historylink.org
From the Central District News:
The LCC meeting on June 2 at CASC (500 30th Ave So) from 7:30-9:00 p.m. will feature presentations on the Seattle streetcar lifestyle, past, present and future.
Presenters include noted Puget Sound historian Junius Rochester and Jim Falconer, a prominent Seattle property owner and developer and an instrumental member of the planning committee for the successful creation of the first line of the new Seattle Streetcar network in South Lake Union (http://www.streetfilms.org/ride-the-seattle-streetcar/).
Learn how the area was built up into a city neighborhood based on three different historical routes and hear about the possibility of future routes in a citywide planning effort underway today.
NOW could we PLEASE invest in extending the old Benson Trolley / Streetcar line to Pier 90/91 BEFORE we tear down the viaduct.
It would take advantage of the 10 year lease for Holland America, Princess, and Carnival to bring about a half million transits to the Pier 91 through 2020.
The line should run through Myrtle Edwards – land the city and port already own.
Put a stop at each end of the the Amgen Campus. Amgen is currently paying a charter bus company to run shuttles from the campus into town.
The original design for the sculpture park HAD a Benson Trolley stop. Lets do that.
Then run it as far south along the water as Seawall and Viaduct reconstruction allow.
If you link as far south as Pier 66, ALL one million ship visitors, and crews, and pier workers can transit along the waterfront without adding to traffic on Elliott, Western and Alaskan Way, with TOURISTS paying the bulk of the revenue.
Along with almost a million ship visitors, the historic “green” trolley, could also connect the 4.1 million walk on passengers of the WSF, the West Seattle Water Taxi, and until the Viaduct comes down and amputates the line, bring them to Pioneer Square and the International District to meet up with the First Hill Trolley, Sounder, and Link Light Rail.
We already own the trolleys and the right of way (we only spent 20 years to get them) and we already own the equipment!!!
Just the 1.2 miles through Myrtle Edwards.
Five years back the Port and Amgen were even willing to help Pay for this
Build a temporary barn at the NORTH end of the line… under the Magnolia Viaduct, or behind the Grain Pier on port land. (the line had a temp barn its entire previous life!).
Once the Viaduct / Seawall project is done, we can reconnect with Pioneer Square, King St. Station…
We could even add 3 more blocks of track south on 5th, put a stop just before Dearborn, then cross it, and head down Airport Way South to the existing METRO yard, filled with electric trackless trolleys. There may be some shared maintenance opportunities there.
Dreaming a bit larger you could sent a spur onto the Metro property, and continue the line westbound on Edgar Martinez Way, cross 4th with the light, and have a station at Safeco Field/Ex Hall, then run up Occidental with another stop at Qwest North end. Then back to the main line…
But right now, we continue to “miss the boat” on creating a green, efficient way to move folks along the waterfront, and maybe even make some money doing so.
Not a hope. There is no chance of the line EVER being revived. I’ve asked everyone involved with BOTH the waterfront and the streetcar and they all had the same answer–
“There are no current plans to revive the WFSC, 1st Ave has been identified as a possible streetcar route, and the central waterfront will be an open space.”
Why is this considered an acceptable answer? Do we not have the success of the previous line to point to, not to mention all of the promotional photos of the city that included the Waterfront Streetcar? Can we not point to the successful F-Market line in San Francisco that runs down the now highway free Embarcadero? Are people serious that with a now wider right of way there is somehow no room for a waterfront streetcar?
Also why don’t the local elected officials have the guts to make an announcement that the Waterfront Streetcar is dead, won’t be coming back, and the cars are up for sale? I’d really like to get that in writing from the County Executive, every member of the County Council, the Mayor, every member of the City Council, and every member of the Port Commission.
As it stands there are no plans for a First Avenue streetcar line either other than a vague notion and a line on a map.
