Jump to content
Orion VIII

King County Metro - Seattle, Washington

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dancingfatpotato said:

Does east base not have enough 60 footers? It seems that many of the afternoon and morning trips on thr 212 and 217 use the gilligs instead of 60 footers, shouldn't they use 60 footers since these routes are so densely ridden?

East base is always short on 60 Footers because they're always backed up on maintenance so the gillig's bounce around from run to run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Brown said:

East base is always short on 60 Footers because they're always backed up on maintenance so the gillig's bounce around from run to run

Just passed by east base, and it appears there are several 60 footers just parked at base, not doing anything, couldnt those coaches be used on runs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dancingfatpotato said:

Just passed by east base, and it appears there are several 60 footers just parked at base, not doing anything, couldnt those coaches be used on runs?

Were these coaches there when those runs pulled out? are you sure they have not just returned and need to be serviced before going back out? are you sure they are not parked waiting for maintenance or parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that they were used this evening and are back at the base since we are at the second half of rush hour there are some tripper's that are already done for the evening by this time and it's also possible that those coaches are waiting for repairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dancingfatpotato said:

Does east base not have enough 60 footers? It seems that many of the afternoon and morning trips on thr 212 and 217 use the gilligs instead of 60 footers, shouldn't they use 60 footers since these routes are so densely ridden?

Are they still densely ridden at this time of year?  Lots of people, myself included, are on vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atomic Taco said:

Are they still densely ridden at this time of year?  Lots of people, myself included, are on vacation.

Well, I would say for the 212, since the first bus went right past 5th and jackson yesterday I had to wait for another 212.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 12/17/2016 at 10:00 PM, _jrst said:

I've seen this type of question a number of times so I'll explain it as completely and as accurately as I can. If I'm wrong about something feel free to correct me.

Metro didn't order enough XDE60s to replace every D60 left in service. I assume that happened for the same reason that the XT40 order was originally going to be only 86 units - something to do with budget restrictions left over from the worst of the recession when service levels were projected to fall far below their existing levels. That also would explain why there are still Phantoms in service, even though delivery is long complete on the XDE35s and XDE40s.

Therefore, until the next order of buses comes in (I believe that will consist of ~100 Gillig Low Floor 40'), the D60s will continue to be used in service.

Due to the nature of Metro's operations, a great deal of its fleet sits parked in bases outside of peak commute hours. The D60s are showing their age and are quite loud, and so for those reasons and probably some others, Metro would prefer to use an XDE60 over a D60 if they had the choice. At peak hours, the XDE60 fleet is basically all delegated, and Metro assigns D60s to fill the remaining trips. It is worth noting that to the best of my knowledge, all XDE60s are based out of Ryerson at this time. Ryerson also (maybe) has some D60s. North and South Bases house most (if not all) of the D60s still in service. Furthermore, North (and I assume South, though I commute from Snohomish County to Northgate, meaning I'm not too familiar with Southern routes) runs mainly peak routes and the all-day routes are served by 35- and 40-foot coaches. Holding the premise that Metro would rather have an XDE60 in service at any given time, it follows that they all be placed at Ryerson, where 60-foot coaches are assigned to all-day runs. In other words, outside of peak hours, Ryerson has 60 footers in service, whereas North and South don't, and so it makes sense to put the XDE60s where they will be used -- Ryerson.

Furthermore, the XDE60s are (for the time being) fairly unique. Metro has only ordered and used Xcelsior-series coaches for about two years now. New Flyer touted the changes (lighter GVWR, redesigned body, etc.) from its previous models pretty heavily, so one can assume many chassis parts differ from those that go on, say, a 2004 DE60LF. The XDE60 fleet also uses a BAE hybrid-electric drivetrain, which affects the layout and operation of many systems on the coach. (As an aside, just as Allison has the EP 40 and EP 50 for rigid and articulated buses, BAE offers an HDS 200 and an HDS 300. The 200 is installed in the Orions and the XDE35/40s; the 300 is in the 6200s and 8000s. They aren't interchangeable.) Buses are fairly complex mechanically and break down on a regular basis, so each operating base that runs a fleet of a particular configuration of coach must maintain a collection of repair parts for that series so that a broken bus can quickly be repaired and reenter service. Fragmenting the 8000 fleet among three bases would mean three times as many parts would need to be purchased and stored, and three times the number of mechanics would need to be trained on a powertrain radically different from either a conventional diesel or a parallel hybrid (Allison EP-series) unit. By and large, the D60s are simpler machines than the XDE60s.

