After Denver and Salt Lake City, I have
spent the last few days in Seattle (16-20 July 2012). Arriving on a
2-hour flight from SLC, it was good to find a train going directly
into the city centre. With a large number of passengers being
first-time users, there should be a manned info point at the ariport,
as long queues may form in front of the automatic ticket vending
machines with people trying to figure out which ticket they need
(although generally the machines are easy to use).
Seattle has a rather diverse transport
system, and it could be explored in just two days, too. However, I
wanted to spend more time here to explore what I find is a real city,
lively and with quite a large densely built-up central area, not just
a few blocks of downtown and the rest never-ending faceless suburbs.
There are three different types of
urban rail systems, plus a commuter railway and the streetcar in
nearby Tacoma. Let's start with the oldest:
SEATTLE MONORAIL
The monorail connects the Westlake hub,
Seattle' major shopping area, to the Seattle Center, where the city's
landmark stands, the Space Needle, plus various other attractions, so
every visitor to Seattle has to go there at least once, and many use
the monorail, as it is also a fun ride. It costs 2.25 USD (no ORCA
card accepted) and takes about 5 minutes. The monorail runs about
every 10 minutes, and as far as I have observed, it is the red train
in the mornings operating on the eastern beam, and the blue train in
the afternoons on the western beam. I'm not sure whether this is
always so, and whether this is done deliberately to get nice photos
from the sunny side! The Seattle Center station is a proper two-track
(two-beam) station with an island platform for boarding and two side
platforms for alighting. The downtown station, however, has only one
side platform on the second floor (level +2; third floor in American
buildings), with the two beams side by side floating above the
street. So when the red train is in service on the eastern beam,
platform extensions are rolled out over the western beam, acting like
individual bridges to all doors. First time I saw something like
this! Might be adopted on some metro systems....
The monorail was built for the 1962
Expo (they are celebrating its 50th birthday), and despite
its retro style offers a relatively smooth ride. Compared to the new
Las Vegas system, its trains are wide and you can walk through all
three cars. All in all, the most pleasant monorail I have been on.
SEATTLE STREETCAR
Maybe a 100 m from the downtown
monorail terminus is also the downtown streetcar terminus, although a
bit hidden one block north of busy square in front of the Westlake
Center. The streetcar, opened in 2007, is also fun to ride,
especially when you're tired and too lazy to walk, otherwise you
might probably reach your destination faster walking! Too many
traffic lights with long waiting times, and the inbound tram also
takes ages to switch from the double-track section towards the
single-track terminus. The line now serves a very European-style new
development between Thomas and Mercer Streets, mostly occupied by
online store Amazon. Just south of Lake Union, there are road works
going on, which obstruct the trams at times.
I'm not quite sure who operates the
streetcar, on their website there is a note saying “The City of
Seattle and King County Metro operate the Seattle Streetcar without
regard to race, color, and national origin...”, but King County
Metro doesn't really mention it separately, although it is listed as
their line 98. Unlike their buses, the trams are not yet equipped
with ORCA card readers, so the drivers tell you just to get on
without paying if you wished to use an ORCA card ....
The Inekon vehicles are small and cute,
with level access at the two main doors in the central low-floor
section. There is yet another single-leaf door with steps to the
raised area above the bogies, next to the driver's cab on the right
side only (in each direction of travel). Depending on the stop, doors
open on the left or on the right (at the downtown terminus at both
sides). The stops are rather basic, some with shelters, and basic
info, which includes operating hours but not frequencies! The
next-time indicator seemed to work only at the downtown terminus,
showing a tram every 15 minutes. This means that two vehicles are
enough for daytime service, with a third held in reserve (each
painted in a different colour!).
Construction of a second line has just
started along Broadway in the Capitol Hill neighbourhood, while the
once popular Waterfront Trolley is gone for good. Judging by the
colour of the asphalt, the track has mostly been paved over only
recently creating more parking spaces for cars (what else?). That
this is permanent can be seen by the well-placed curb stones at
intersections and a new road layout on the southern stretch. I was
hoping that it would be brought back into service when the new
streetcar line is complete as this will actually end close to King
Street station where also the old Waterfront Trolley ended. This
route is now replaced by bus 99.