The way this whole situation has been handled by the County, the City, and the Port is shameful and underhanded. Is it any wonder that people worry the trolleybuses will be “temporarily suspended” never to return to the streets of Seattle again?
more relevantly, what groups are opposed to the revival?
city council shouldn’t care either way. Nickels is gone.
you would expect pioneer square businesses to be strongly in favor.
port should be in favor, since they have given so much of our money for cruise ship visitors.
I can see that both SDOT and WSDOT wouldn’t want it, but can’t see why McGinn or city council would care about either.
who is working to ensure that the George Benson Streetcar stays dead?
those empty green buses are an embarrassment.
Wasn’t the Waterfront Streetcar a part of the tunnel plans? The problem is, money to pay for it’s revival was not. I remember seeing all the drawings for the streetcar and seeing that the trolley’s were a part of each plan.
Yakima and Portland both have had success running historic streetcars. Issaquah is trying to do the same. I recall reading, here, I think, they are borrowing Yakima’s car initially…
The current design for Alaskan Way is bogus. I’m not kidding. It must go back to the drawing board. Reinstalling the Waterfront Streetcar is indeed possible and of course, highly desirable.
The Waterfront Streetcar Line was planned to be dropped from the start. For 5 years, SDOT director Crunican misled Seattlers to believe the streetcar line could be installed through the Wide Plaza with full knowledge of operational difficulty and extreme hazard. When this fallacy was finally admitted, the streetcar was dropped entirely, more to avoid scandal than admit other routes are possible.
Furthermore, the Wide Plaza promenade is also a total fraud. Managing traffic on Alaskan Way requires a 2-lane frontage road with islands between it and the 4-lane Alaskan Way, much like the current arrangement. Early designs (pre-Crunican) show this frontage road, considered necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. It’s necessary for managing thru-traffic and without it, traffic creates dangerous altercations between frustrated motorists and pedestrians.
The existing seawall sidewalk can be widened 6′ – 12′, room enough for fine amenities while maintaining the functionality of a working waterfront. The frontage road and the islands allow reinstalling the Waterfront Streetcar Line, makes possible east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock, a separated bikeway, better sidewalks, and more landscaping. Grace Crunican was fired.
We don’t accept this and we don’t agree. Period. As far as I’m concerned, the streetcar has been stolen from us. It is a crime, and I see no reason to just roll over and accept it.
Preaching to the choir here, Greg. Just hope the local politicos are listening in on our blog about this conversation. I can’t agree with you more. The opportunity we are missing by not running the Waterfront line as well as extending it north is outrageous. I have said before and will add a few things here:
#1 – Since the First Hill line will be sharing some trackway with the WF line, why can’t the new streetcar barn be large enough to hold both the new streetcars and old trolleys? Along the FH route, locate the streetcar barn in either Chinatown (below Jackson), Japantown (above Jackson) or Little Saigon (east of I-5). There is real estate there and close to the WF terminus at 5th and Jackson. The building could also house senior housing or condos above (much like the Greg Smith building that was originally proposed for the Waterfront Streetcar by Urban Visions).
#2 – Build the Central line as a couplet along 4th and 5th Aves and not down 1st Ave. It would be so much easier to tie the south end of the SLU line (since it ends at 5th currently) and the north end of the FH/WF lines (since they will also converge at 5th) to a Central line along 4th and 5th Aves. If you’re on 1st or 2nd Ave and need public transportation other than what is there, you have the option of walking down to the waterfront and catching the WF line or up to 3rd for a bus or light rail or 4th/5th the Central line.
I do think a streetcar down 5th (or a 4th/5th couplet) from the end of the SLU line to the ID would make sense. However I don’t see that precluding the “Central Line” down First through Belltown and Lower Queen Anne. Similarly I don’t see why having a line down First would mean you can’t have a historic streetcar service on the Waterfront.
