According to the PI the city council approved $375,000 for a three month study to determine the feasible of new streetcar lines. The lines proposed are the following:
- From the waterfront to Interbay, then to Ballard
- From South Lake Union, north to Queen Anne, then to Fremont
- From the east side of Lake Union to the University District
- South from Jackson Street, possibly along First Avenue to West Seattle
- East on Jackson, north on 12th Avenue, then to Broadway and Capitol Hill
- Circling the Seattle Center, then heading east, possibly along Mercer, to Broadway and Capitol Hill
My thoughts:
The U-District extension of the SLU car is the one that makes the most sense to me, since we already have the beginning of that line, and closing the loop between Link and the Streetcar there will ensure lots of riders.
The Broadway line was in the proposals for ST2.1 from the workshop last week, so I imagine Sound Transit has either studied this already or is going to study it. Hopefully the City and ST are sharing.
The Ballard line seems like a bad idea to me. We need proper rapid transit to Ballard, and a streetcar won't cut it. If they do put in Skoda cars, they should be grade-separated through most of that route to ensure a reasonable commute time. In my opinion, if you are going to grade-separate them, you might as well do it with proper light rail, you'd get a better pay-off in the long run.
What do you think? Am I too bearish on streetcars to the neighborhoods outside of the Downtown districts?
31 comments:
I noticed you added a flickr pool to the left. Awesome!
Your concerns are well-taken. You can grade-separate or you can give them a dedicated ROW, which is a different thing, right?
I mean, if the streetcars had a dedicated ROW all the way up Western / 15th Ave, like Link through MLK, it would be fine, right?
The problem is crossing the water, but crossing the water is expensive no matter what technology you use. Either you build a monorail-style bridge, or you tunnel under, either of which is hella expensive.
San Francisco runs muni through a subway tunnel downtown, then they exist past there and come to the surface. Maybe we could do something similar?
Actually, The City of Seattle said the Montlake, University, and Ballard bridges are all capable of adding rail to the bridge deck using the Skoda/Inekon trams (sorry, Streetcars)
Larger Streetcars, like the Siemens Combino are possible because of the weight distribution.
15th has plenty of space for a seperated ROW, though I agree it'll need a seperate bridge. What's worse is that it'll have to be a drawbridge.
The good news is that I can imagine bridge designs that aren't that spendy. I could even imagine it crossing at the existing train drawbridge.
(responsing to Brian)
Even if the Ballard bridge could carry a streetcar, I'm not sure we'd want it to. That's a bottleneck for traffic and will make this streetcar as slow as a bus.
I completely disagree. That will be redundant. There's already going to be a light rail going to the UD. Also, downtown to the UD already has some of the best and quickest bus service in the county. Routes from downtown to the UD include 25, 41, 43, 49, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73. And probably a few more I'm forgetting. Then there will be a link light rail line going there. A streetcar line would be redundant and overkill. I'm for the streetcar. Intermodal transportation is vital to a city. But each type has its place and best use.
A streetcar to UW would basically be a replacement for the 70 -- local service to and from Eastlake, essentially. And Eastlake seems to be developing pretty fast even without a streetcar, so I don't think you can justify the extension as guiding development.
On that grounds, I'd prioritize Jackson, personally. Jackson is developing slowly to start with, and the city might be able to get some funding from the Dearborn Street (Goodwill site) developers.
Grade separations mean over or under. Giving it a ROW would mean in street with no auto access or an existing ROW such as railroad tracks or something. Going to Ballard with light rail in its own ROW seems like a cost effective way to get them rapid transit. The main issue would be how many stops it would have which slows down the line ie streetcar.
It seems to me that all of these routes would be good. It just depends on design. You can couple skoda cars or buy longer module based streetcars to serve the needs of a corridor, that shouldn't be an issue.
I agree that if the streetcar was just going to the U-District it would be a bit of a waste. However, I also agree that it would be an excellent way to connect Eastlake into the overall system, and give med students an excellent way to commute to South Lake Union.
Without faster, dedicated ROW rail, the trip to Ballard or West Seattle would be a total waste. Basically, people would spend way too much time on 15th Ave West or the West Seattle Bridge. Also, 15th Ave West has developed in an essentially suburban pattern. One good example is the Whole Foods under construction... basically another one-story, grocery anchored neighborhood center with surface parking. In the future, it is not likely that is neighborhood will be particularly dense, as the City wants to keep many larger parcels industrial. (Which overall, I support.) Also, I do not expect people to walk down from Queen Anne Hill to the streetcar, but they just might bus down if it was actually light rail.
What is more interesting is the line to Fremont, as the area would look really good with a streetcar, but there would be rather limited demand for much of Westlake. However, if they had a dedicated ROW for the Westlake portion I would probably support it.