SEATTLE LIGHT RAIL
Officialy labelled “Link Light Rail”
and shown in timetables as “Central Link light rail”, this is so
far Seattle's only light rail line. It belongs to the second
generation of modern light rail systems in the U.S. and thus has now
common features like low-floor access. The Seattle light rail
probably is unique world-wide as it includes an underground section
which is shared by buses! The light rail system is operated by Sound
Transit, a company otherwise responsible for regional bus services in
the metropolitan region (whereas most urban buses in Seattle are run
by King County Metro). Trains run every 10 minutes during daytime
hours and every 7.5 minutes during the peak period.
The 25 km line can be divided into five
sections:
- Downtown tunnel: from Westlake to south of International District/Chinatown station – this section runs in twin bored tunnels with very spacious stations opened for trolleybus operation in 1990 (in fact they were hybrid diesel/electric buses operating as diesel buses outside the tunnel and switching to trolley operation through the tunnel). The section was later rebuilt to accommodate the new light rail line (there were initial provisions with tracks laid, etc, but these had to be replaced anyway, and the trackbed was lowered). The three fully underground stations belong to the most impressive underground structures in the U.S., especially Westlake and Pioneer Square. Westlake has a large mezzanine level running above the entire station with openings over the platform areas and several direct accesses to adjacent department stores or malls. Pioneer Square and University Street, however, are open spaces with “balconies” at each end, with dimensions similar to the Washington DC Metro. I guess the platforms are about 100 m long, if not more. International District/Chinatown station is a subsurface station with a partly open ceiling and entrance structures on the surface in a style you might also find in some German cities. Pioneer Square and Westlake, however, reminded me more of the Moscow Metro with elegant finishings in granite and marble.The buses now sharing the tunnel are no longer trolleybuses, but special low-emission diesel-electric buses with an additional battery. There is a description on the King County Metro website, and in fact you don't smell any diesel exhaust fumes. I don't know why they couldn't maintain the trolley wires, as trolleybuses and trams often operate next to each other, like in San Francisco, Zürich or Geneva. Somebody who understands electrical issues better may be able to explain this.The buses serve one more station just outside the northern tunnel portal at Convention Center, but this is not served by the light rail trains, for which a stub for reversing was built right under Pine Street diverging east from the original bus tunnel. This stub is also the starting point for the northern extension to Capitol Hill and University of Washington, now under full construction and opening in 2016. At University of Washington, my first thought was, why is the station so far from the central area of the campus? Probably the cheapest site to build such a station??
- The SODO section (south of downtown) is a typical light rail route with a few level crossings along an otherwise segregated alignment. This includes two at-grade stations, Stadium and SODO, located adjacent to the SODO Busway (which also has numerous at-grade intersections).
- After SODO, trains climb onto a viaduct, pass a triangular junction leading to the depot, before entering the Beacon Hill tunnel, with a deep-level tube station of the same name. At 49 m below street level, it is one of the deepest stations in the U.S. There are four fast lifts taking passengers to the surface. The twin tube tunnels continue east and emerge onto another viaduct, which accommodates the elevated Mount Baker stations. So this section can be qualified as “full metro”.
- Just after Mount Baker, a ramp takes trains down to street level, and although throughout on a reserved lane in the middle of Martin Luther King Jr Way South, there are several intersections which reduce travel speed. Notably at Graham Street trains may have to wait for a long time to get a green line in the general traffic cycle. There are three surface stops on this section. South of Rainier Beach station, there are reversing sidings, but I'm not sure whether these are used in regular service. I did not understand why this initial line has to take this detour to serve this area as it does not seem to generate that many passengers, instead the trip to the airport is lenghtened in time.
- About 1 km south of Rainier Beach stations, trains again climb onto an elevated structure and remain there for most of the remaining section to the Airport terminus. It is a long run to reach Tukwila International Boulevard station, and this section required significant gradients, caused by topography. The line was also built on a rather high structure to fly over several freeway junctions. A stretch between Tukwila Intl Blvd and the Airport is at grade in the middle of the airport access road. The long distances between stations on this metro-like section make me wonder why they didn't choose a proper metro alignment for the entire line (on the other hand, why doesn't Denver built a light rail to the airport with similar characteristics?). The giant Tukwila Intl. Blvd station is a major train/bus interchange. The Airport station is directly at the airport, but to get to it you need to walk through a multi-storey car park. The trains reverse in the station, there are only short stubs beyond the platform (a short southern extension is planned for the mid-term future).