Sure, capital and operating funds are limited, but we’re spending a boatload of money on replacing the viaduct, replacing the seawall, and rebuilding the waterfront. The additional cost of operations could perhaps come from a LID or something that hits the tourists like a rental car or hotel/motel tax. For that matter perhaps the Port could be convinced to fund operations, especially if the line was extended to Pier 91?
I’ve read on here that the Waterfront Streetcar actually turned a profit on operations. If that is the case, it seems insane not to include space in the FHSC barn for the Waterfront Line.
How did it turn a profit if it was free?
If it was free, then I want my money back – I’m pretty sure I paid to ride it!
When it was a streetcar it wasn’t free, even though it was in the Ride Free Area. You paid the same fare as buses, off-peak and peak.
It wasn’t free. The buses that replaced are.
It not only wasn’t free but it never turned a profit either. The Monorail is the only public transit that has ever run at a profit.
With Metro in as big a budget hole as they are there’s no way they can consider reinstating a tourist run (it never really was considered transit) unless the funding is provided from another source. In other words, forget about asking Metro to reinstate it. You need to be talking to the cruise ship lines, the waterfront businesses, Seattle tourism, etc.
While Metro may not have considered the streetcar transit – I know I’ve used it most times as transit. I think I used it just once as a tourist line.
I used the streetcar as transit too. I don’t think I’ve ever ridden the free “replacement” bus though.
I don’t know if the Waterfront Streetcar ever actually turned a profit on operations as both labor (a conductor and a motorman) and maintenance costs (old cars, plus the track and overhead) were fairly high. Even with that I’m pretty sure the farebox recovery was very respectable. I find it hard to believe that the current “free” bus is cheaper to operate than the subsidy the streetcar line required.
Speaking of the Monorail, Port Commissioner Tom Albro also is the head of Seattle Monorail Services, the company that owns and operates the Monorail. Perhaps he might have some ideas on how a moneymaking historic streetcar line along the Waterfront could be created.
Back in 1991 the waterfront streetcar was costing about $90 and hour to operate. Converted to present day value that would be about $140/hr; well above the cost of operating a bus. Farebox recovery of operating costs (not maintenance which is very costly for vintage rolling stock) was only 15%. Anyone that thinks it would be simple or cheap to rebuild the waterfront streetcar line needs to read, The Seattle Waterfront Streetcar — The Steep Grade from Idea to Reality by George Benson
Bernie, I’ll trust your numbers are accurate. I know operating and maintenance costs were high, but I thought the farebox recovery was better than 15%. The claims the streetcar turned a profit have been widely reported, including in both the Times and the PI.
Still I think there are good reasons to make a heritage streetcar line part of the rebuilt waterfront that aren’t necessarily about providing the most “cost effective” transportation option.
I agree, but to make that happen it’s important to remember the history of the waterfront streetcar. An idea that it’s going to be simple or cheap will lead to the same failure that doomed the monorail “Green Line”. Running a vintage railway is simply outside of the mandate for Metro. A model along the lines of the Seattle Monorail would be more appropriate. Perhaps something could be set up akin to the Pike Place Market Preservation & Development Authority. Certainly public funding could and should be available but Metro, as history has proven, is the wrong entity to head this up.
The article was one I had read before, and yes, it serves as a good refresher… but many metrics have changed for the waterfront. The two cruise ship piers along add almost a million transits in 5 months. The attractions along the waterfront have expanded greatly; the sculpture park, renovation of Pier 70, growth of the Clipper at Pier 69, the Amgen Campus, the Bell Street Pier Development at Pier 66, the Marriott, the Art Institute, and the World Trade Center – all of which have been added or improved upon since the last years of the Trolley….
And ALL which would be better served by a waterfront trolley vs. First Avenue.
After seeing the threefold increase in costs for the County to run the water taxi over Argosy, perhaps we should look to a private public partnership to extend and run the Benson Line.