 

Assuming this is true, that's another reason not to move XDE60's to North. I see it from I-5 on a regular basis and there just isn't enough room outside.

All that being said, it is true that Metro works in mysterious ways, and without having a reliable contact in management, it's impossible to predict what they will do. They might well shuffle things around. It just seems extremely unlikely.

TL;DR XDE60s are more useful on base runs out of Ryerson; if they were moved to North or South they'd be on trippers only. Plus there's the issue of shuttling parts and knowledge around the system with a completely new powertrain and coach series. 

even if it's true, is it because of the 3600 took over to put from Ryerson to North? is that the reason that XDE60 can't go to South or North? Is it also because Ryerson is more crowded than these areas and they rather use newer ones than old ones?

aren't the D60s at South and North stored inside the base?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, clarkwang96 said:

even if it's true, is it because of the 3600 took over to put from Ryerson to North? is that the reason that XDE60 can't go to South or North? Is it also because Ryerson is more crowded than these areas and they rather use newer ones than old ones?

aren't the D60s at South and North stored inside the base?

Clarkwang....

The 8000's are good at Ryerson, on busy city routes because of their 3 doors. I'd imagine if they were to move any to another base, they'd go to Central which supplies buses for the 40 and 120. But sending them to North and South, to replace 2300's (which they will eventually when more are ordered) doesn't make sense because most of those buses sit in the yard all day, and are only used for only peak service. Keep the 8000's running on the busy all day service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy Holidays to Everybody, hope you all are having a WONDERFUL day, today for my special video, here's the Breda 5034 that MEHVA has preserved back when I rode it on the Fall Foliage Tour October 9th!!! Hope you all enjoy, happy holidays and have an EXCELLENT rest of your day!

-Jack (pnwelevator)

youtube.com/pnwelevator

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does KCM do when converting a 40 foot route to a fully artic route? Do they just throw them onto the route or do they adversely reduce the frequency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Express691 said:

What does KCM do when converting a 40 foot route to a fully artic route? Do they just throw them onto the route or do they adversely reduce the frequency?

I can't recall any "conversions" so I'd have to say the former.  There are plenty of routes that use both 40 and 60 foot coaches.  Some of those may be assigned to certain trips but it's on a best effort basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Atomic Taco said:

I can't recall any "conversions" so I'd have to say the former.  There are plenty of routes that use both 40 and 60 foot coaches.  Some of those may be assigned to certain trips but it's on a best effort basis.

Express691 is trying to compare Vancouver's long time practice of converting whole routes at a time from 40ft to 60ft equipment, which always results in a headway decrease to match the capacity increase (thus, usually meaning the route capacity stays level, but the route costs less to operate). 

The reality is that Vancouver is one of the only agencies in North America to operate this way. Most others do like Metro, and selectively convert trips to increase capacity where needed. 

Note that route 70 was recently converted from all 40ft to all 60ft runs - headways stayed the same so this was considered a capacity increase. Before that, however, you'd have to look back a long ways to see a route that switched to all artics rather than incremental run upsizing (route 7 in the 1980s, perhaps, which did result in a headway decrease, like what Vancouver does).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 70 is a unique case. With the 43 being eliminated Metro had a lot of 60-foot trolleybuses available... and they were expecting heavier U-District-Downtown traffic on the 70.

The 40 is probably a better example. When I moved to Seattle in January 2014, route 40 was still pretty new (it started service on September 29, 2012) and using 40-foot Gillig Phantom coaches. At that point, it was already clear that it was a popular route. Buses were frequently standing room only. Within a few months, the DE60LF coaches started popping up occasionally during rush hour. Now, 40-foot coaches are becoming a rare sight on the 40 (usually they only show up during rush, and frankly they're too small, considering the 40 is now one of the busiest routes in Metro's system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rickycourtney said:

The 70 is a unique case. With the 43 being eliminated Metro had a lot of 60-foot trolleybuses available... and they were expecting heavier U-District-Downtown traffic on the 70.

The 40 is probably a better example. When I moved to Seattle in January 2014, route 40 was still pretty new (it started service on September 29, 2012) and using 40-foot Gillig Phantom coaches. At that point, it was already clear that it was a popular route. Buses were frequently standing room only. Within a few months, the DE60LF coaches started popping up occasionally during rush hour. Now, 40-foot coaches are becoming a rare sight on the 40 (usually they only show up during rush, and frankly they're too small, considering the 40 is now one of the busiest routes in Metro's system).