All in all, the light rail line has a
very modern appearance. The Japanese trains run smoothly, even on the
faster sections, but are a bit too small, they get crowded quickly
with airport passengers carrying loads of luggage, although there is
a small area for luggage and bicycles available. The middle section
is very narrow and with people sitting there it is even hard to walk
through without luggage. They have bus-type seating in the raised end
sections, but making you look towards the train centre, not the
driver's cab. The low-floor middle section has mixed seating with
some folding seats. The doors are all opened by the driver.
The stations are all equipped with
modern indicators, but apparently they don't work properly as they
don't show the next train, there is a permanent “Welcome to xx”
message displayed and the current time. Otherwise stations are all
pleasant and in good shape, some with island platforms
(SeaTac/Airport, Rainier Beach, Beacon Hill – though separate in
two London-style tubes, Stadium). Besides the station names, there
are also symbols, which like in Mexico identify each station! Most
stations are enhanced with artwork.
SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL
Sound Transit also operates the
northern and southern commuter rail lines, one to Everett and the
other to Tacoma. But these are really just commuter railways, with 7
trains from Tacoma to Seattle in the morning and back in the
afternoon, but only 2 in the opposite direction. The northern line
has 4 trains inbound in the morning and 4 back home in the afternoon
(some Amtrak trains may be used, too). So if you want to go to Tacoma
by train to see the streetcar, you have to get up very early and
spend long hours in Tacoma (there is not that much to do there...),
or take one of the frequent buses down and come back on one of the
two afternoon trains, as I did. They take about the same time (50-60
minutes). I was surprised how well looked after the stations are for
having only this small amount of daily trains.
FARE SYSTEM
The lack of a clear unified fare system
is certainly the most negative part of the Seattle transport system.
There are several bus operators with their own fare system, and
transfer between them seems to be impossible unless you pay with an
ORCA card, a modern smartcard system, which can be a monthly pass (I
honestly didn't understand this product, which is not a monthly pass
found in the rest of the world giving you unlimited travel in a
designated area) or an “e-purse”, i.e. you just add value to it
(basic cost of the card is 5 USD) and then tap on/off as you travel,
but no discounts. It does, however, grant you free transfer even to
other operators. On buses you tap on only once, on trips into the
downtown area as you board, and out of downtown as you exit the bus,
which makes sense as the downtown area is a free-ride zone on buses,
but NOT on light rail! So if you are in the tunnel, you can hop on a
bus for one or two stations for free, but the light rail train would
cost you 2 USD. On light rail you need to tap on and off, as it has a
tiered fare structure, maximum 2.75 USD to go all the way to the
Airport, rather cheap, in fact, considering the Airport is some 20 km
south of downtown.
Seattle does not offer any kind of
unlimited day pass, so the ORCA card seems to be the best choice, but
like in Brisbane, I find it hard to keep track on how much I spend,
and I was actually surprised when the reader said “low value”,
when I thought that there must be a bit more left. So if the system
doesn't work correctly, it may be difficult to prove that you were
charged too much. I think there should be something like a daily top,
like in Dubai. Most people, however, still pay cash on buses, which
also delays the buses a lot, as it is often not easy to feed a
long-used 1-dollar note into those fare boxes.
BUSES
Despite the deficient fare system and
confusion with different bus operators, Seattle boasts one of the
best bus systems in the U.S., I guess. Bus stops are mostly equipped
with timetables! And many of them even have a map! In the downtown
area, there are triangular info posts, with all necessary details.
So, here you can actually explore the city without preparing each
single trip exactly on the internet or with the help of individual
bus schedules. There is no printed overall map available, instead
they refer you to the internet (but hardly anyone will have a printer
at home to print out a poster map!). Sound Transit distributes a free
timetable booklet with some maps in it. What is a bit confusing is the fact that most bus routes that are supposed to terminate in downtown actually continue as another route, but this number change is done upon entering the downtown area. To go to King Street Station I had chosen to take bus 15 or 18, for example, but at the stop I boarded, these had already changed their numbers, so they were difficult to identify! What is wrong with keeping the same number across the downtown area?