Could someone explain to me (or just point me to a post) as to why streetcars are wise infrastructural investments? I totally get light rail. Since light rail has dedicated ROW it avoids traffic (except for at-grade crossings, where it has the priority anyway) so it’s faster than busses, plus trains can have many cars, so it has higher capacity than busses. But streetcars have neither of these advantages, they operate in totally shared ROW, even if they had priority at traffic signals (do they?) they still are susceptible to queues at lights, and my understanding is they can’t be more than a single articulated car. Given their lack of flexibility (what happens when there’s an accident in the ROW?, or construction?) compared to busses, what is it about streetcars that make them worthwhile to spend money on building them over adding an equivalent bus route? I assume Seattle got rid of its old trolleys in favor of the “trackless trolleys” for a reason?
Streetcars can have dedicated ROW and signal priority, but often do not. Of course, the same can be said of buses (electric or not). The investment in streetcars, as with ETBs, is capital costs vs operating costs since the vehicles are more efficient and last longer than a diesel bus.
Also, at least right now streetcars are very popular with developers, who see the public investment in very visible rail as selling point for their properties (indeed, the SLU Streetcar may have been what bagged a massive long-term tenant for Vulcan).
There also seems to be a ridership bump for streetcars vs buses but I’m suspicious that’s because streetcars are currently a novelty. Personally I’d much rather we put future available capital for local transit improvements into a BRT-like system for electric buses, like the Rapid Trolley Network plan.
“The investment in streetcars, as with ETBs, is capital costs vs operating costs since the vehicles are more efficient and last longer than a diesel bus.”
Actually, it’s not. Streetcars have higher operating costs than buses per service hour. Streetcars have slightly higher capacity than articulated buses, so it is conceivable that they could have slightly lower operating costs per passenger hour than an equivalent bus, but there are currently no routes with high enough ridership to make that theoretical possibility relevant.
No, streetcars are not cheaper. The justification for streetcars lies in the fact that they generate greater benefits than equivalent bus, not in lower operating costs.
The benefits of streetcars relative to buses are higher ridership, in particular, the ability to attract a different kind of rider: the middle class choice rider, and the ability to catalyze development. These advantages do not, as you suggest, stem from the fact that streetcars are a “novelty”.
Middle Class Riders
Streetcars have the following advantages:
1.) Smoother, quieter, and more comfortable.
2.) Easier to understand given the visual cue provided by the tracks and stations.
3.) A cultural perception that they are “classy”. Buses are perceived by many to be a social service for the chronically poor. This results in a cultural stigma against buses. Many potential riders do not ride buses because of this stigma. Subtle racism is also a part of the equation.
Each of these advantages could, in principle, be achieved with rubber-tired vehicles. Buses are uncomfortable primarily because of poorly maintained streets, aging vehicles and poor interior vehicle design. One need only ride one of Vancouver’s new electric trolly buses on a well maintained road to see how close a bus can be brought to the “streetcar experience”.
With respect to ease of understanding, a number of visual cues can be employed with buses including streetcar style stations, banners, electric trolley wires and, at the most extreme, painting “tracks” in the pavement.
However, even optimized electric buses are not quite as smooth, comfortable and easy to understand as streetcars. Furthermore, the level of capital investment necessary to make a bus line that comfortable is actually fairly close to the investment you would need to make to build a streetcar. So if you’re committed to making a multimillion dollar investment anyway, why not go all the way?
The cultural bias against buses can be overcome slowly as the quality of bus service increases, particularly with respect to comfort. As quality improves, more middle class riders are attracted, which creates a bit of a transit line gentrification cycle, in which the greater proportion of middle class riders makes the service more attractive to even more middle class riders. However, as I said this is a slow process. Streetcars, because they are perceived as being fundamentally different from buses, make it possible to short-circuit this process and attract middle class riders immediately, and again, if you’re willing to spend enough money to really make a bus route competitive, why not just spend a bit more and jump to the end?
