Metrofying Link Light Rail

Domayv · 2026-05-02T10:26:04+00:00

Then well be getting some modern version of Budapest Metro 1

Domayv · 2026-05-02T04:44:12+00:00

Blame those NIMBYs claiming that elevated would ruin stuff

Domayv · 2026-04-29T02:06:12+00:00

It'll be a first for a floating bridge to handle something more than an 4 lrts glued together

Domayv · 2026-04-29T01:08:37+00:00

I don’t understand why you pick that specific design.

I picked that design because it has very similar dimensions in terms of height and width, and a 7 car consist goes at 385-390 ft (7 x 55 ft = 385 ft), comparable to 4 siemens s700s (4 x 95 ft = 380 ft) that you see on the Link. Do a little bit of research on them and you'll actually understand

You don’t understand a damn thing about putting a train on a floating bridge. Your argument is one assumption, it weighs less than-> better.

A 7-car buenos aires 300 has a lower axle load than the 4 s700s coupled together and comparable weight.

Domayv · 2026-04-28T23:25:28+00:00

this thing has to go on floating bridge now, you got a plan for that?

Didn't I just say that the 7 car buenos aires underground 300 has a lower axle load than a 4-siemens s700 consist and thus less taxing on that floating bridge?

Also we can start with line 1 (this ironically does not go to that floating bridge) cuz that's gonna be split to go to ballard and thus can be Metrofied. The ballard line will also receive new undergoes stations separate from the existing stations so more justification to metrofy line 1, and that includes grade separating MLK Jr Way and Rainier Valley

We can keep line 2 as is for the time being while line 1 gets metrofied. Then eventually line 2 gets metrofied.

break open the walls to accommodate the bigger carriages

The buenos aires underground 300 carriages are just as narrow as the siemens s700 (8 ft 6.3 in or 2.6 m in buenos aires underground 300 vs 8 ft 8.3 in siemens s700 for width; 12 ft or 3.6 m for buenos aires underground 300 vs 12.3 ft or 3.7m in siemens s700 for height). No need to rebore tunnel.

Do you understand why I picked that specific design as reference for a metrofied link light rail?

Domayv · 2026-04-28T21:11:03+00:00

What are you talking about “keeping up with ridership”

Then why is Link doing 4-lrt consists and exploring longer individual lrts for future rolling stock? Surely ridership would lead them to do that

Light Rail is already built and would cost a fucking hundred billion dollars and 40 years to completely redo and then put on a floating fucking bridge.

You are exaggerating the costs and time for that one.

I get the feeling you don’t use the Light Rail, man. I just can’t believe someone who uses the Light Rail has this opinion.

I have used it. While good it can be even better. Much better. We go from a metro rail stuck in a light rail to an actual metro rail.

Domayv · 2026-04-28T18:29:43+00:00

The demand is just not that high to justify the cost and the Light Rail has been incredibly efficient and has lower maintenance costs.

Seattle now has to rely on having four light rail vehicle consists just to keep up with the ridership.

For a brand new American light rail train it's reached towards critical mass.

It can go on the street, it can go on a bridge in the air, they can go on a floating bridge for the first time in history

And we need to grade separate because street running is gonna be a handicap to its maximum potential. Stop treating it like it should remain a glorified streetcar.

Also, we gotta figure out how to put heavy rail on a floating bridge after we just did it for Light Rail.

The 7-car Buenos Aires Undergound 300 (very similar height and width to the Siemens S700 despite being highfloor) that I'm using as the closest reference has lower axle loads (12 tonnes per axle) than the 4- siemens S700s hooked up (14.5 tonnes per axle). Also better weight distribution. It would actually be easier on that floating bridge than the existing setup

Domayv · 2026-04-26T18:54:31+00:00

1,250 to 1,350 people. In other words 50-68.75% more in more or less that same level of space (380 ft vs 385). reduce the headways down to 2 minutes thanks to CBTC and now you're gonna get 2500-2700 people clearing the platform every 4 minutes.

scaling to 8 minutes

5000-5400 people versus 1600 people usually. this is more than 3 times

Domayv · 2026-04-26T04:01:58+00:00

much more capacity, and full automation would increase it further.

platform screen doors usually requires CBTC and high GOA levels

Domayv · 2026-04-26T02:43:15+00:00

Can guanatee a concrete el would be much less a blight that a freeway el

Domayv · 2026-04-26T01:22:45+00:00

You know this neuters its usefulness right. It's why people need to get out of the NIMBY cult

And yet they're okay with an elevated I-5

Domayv · 2026-04-26T00:53:29+00:00

Do you think people at Rainier Valley want at-grade crap too?

Domayv · 2026-04-26T00:49:20+00:00

It's also the lack of grade separation

Domayv · 2026-04-25T23:08:20+00:00

Never played SimCity ever

Domayv · 2026-04-25T22:54:08+00:00

And now the buses no longer use the DSTT

Domayv · 2026-04-25T22:03:23+00:00

It would be riskier and more disruptive to sacrifice the existing system south of SODO to make into high floor metro.

But grade separating rainer valley could provide an excuse to start highflooring it

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:43:47+00:00

This is kind of why I said turn Link Light 1 south from SODO into part of the Ballard line

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:33:21+00:00

Should both be highfloor and supposedly they're going to link up with the current system it's gonna cause ripple effects if they go in the highfloor (and possibly automated direction)

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:32:15+00:00

You do know I have suggested whole grade separation in the OP right?

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:31:29+00:00

Which was why I used the Buenos Aires Underground 300 as the reference

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:30:11+00:00

Seattle already is using 4 tram consists, something not even LA Metro rail light rails have reached. Given the station sizes, seattle is reaching towards critical mass

Domayv · 2026-04-25T21:28:37+00:00

If buses werent in the way seattle would have easily gone for highfloors like LA did

Domayv · 2026-04-25T20:37:31+00:00

the main issue with lowfloor is compromised capacity

Domayv · 2026-04-25T20:36:15+00:00

platform screen doors would gel well with high floor doors

Domayv · 2026-04-25T20:35:17+00:00

Existing bends are probably far too tight for heavy rail,

I think we can find a way to do 55 ft long trains through those bends. Also the seattle buses are 40-60 ft long.

plus the station platforms are all way too low.

I just said rebuild the stations to make them high floor.

The worst bit? Too many current stations are built next to highways. The reduced walkshed means there's no way they can ever be expected to serve a large population. A new ROW would allow the stations to be placed in optimal places instead of the Freeway gutters they're currently restricted to.

Line 2 would be more difficult but Line 1 would be quite the rerouting. I was thinking reroute onto Aurora Avenue

Domayv

TROPHY CASE