Seattle also has a large trolleybus
network, similar to that of San Francisco, and thus one of the
largest in the western world. Many trolleybuses run on the surface
along 3rd Avenue, thus above the downtown metro tunnel,
from where they spread out in all directions in what is a very hilly
city.
LINKS
The present system consists in fact of two cross-city lines plus one radial line with two branches, although officially the network is shown with five radial lines. In normal operation however, the Joondalup and Mandurah Lines, as well as the Fremantle and Midland Lines, form a single line, although there is a buffer of a few minutes built into the timetable at Perth station. Unfortunately this way of presenting the lines can be rather confusing especially for occasional travellers who want to continue their journey beyond the city centre on the same line and find out only once they arrive at Perth station that the train they are on actually continues to their destination anyway. On the Joondalup/Mandurah Line, the lines are shown as overlapping between Perth Underground and Esplanade and announcements inside the train in fact tell people that the train goes to Clarkson or Mandurah, respectively, but I have not observed anything like that on the Fremantle/Midland Line. So my proposal is to rename these lines officially as “Fremantle & Midland Line” and “Joondalup & Mandurah Line”. The fifth line is shown as Armadale/Thornlie Line, with the Thornlie Line operating as 'Local' on the share section (except Beckenham, which is served by Armadale trains). All lines are identified by colours, which are also used on station signs.
To increase capacity on the older lines, the A-series rolling stock was refurbished with longitudinal seating throughout, which gives them a rather metro-like feel. Due to limited platform lengths, only 4-car trains can operate on these lines, whereas on the new north-south route the newer and faster B-series trains are used which run either as 3-car or as 6-car compounds.
The biggest criticism I would make about the Perth rail system is the excessive station distance on the new north-south line, both on the slightly older Joondalup Line and on the recent Mandurah Line. With many stations located in the median of a freeway and huge car parks adjacent to them, there is hardly anyone who lives within an acceptable walking distance. Except for Joondalup station, which is next to a large shopping mall, all stations are in the middle of nowhere, although most have good bus connections. Even the Mandurah terminus is a long way from what is Mandurah “city” centre (nothing much of a centre there really...). Rockingham station was relocated rather a long way from the town centre to save costs, while instead the line was built on a more direct route towards the Perth city centre (initially it was planned to run from Thornlie towards Cockburn along the freight line corridor. So what you gain by a fast train you may lose again by a connecting bus ride to take you home.
The original stretch was completely upgraded before new trams were introduced in around 2005 (the same Bombardier Flexity Classic model as used in Frankfurt/Main – S class there). The new sections are technically well-built, a reserved lane is available throughout, but operationally I would classify it as a complete failure. The trams spend almost more time waiting at traffic lights than actually travelling through the city, this makes the idea of a reserved lane almost obsolete. The concept of priority at traffic light for trams (and buses) is something unheard of, so each tram has to wait a full traffic light cycle to continue its journey, and traffic lights generally change very slowly all over Australia compared to most European cities (Vienna is a bit Australian in this). Between Railway Station and City West the planners were obviously forced by politicians to reduce the line for some 100 m to single-track, just to allow a separate lane for cars turning right into the Convention Centre parking! Outbound trams are forced to manouvre themselves over two sets of points which has to be done at some 5 km/h (we all know that Citadis trams don't like points at all....). This is a clear case that the reintroduction of trams is handled very half-heartedly by some who still believe that the car is king in the city!
For the latest extension Adelaide acquired some of Madrid's superfluous metro ligero Citadis trams which are quite popular here. Except for the adverts on most vehicles, they basically maintain the Madrid livery with the typical red nose.