As for Uptown Queen Anne, are we sure there is no way to get the streetcars up Queen Anne Hill? That would be awesome.
Deja Vu. One of those proposed lines looks a lot like the old Seattle Monorail Project Green Line.
Unless the line is grade seperated from Ballard to West Seattle, it is COMPLETELY POINTLESS.
However, if it has it's own right of way the entire time, the cheaper streetcar may be the way to go.
The rest of the lines are all ACE in my book. Yes, the U-District is redundant, but connecting it to Eastlake and SLU (think biotech and UW medical) is extremely important.
I love the idea of a line really sprucing up Jackson.
I hope they find a way to take the streetcar UP Queen Anne Hill and not just around it. Also, the Fremont line should extend all the way to the Zoo, which would really open it up (along with Fremont) to the rest of the city.
The Uptown line is interesting. It would sure make getting from Capitol Hill to Ballard a heckuva lot easier if the whole system were built.
Well, having spent many years trying to discover every route to drive or ride a bike to the top of Queen Anne, I can pretty much guarantee you there are only two ways for a streetcar to get there- with the counterbalance, or up 99. Incidentally, there used to be a trolley loop on top of Queen Anne, which you can still trace out by the odd street alignments (hint- it goes past the cemetery), or by using old trolley maps.
Some of these questions pretty much answer themselves if you spend time on the ground. For example, between 1st Ave S and the old Bethlehem steelworks in West Seattle, the 'streetcar' won't do any street running- because there pretty much aren't any streets!
On 15th West, the 'streetcar' would be running in fast traffic- obviously not the 'slower than walking' streetcar opponents are so fond of citing. It would be interesting to see actual traffic counts for 15th West, because it seems to be maxed out, and if anther form of transportation can do the job better, it's time to give part of the street to that other form of transit.
It will be interesting to see if this is a real effort to improve transit, or just a way of running out the clock. I'd be more optimistic if the city was working harder to get the waterfront trolley running again.
"I can pretty much guarantee you there are only two ways for a streetcar to get there- with the counterbalance, or up 99. Incidentally, there used to be a trolley loop on top of Queen Anne, which you can still trace out by the odd street "
Not exactly true. The #2 electric bus route snakes up the west side of the hill. a much easier approach even though it's longer.
Streetcars:
All the capital expense of burying steel tracks in the middle of a roadway is in MO, a foolishness we can not afford. In addition to making the streetcar incapable of going around any obstacle in it's path, we are committing the city to yet another technology with it's necessary skill set for operation and maintenance.
Why not just improve the bus service skeleton we have? More busses, run more frequently, additional routes; improve on what we already know.
It's tough to make demands for our city's needs out of an organization that's bound to serve an entire region (Metro).
Maybe we should be looking at the funding and political/organizational structure of our transportation system along with the means to provide additional seat miles.
oldtroll, The arguments for streetcars is that they 1) get more riders, 2) attract transit-oriented development, and 3) can carry more people and load/unload them more quickly.
One more argument, too: streetcars last much longer than buses, so they may (opinions vary) cost less in the long run.
Alas, you have to be there when the snow falls to get that "snaking up the west side of Queen Anne" ride (the Metro route map shows that as "adverse weather route"). Still, the number 2 is totally awesome- connects the top of Queen Anne with Madrona, and passes by Virgina Mason, Swedish, and Seattle U on the way.
One thing I did notice, riding electric buses in Seattle, was that they seemed to be about as unwieldy as a streetcar when confronted by traffic problems. Another thing I noticed is that they were as quiet climbing Queen Anne as going down. That's gotta be a blessing to the neighborhood.
Running a trolley up the west side of Queen Anne would make a lot of sense. That area is getting incredibly dense and the views mean it always will be.
The trolley will be slower than traffic and buses unless the trolley is given a dedicated right of way over general traffic. That’s the problem with the current trolley (and I do ride it). The trolley does have to wait its turn at each light, and it comes to a full stop unless it hits a green. The point of mass transit is to give transit and transit users a faster ride than auto traffic so people say, “Hey, look how convenient and fast the trolley is while I am here stuck in traffic in my car! Maybe I should try it!” Not “Hey, look at me in my car consistenly getting to/from work faster than mass transit and being able to more conveniently get around! Why should I use mass transit? It just hinders my driving routes and is a huge annoyance!”