Two points. The 70 has needed artic capacity (or increased headways) for three or four years. It was happenstance that the route was begging for the capacity and Metro found themselves with the artics from the 43 and a place to use them. Metro certainly did not anticipate the huge increase in ridership on the 70 from passengers that have selected that route for service between the U Dist and Downtown over LINK Light Rail. 

The progression of the 40 from standard to artic coaches is a more typical example. However, over the years, this type of ridership growth has occurred much more slowly. For instance, in Fall 1998, the 15/18 and assorted West Seattle routes were reorganized with a headway bump. This created the long standing 15/19/21/22/56/57 through route combination, and while all of the W Seattle routes maintained their previous headways, the 15/18 went from 30 minute day base to 20 minute day base. At the same time, the coach assignments went from about 80% articulated to about 30% articulated (select day base runs and trippers - targeting particularly busy trips). As late as 2003 I was commuting on an 18 local that had a 40ft Gillig assigned, but sometime between then and about 2006, the route family went entirely artic, due to ridership growth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rickycourtney said:

When I moved to Seattle in January 2014, route 40 was still pretty new (it started service on September 29, 2012) and using 40-foot Gillig Phantom coaches.

Not really new; it's just the western half of the old 75 coupled with a sort of route 16.  Both routes had markets before the 40; the 40 just captured them and combined them in a way that turned out to be useful for a number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2016 at 10:34 AM, rickycourtney said:

The 2017-2018 budget gives us insight into whats happening with Metro's fleet over the next two years.

  • 40-Ft Hybrid Bus Replacement Program - $209,974,239 - This project funds the continuation of the replacement of King County Metro’s existing fleet of 40-ft diesel and hybrid buses. These new hybrid buses will feature all electric accessories. The first of the 181 new 40-ft Hybrid buses will be placed into service starting in mid-2018. The new fleet of 40-ft Hybrid buses will be low-floor buses with an FTA service life of 12 years. The buses will be purchased from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Consortium contract.
  • 60-Ft Hybrid Bus Replacement Program - $297,499,452 - This project funds the continuation of the replacement and a modest expansion of King County Metro’s existing fleet of 60-ft diesel and hybrid buses. These new hybrid buses will feature all electric accessories. The first of these 251 new 60-ft Hybrid buses will be placed into service starting in the Fall of 2018. The new fleet of 60-ft hybrid buses will be low-floor buses with an FTA service life of 12 years. The buses will be purchased from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Consortium contract.
  • 60-Ft Trolley Replacement Program - $21,481,596 - This project funds the full replacement and a modest expansion of King County Metro’s fleet of 59 60-ft electric trolley buses with 64 60-ft electric trolley buses. This budget request seeks new funding for 13 additional trolleybuses to serve the City of Seattle’s planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route for Madison Street scheduled to begin service in 2019. The addition of the Madison BRT trolleys brings the 60-ft. trolley fleet to 77 buses. All of the new fleet of 60- ft electric trolley buses will be low-floor buses with an FTA service life of 15 years and will feature a battery pack that provides the capability to travel off-wire for a limited range.
  • Battery Bus Budget Program - $9,182,978 - This project funds the expansion of King County Metro’s existing fleet of three 40-ft battery electric buses adding 8 more 40-ft battery electric buses. These new buses, like their predecessors, will use fast-charge technology providing the capacity to operate the buses for up to approximately 23 miles between charges and allow the bus to remain in service up to 24 hours a day. Batteries can charge in 10 minutes or less. The combination of these eight buses and the original three buses purchased in 2014 will allow King County Metro to fully electrify two bus routes with battery electric buses. The eight new buses should enter service in late 2017 or early 2018. The new fleet of 40-ft battery electric trolley buses will be low-floor buses with an FTA service life of 15 years. The buses will be purchased from an existing King County Metro contract No. EB 11-2 with Proterra, Inc.

For the record... the "Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Consortium contract" is the master contract maintained by the the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. It allows agencies to buy buses without issuing a request for bids, pick the bus model they want, buy only the features they need, at a pre-negotiated price.

According to County staff, Metro is nearly out of room at bases, so only about 100 coaches can be added to the fleet. According to the budget, the fleet expansion will be in the form of 60-foot hybrids, and 60-foot trolleybuses. King County reiterated in the budget that it wants Metro to have an "all hybrid and electric bus fleet by 2018" so it's reasonable to assume that these coaches will replace the remaining Phantoms, and the New Flyer D60HF, D40LF and D60LF coaches. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see Metro begin to retire some of the DE60LF coaches.