The Adelaide suburban train network is some 20-30 years behind those in other Australian cities, but like the similar Auckland system, this is finally changing. At present mostly two-car diesel powered trains serve 6 branches all radiating from the terminal station located at the northern fringe of the city centre. The older Jumbo trains are proper DMUs, and they are loud and take a while to accelerate, whereas the newer stock is diesel-electric, and despite the noise they make they are almost like electric trains when it comes to acceleration. In fact, these are now being refurbished and most of them will be converted to full EMUs by 2013. In preparation for electrification, the Noarlunga Line is closed south of Oaklands station while the entire track is being renewed. As has already been done on the Outer Harbor Line and part of the Gawler Line, new concrete sleepers are being laid, which will allow the future re-gauging of the entire system from broad gauge (1600 mm) to standard gauge. New trains have been ordered from Bombardier, and these will also be ready for conversion to standard gauge at a later date.
The system has a strong suburban character, with busy peak-hour trains and quite empty trains during off-peak. The overall impression is that it is a slow system, but with one-person operation dwelling time at stations is short. Trains from the southern branches run around the western edge of the city before reaching the terminus, so in a next step a tunnel under King William Street would certainly be recommendable to create a through north-south axis penetrating the city centre directly (apparently someone else had proposed this in the 1930s). Passengers from the southern lines are not able to change to the tram line, despite Goodwood rail station being located right below the tram bridge across the tracks. So someone working in the Victoria Square area, for example, needs to take a long detour or take a long walk from Goodwood to the nearest tram stop. A proper network integration would certainly include a transfer station at this point.
Most railway stations have only very basic equipment, generally a busstop-like shelter and a busstop-type timetable post. Ticket-vending machines are located inside the trains. Some stations have been rebuilt in recent years, but while Oaklands and Hallett Cove are quite pleasant (although a simple concrete floor isn't really the most elegant style), I would vote the elevated Port Adelaide station the ugliest new station built in recent years worldwide. It sits on a beautiful historic viaduct, but the concrete/sheet-metal station will hopefully attract some graffiti soon to embellish it....:). Mawson Interchange has a similar style, but the lack of visual appeal is at least compensated by a cross-platform interchange between buses and inbound trains. As the system has a rather light-rail appearance anyway, with short trains and closely spaced stations, it might have been a better idea to completely convert it to light rail, maybe with some RegioCitadis-type rolling stock which support higher speeds on railway lines.
What makes Adelaide unique in the worldwide transport scene, however, is its O-Bahn: this system was developed in the German city of Essen, and then copied nowhere else but in Adelaide. This type of busway consists of concrete beams with lateral guideways, so buses can run at a speed of up to 100 km/h over the 12 km grade-separated busway, which only includes two intermediate stations, so the perceived travel speed is indeed very high. The O-Bahn is used by numerous bus lines, some leaving the busway at the Paradise Interchange or continuing beyond the “terminus” at Tea Tree Plaza. The busway was built through a linear park along the Torrens River, and its visual impact is enormous, and in fact it is impossible to cross the “tracks”, unless there is a bridge or underpass. The major problem seems to be the fact that the O-Bahn starts some 2 km from the city centre, so a solution is being sought for the route along Hackney Road where the fast buses are now caught in traffic jams during peak hours. So while I'm normally not advocating bus-based transport, I have to admit that the O-Bahn is by far the fastest type of transport in Adelaide (and the ride at top speed is still pleasant!) and that it will be hard to convince people that a conversion to light rail might be a better option. The way the Glenelg tram is operated now it is hard to imagine that any kind of train would be able to travel at 100 km/h – and the buses take most passengers directly to their destination.
There are two stations that are sort of underground, Pyrmont Bay and Star City, but both are not too pleasant, more like tram stops in the basement of a building. John Street Square stop lies in a deep cutting and like the neighbouring Fish Market is accessible via a lift or steep stairs. Most other stops are accessible via ramps, with passengers crossing the tracks. There are no level crossings for motorised traffic west of the point where the old freight line begins near the Paddy's Market stop. The line is planned to be extended along a still used freight line to Dulwich Hill, so there will be mixed service. There has been talk about extending it on the city end down to Circular Quay, but unless this is combined with a drastic reduction of buses running along George Street or Elizabeth Street, there is not much point in doing so. Even before the Dulwich extension, the existing line needs to be integrated into the overall transport network, then it can become the backbone for good transport in the inner western suburbs. 