The information posted on the PI states the link to West Seattle will begin “South from Jackson Street, possibly along First Avenue to West Seattle.” Um, hello? That goes NOWHERE but to the lawyer/city offices. Then you have to get on a bus to get anywhere else, or walk if you work close enough. It doesn’t seem like there will be a “core” that will link the trolley lines. You may be able to get to Capitol Hill however…maybe. Someone pointed out that California Avenue will have Regular Metro, Sound Transit, RapidRide and a Trolley and that all of West Seattle must live within walking distance of California and the junction. Pretty much exactly the problem.
Ok, sorry, now that I see the map more clearly, there seems to be some sort of connection points, better than I thought. But, unless the trolley gets right of way and can get up to speed, it's worthless to West Seattle. It's as bad as the proposed RapidRide that will install a redundant route that will actually decrease service to WS. I am a full supporter of mass transit, when it's done right, not just in the service of saying "look how many transit options we have, what's your problem."
Run the tracks in dedicated ROW next to Westlake and cross the canal over the Fremont Bridge. This gives you three great possibilities for extensions: Ballard via the terminal railway tracks (again, dedicated ROW); Wallingford via Stone Way, and Fremont Ave to Greenwood (to 85th or farther). All these lines converging in Fremont would truely make then the center of the streetcar universe. It would also result in service to downtown every seven minutes or better.
In downtown Seattle, extend the SLU streetcar tracks from Westlake Center west on Stewart, then south on 1st Ave. Create a dedicated transit lane along the corridor.
I like the extension to the Rainier Valley. Take it all the way to Columbia City, then west to connect with LINK.
West Seattle is a little fuzzy. I believe direct service from W. Seattle or Ballard to downtown must be LRT, not a neighborhood circulator. However, a Ballard-Fremont-SLU route would be a great compliment to future LRT and could be built much sooner and cost less.
Extending the waterfront line to ballard ... it could be quite feasable to give the route a dedicated ROW ... since Interbay is being redeveloped, land could easily be set aside NOW for the ROW. Once you get to Broad Street ... either you have to get the line across the BNSF main line (by bridge since transit cannot cross heavy rail tracks for safety reasons) ... or you'd have to split the route SB on Elliot and NB on Western. Both could nicely end at Pike Place Market.
The alternative would be to dual-track alaska way ... so that instead of the existing streetcar track (bi-directional) you'd have a track on either side of the street (or like on MLK). The future of the viaduct and its replacement will ultimately determine that.
also ... wouldn't West Seattle be better served by an extension to LINK from SODO? That way W.Seattle would/could have service to both Downtown AND the Airport.
Of course you'd need a new junction nearby the MX facility ...but that shouldn't be too difficult to create.
Don't forget ... there are very few streets that branch off of the west side of Elliot ... furthermore, the new developments in the area could help subsidize the stations which in turn would make their properties more attractive.
anonymous said:
The point of mass transit is to give transit and transit users a faster ride than auto traffic so people say, “Hey, look how convenient and fast the trolley is while I am here stuck in traffic in my car! Maybe I should try it!” Not “Hey, look at me in my car consistenly getting to/from work faster than mass transit and being able to more conveniently get around! Why should I use mass transit? It just hinders my driving routes and is a huge annoyance!”
What an awesomely intelligent observation!
If you've been to any city which has grade-separate transit, this is exactly what happens. Something from peripheral vision causes you to turn your head; you see the train flash silently by, and you think "What a nice way to travel!"
Streetcars cause the opposite. You see it ahead or behind you, and there's a a frisson of fear and distrust - "That's a train-thing, on the street with me. I'm not quite sure how I should navigate when it's near. Uh-oh, I just accidentally ended up in its lane! Am I gonna get a ticket? Oh, damn, now there's one in front of me, blocking my way and my view. Ugh."
Any future ad campaign for separate-grade transit should consider playing up that first image - the fast train flashing by while I'm stuck in traffic. I see how it could cut both ways if the producer isn't careful, but they, that's why PR firms exist!
Streetcars are not just about being faster than automobiles. There is also the awesome freedom of simply getting off the streetcar without having to park it- and the equally awesome freedom of simply getting on the streetcar without buying it, maintaining it, insuring it, or finding it's been stolen or vandalized. Anyone who's owned a car for very long in Seattle will know what I'm saying here.
And please, folks, any streetcar to West Seattle is going over the existing high-level bridge- nobody is going to build another high-level bridge for a streetcar. So a major chunk of that route will travel at about 50 mph.
Yes, in fact, streetcars, when used to try and provide mass-transit options are about speed AND convenience. Buses also provide this service when used correctly. However, I simply don't see the streetcar being the "magic pill" for West Seattle (do you live there? I do, and use transit daily) esp. with how metro is mucking up the RapidRide service.