I'm guessing these "13 new trolleybuses" will be XT60s in Rapidride Livery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaykob Walson said:

I'm guessing these "13 new trolleybuses" will be XT60s in Rapidride Livery.

Correct, assuming they stick with the current plan to brand Madison BRT as RapidRide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mentioned as that the 40 foot hybrid replacement program would replace both diesels and hybrids - are some of the Orion VII coaches being obsoleted already or was that just bad phrasing on the release?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SounderBruce said:

Does anyone know when routes 107, 195, 227, 253 and 258 were removed from the bus tunnel, and routes 190 and 226 added to it? I'm compiling a table of bus tunnel routes that could also use some spotchecking.

The dates are the first day of shake up not the end. This is based off old schedules i have kept.

June 1996: 107 in

Sept 1996: 107 out.

May 1997:190 in, 253 in

Sept 1997: 253 out, 226 was in

Feb 1998: 195/227/258 was still in

May 1998: 227 no longer exists on 212,225,229 schedule.

Sept 1998: 190/195 in

June 2001: 258 in

I have also heard of a route 90 which ran as a tunnel circular.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Where can I find a resource documenting the KCM headsigns from the pre-Link era? e.g. "48 Rainier Bch via 23rd Ave", "8 MLK Walden/Capitol Hill". This resource

is from 2011, which was after the RapidRide C/D restructure but before the Link restructure (e.g. 8, 38, 34X/39, 42).

Thank you.

On 12/28/2016 at 1:47 AM, aznichiro115 said:

The dates are the first day of shake up not the end. This is based off old schedules i have kept.

June 1996: 107 in

Sept 1996: 107 out.

May 1997:190 in, 253 in

Sept 1997: 253 out, 226 was in

Feb 1998: 195/227/258 was still in

May 1998: 227 no longer exists on 212,225,229 schedule.

Sept 1998: 190/195 in

June 2001: 258 in

I have also heard of a route 90 which ran as a tunnel circular.

 

Speaking of the tunnel, which tunnel routes served McMicken Heights, if any? I saw a photo of a MAN SG220 on the Route 170 to McMicken Heights via Boeing Industrial, wherever the heck "Boeing Industrial" is. On Wikipedia, it says that the McMicken Heights bus is the 124, which I know goes down 3rd Avenue in Downtown, then 4th Avenue South. This is unlike its predecessor, the 174, which used the tunnel. (I assume that light rail + RapidRide A Line have covered the Seattle-SeaTac-Federal Way commuting corridor aka the old route 194, which also used the tunnel.) I guess my real question is, from route 170 to the present day, how has bus service from Downtown to McMicken Heights and "Boeing Industrial" evolved?

 

On 12/28/2016 at 2:05 AM, Atomic Taco said:

 

When did bus information in Seattle begin being posted on the internet? What was KCM's first ever website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, V3112 said:

Where can I find a resource documenting the KCM headsigns from the pre-Link era? e.g. "48 Rainier Bch via 23rd Ave", "8 MLK Walden/Capitol Hill". This resource is from 2011, which was after the RapidRide C/D restructure but before the Link restructure (e.g. 8, 38, 34X/39, 42).

The Book has them all.

The Book (Feb 2011)

The Book (Sept 2010)

I have a few more if you need them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, V3112 said:

Hi,

Where can I find a resource documenting the KCM headsigns from the pre-Link era? e.g. "48 Rainier Bch via 23rd Ave", "8 MLK Walden/Capitol Hill". This resource

is from 2011, which was after the RapidRide C/D restructure but before the Link restructure (e.g. 8, 38, 34X/39, 42).

Thank you.

Speaking of the tunnel, which tunnel routes served McMicken Heights, if any? I saw a photo of a MAN SG220 on the Route 170 to McMicken Heights via Boeing Industrial, wherever the heck "Boeing Industrial" is. On Wikipedia, it says that the McMicken Heights bus is the 124, which I know goes down 3rd Avenue in Downtown, then 4th Avenue South before continuing onto Airport Way South via 6th Avenue South and South Holgate Street. This is unlike its predecessor, the 174, which used the tunnel. (I assume that light rail + RapidRide A Line have covered the Seattle-SeaTac-Federal Way commuting corridor aka the old route 194, which also used the tunnel.) I guess my real question is, from route 170 to the present day, how has bus service from Downtown to McMicken Heights and "Boeing Industrial" evolved?

 

 

When did bus information in Seattle begin being posted on the internet? What was KCM's first ever website?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...