The tram is operated by Veolia as “Metro” light rail, and this company also runs the Sydney Monorail, which is a mere tourist attraction (and couldn't cope with normal passengers anyway in case it was integrated). The fact that a combined day ticket is available for tram and monorail and that both are shown on a joint “metro” map makes you think that the tram is also rather a tourist attraction.
This is one of the factors why I would say that in the often mentioned rivalry between Australia's two major cities, Melbourne and Sydney, in the field of urban transport, Melbourne beats Sydney by far. The Melbourne system appears much more modern and fast, despite the numerous level crossings, which in Sydney are rather the exception on some outer stretches. Although CityRail is a large system and one of the most complex railway systems I have seen, it leaves many areas of the metropolitan area without coverage, notably, the entire northwest, the northeast, as well as many parts of the southeast (which were initially meant to be served by several stations beyond Bondi Junction on the Eastern Suburbs Line). The northwestern area has been repeatedly on the agenda, last only a couple of years ago with the proposal of the Euro-style “North West Metro”, which shortly after was curtailed to become a “CBD Metro” only (which has also been forgotten after a few months). A rail line to the northeastern suburbs was only seriously considered when the Harbour Bridge was built in the 1930s, which had provisions for a second pair of suburban tracks on the eastern side, which were then used by trams for several years (and since by cars, of course...).
So while Melbourne's overall coverage is better, the suburban rail system there is complemented by a huge network of trams, a type of transport almost absent in Sydney. Instead one relies on the hundreds of bus routes, which like in most places are difficult to understand and many finish service at ridiculous times in the early evening. Even the newly introduced Metrobuses don't even run until midnight. So Iwas glad that my accommodation was within walking distance of a rail station. Bus maps for the Sydney Buses exist but are hard to find, and almost all date from 2009 and don't include the new Metrobuses. Most bus stops have only minimal information, although printed timetables are available and even have a route map for that line, which is quite useful when you are unfamiliar with the area. There are no annoucements within the buses. So once again I have to say that the bus system is far below from what one might expect from a world-class system.
Back to CityRail, I generally don't like double-deck carriages a lot, as they give you a very bad view of who is on the train, and with only two doors on each side, it also takes much longer for passengers to get off or board. Also, Sydneysiders seem to be a bit like Stockholmers, as they only get ready to get off once the train has come to a stop, instead of preparíng themselves before. This may be a result of the fact that they know that the train will be standing in the station for a while anyway, so why hurry? All trains have 3+2 perpendicular seating, but I don't like the 3-seat side at all. Mostly noone wants to sit in the middle seat, and it is generally empty or taken by a bag. Unfortunately I also observed that unless you claim this seat, it will never be offered to you by the bag's owner. It is also quite troublesome to get out of the window seat if both or just one of the other two seats are occupied, as these people have to stand up and actually get out into the narrow aisle to let you out. On the other hand, noone wants to stand in this narrow aisle neither upstairs nor downstairs. So, I think that Melbourne's choice for future 2+2 seating is generally better. Sydney has, however, one feature hardly found anywhere nowadays and quite popular (I only recall this type of seats from old suburban trains in Spain in the 1980s), and that's the possibility to flip the back support of all seats so that you can always sit in the direction of travel. Apparently when some Tangara trains came without this option, passengers claimed that and got it again on the latest Millennium trains.
Stations are generally in a good shape, many of the suburban stations preserve a small historic building on the platform, though often hidden behind modern canopies. Like in other Australian cities, most stations have acceptable toilets. In recent years, many stations were retrofitted with lifts to provide full accessibility (the door height of the trains matches more or less the platform, and for wheelchair users, the train guard can unfold a manual ramp located in a cupboard on each platform). 
style but still nice); to the badly designed 1990s stations on the AirportLink (narrow platforms, illogical accesses, and dim lighting!); to the newest deep-level stations between Chatswood and Epping, which boast spacious and pleasant caverns (probably my favourite Sydney station being Epping underground, with its twin tube platforms, the most metro-like station of all...). The station at Olympic Park opened for the 2000 Olympics is a covered three-track station in a trench with a very European design. The recently rebuilt Chatswood station is also a typical station you could find anywhere in Europe nowadays, with stainless steel, glass and concrete as the main elements, but with a few orange finishings it has a pleasant individual touch to it.