. What's the typical length of train? Two or three cars?

Typically two to three. But I'm sure I've seen four or five cars before.

Bruce

Light rail trains are a maximum of four cars, each 200 feet long. Currently, they only run in two or three car trainsets due to fleet size constraints; a hundred new trainsets are scheduled for delivery from 2019 to 2022.

kalvado

Quote from: Duke87 on July 21, 2017, 11:54:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 20, 2017, 01:21:08 PM
I suppose the question is why focus all our growth on big metro areas in the first place?

Because we live in an era of hyperconsolidation. When a handful of large companies dominate most major industries, it naturally follows that a handful of large cities dominate the country's economic potential.
Problem is that huge quickly becomes unsustainable.
Many economic systems are described with equations which have solutions describing infinite growth - and those systems collapse once outside limits  on growth come into play. I wonder when big urban areas would see that...

sparker

Quote from: Bruce on August 02, 2017, 10:37:29 AM
Light rail trains are a maximum of four cars, each 200 feet long. Currently, they only run in two or three car trainsets due to fleet size constraints; a hundred new trainsets are scheduled for delivery from 2019 to 2022.

I'm guessing that Seattle's LR has significantly higher ridership than does San Jose's VTA LR system, which even in peak hours rarely runs trains with more than two cars.  Occasionally the "trunk" Santa Teresa-Mountain View line sees 3 cars, but that's usually limited to Friday evening schedules, when "dinner" traffic coincides with the commute, or instances where there are Sharks or 49ers games (that line passes by both venues).  Off-peak, a single car often suffices for the level of usage. 

Bickendan

Portland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.
Minneapolis-St Paul regularly runs three car trains on their lines, though that used to be two back when they only had one line.

Bruce

We should probably move this to Seattle's Mass Transit thread, but whatever.

Seattle was smart to build a tunnel in the 1980s for buses that was long enough to support four-car light rail trains. So every station is ready for it.

The light rail only ran two car trains from 2009 to 2016 because of the lack of turnback space at the north end of the 1980s tunnel; the northern extension to the University of Washington allowed for three and four car trains to be used, but there's only enough traincars to support a handful of three car trains on weekdays (with high frequencies) and all three car trains on weekends (at lower frequency).

Once the next extension opens in 2021, along with the new trainsets, we'll be seeing four car trains every day. Link already has about 72,000 daily riders, and it's expected to increase to 280,000 by 2030.

kkt


sp_redelectric

Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

sparker

Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 18, 2017, 01:18:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

What could be done, even in Portland, is to "stutter-step" the loading/unloading of riders, using 4-car trains, with the entire train stopping twice, addressing two cars at a time.  That's the singular issue with the configuration of light-rail carsets -- the inability to walk between the individual units (done for the sake of deployment flexibility) like on a traditional subway system, which requires extra-long platforms to accommodate a multiple-unit trainset.  Down here in San Jose the stations (more often than not located in street medians) accommodate 3-car sets; on special occasions such as hockey or football games, they'll have 4-5 car special trains before and after game time, employing just that "stutter-step" method -- but stopping at selected stations only (unlike regular commute practice).     

kalvado

Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on August 18, 2017, 01:18:46 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 02, 2017, 06:09:11 PMPortland is limited to two cars because of platform size constraints as a result of routing the lines on downtown streets. Poor decision, I'd say.

Incredibly poor.  The entire MAX system is designed with that limitation - every platform, every auxiliary track, even the maintenance facilities - are all built to accomodate a two car train, but no more.  If TriMet wanted to go to three car trains, it would be incredibly expensive (well into the hundreds of millions of dollars) just to rebuild every single station platform and auxiliary track - that's before buying more trains (and expanding the maintenance facilities).

Seattle, on the other hand, spent a lot of money up-front on what is arguably the most expensive light rail system in America if not the world but with the result of having elevated or subterrainian stations that can accomodate four car trains.  Adding capacity is simply a matter of buying equipment.  While the original Link route south out of downtown to Sea-Tac has been ho-hum, the $3 billion spent to extend the line from Westlake to University of Washington has been mindblowing in terms of ridership. 

What could be done, even in Portland, is to "stutter-step" the loading/unloading of riders, using 4-car trains, with the entire train stopping twice, addressing two cars at a time.  That's the singular issue with the configuration of light-rail carsets -- the inability to walk between the individual units (done for the sake of deployment flexibility) like on a traditional subway system, which requires extra-long platforms to accommodate a multiple-unit trainset.  Down here in San Jose the stations (more often than not located in street medians) accommodate 3-car sets; on special occasions such as hockey or football games, they'll have 4-5 car special trains before and after game time, employing just that "stutter-step" method -- but stopping at selected stations only (unlike regular commute practice).     
What are the advantages of doing that compared to running an extra train? It definitely kills intervals, and probably throughput.  One less driver is the only advantage I can see, and even then that one operating the train gets more duty hours than running normal train...



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.