As for the bridge, I don't recall anyone saying anything about a separate bridge for a trolley. Currently, there are no dedicated lanes for mass transit heading east. There's one bus lane for 1/2 mile heading west. You really think that traffic moves along at 50 mph on a regular basis, during rush hour? Either way? Unless the trolley is given a dedicated lane, rush hour will continue to mean that if you use ANY form of mass transit to West Seattle you will be stuck in traffic with all the autos. (BTW: the boat is currently not mass transit, but another option) This remains the case with whatever the outcome is with the viaduct/Spokane street viaduct.
The 'magic pill' for West Seattle is to have a collector node in West Seattle linked to a collector node in downtown Seattle by a 10 minute trolley ride- which can obviously only be attained by dedicated exclusive ROW for the trolley (or LRT or whatever you want to call it).
It would seem obvious to me that even a streetrunning trolley in West Seattle is not going to run on streets to get from West Seattle to downtown- and equally obvious that the trolley won't mix with traffic on the bridge because that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Trolleys mix with traffic on streets because people want to get on the sidewalk and go to stores or places on the street. Trolleys start and stop to let people on and off. There are no stores or restaurants on the side of the West Seattle Bridge and the trolley doesn't start and stop because there is nobody who wants to get on and off.
I just mention this because nobody on this thread seems to realize that you give the trolley a lane on the bridge (and it's nothing if not a wide bridge) and the trolley, being a good modern trolley, whizzes along at 60 per, providing that enviable quick ride another commenter was longing for.
Another magic pill for West Seattle would be a LINK line from West Seattle to Georgetown and splitting there into two lines, one east to Othello and other other north to SODO.
West Seattle is quite a distance from almost everything else in Puget Sound, and any solution has to involve moving lots of people very fast over the 5-10 miles of industrial district that surrounds West Seattle.
If the trolley can do 60mph and we give it a dedicated ROW, I am all for it going to West Seattle. However, I would probably define it as LRT at that point...
I believe metro/city is trying to expand the status of trolley to be both trolley and LRT. From what I understand, it can be used as both. There's nothing written in stone that says it must be deemed LRT if it can't stop on a bridge - that's nuts.
Catowner said "...just mention this because nobody on this thread seems to realize that you give the trolley a lane on the bridge (and it's nothing if not a wide bridge) and the trolley, being a good modern trolley, whizzes along at 60 per, providing that enviable quick ride another commenter was longing for." Yes, that's the point I was making above - but the other point is that the bridge cannot be the only faster section of rail.
You don't live in WS do you? Get caught up in 1st Ave baseball/football traffic, what if there's an accident on 99 (oh, wait, that's part of the viaduct that we won't have in the near future!), and *bang* automatic gridlock. So a dedicated trolley lane, which will speed things up even WITH multiple stops, is essential.
WS is not far away, it just seems like it for those that don't live there. SODO seems to be the main "impediment" that brains have to wrap around. But if SODO's streets are used wisely (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th even 5th Ave!!!!) transit would be greatly improved. There's plenty of space for dedicated transit lanes in that area. Right now, it commonly takes me 1.5 hours to travel 8 miles. My friend who lives in shoreline gets home in 30 - 40 minutes? Why? Transit/carpool lanes.
I spent a year commuting on the graveyard from Queen Anne to West Seattle. Talk about night and day! Going out at 10.30 PM I could drive the legal limit from Queen Anne to the first stoplight in West Seattle without stopping- no traffic at all- and it still took at least ten minutes. Coming back in the AM I joined the morning rush.
Yes, my point was that, electric transit or BRT, the center segment has to be non-stop (i.e., dedicated lane) 50 mph travel, because the West Seattle commuter still has to get to the station in West Seattle and go from downtown Seattle to their destination. If their two outer legs were 15 minutes each, that would be a 40 minute ride with two transfers.
Some sleuthing might reveal ridership making it possible to extend a BRT in dedicated lanes south through West Seattle and north from the station in downtown Seattle. At some point, though, you start to wonder just how many people actually live in south West Seattle and commute to north King County.
A central link in West Seattle would be great, esp. since we already have a major bus "center" in the Alsaka Junction and at Avalon/35th. It would be v. helpful.
Many people in WS would like a circuitus routing of some sort of transit throughout WS (not like the 128 which doesn't go any further north than Alaska and getting to Alki requires a transfer and a long ride) - this was obvious at the RapidRide meeting. A route that is useful to residents would be helpful. It's easy to take a bus downtown, but not so easy to get to Westwood shopping or to the Admiral area by bus alone.
As for going north - bring it on. That's why so many people in WS supported the monorail. We WANT to go to Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood, U-Dist without making 3 transfers and a two-hour ride. We forsaw the loss of the viaduct - it will cut our link with the north. Oh well, Burien is looking better and better!
Post a Comment