Catalyzing Development
The other major advantage of streetcars is that they are catalysts for development. The primary reason for this is precisely because they attract middle class choice riders. Developers build for the middle class, not for the poor. Thus, they gravitate toward public investments that are attractive to the middle class.
While the ability to attract the middle class is the primary reason streetcars drive development, there are two other reasons: permanence and signaling.
The permanence of Streetcars reduces risk, which is attractive to developers for obvious reasons. Streetcars are more permanent than trolley buses precisely because they are expensive. The SLUT’s ridership is so poor that it would easily be on the top of the chopping block given metro’s current budget crisis, but the city is willing to continue to subsidize this ridiculous route for the same reason that people hang on to falling stocks: the irrational perception that you haven’t really wasted the money until you “give up” and sell, or in the case of the city “give up” and cut service on the streetcar line you just spent millions to build. Of course it is possible to cut streetcar service, just look at the waterfront streetcar, but it remains less likely, all else being equal.
More importantly than permanence, however, is a phenomenon that economists call “signaling”. Because a streetcar represents a major public investment in an area, it acts as a “signal” to developers and to potential tenants that the city is committed to making further investments in said area. It signals that the city has made an informed judgement that the area has tremendous potential and is thus worthy of significant investment. The city is essentially placing a $50 million bet on South Lake Union. If Warren Buffet was buying thousands of shares of a particular stock, wouldn’t you want to buy some too? You might think: “I may not know what he know, but he wouldn’t waste his money if there wasn’t something going on here. Even if I don’t understand it, I am willing to bet that he does.” The same applies to South Lake Union and the city’s investment there.
This, in essence is the “logic” of streetcars. Notice that it has nothing to do with dedicated right of way or speed. Speed certainly helps, but it is not the only reasons to build rail.
Light rail is a more potent investment than a streetcar, precisely because speed does help, but if speed were all that mattered, express buses / bus rapid transit would give you the same speed for much less money. Light rail, however, combines all the advantages of streetcars, discussed above, with the advantages of BRT (speed), creating the “ultimate” transit infrastructure investment combination, and also the ultimate expense.
Which is more important, the comfort / development advantages of rail or the speed advantage of BRT (if for some reason one were to have to choose)?
The answer depends on the length of the corridor under consideration. The importance of speed increases with distance. The difference between 20 mph and 40 mph is less than 5 minutes if your trip is less than three miles, so for these kind of distances, a streetcar in mixed traffic beats a bus with dedicated ROW, but for longer trips, speed makes a bigger difference. A streetcar to Fremont makes a lot of sense, a streetcar to Northgate does not. This is not to say that three miles is the magic cutoff; I only mean to highlight the principal: the relative importance of speed increases with distance.
Tony, interesting as always and I mostly agree. I’d like to point out that the “cultural perception” you mention is exactly what I mean by “novelty.”
Also, the SLU Streetcar *does* have lower operating costs than diesel routes *for the vehicles*, which makes sense considering they run on inexpensive electricity and of course have one operator just like a bus. It’s when you add in the base and maintenance crews that the overall costs looks bad, which also makes sense as the bus bases have the advantage of scale. If Seattle had a true streetcar network with say a hundred of vehicles the overall streetcar system costs would be a lot lower. As for ridership, it’s roughly the middle of the pack at 1300/day which is not at all poor.
And minor note: the SLU line does have a small amount of dedicated ROW along Lake Union Park, and will soon get the last couple short blocks of Westlake as part of the McGraw Streetcar Plaza project as well:
http://www.publicola.net/2010/04/27/our-little-times-square/
There’s not normally traffic congestion on Westlake anyway, the slowness problem is the number of cross streets due to the grid collision in Denny Triangle.
I don’t know that streetcar as a transit mode offers any operational benefit over buses, but I sure do prefer riding in a streetcar than on a bus. I really appreciate the level boarding and much more room if my journey involves carrying packages of any bulk (groceries, guitar, etc.) So I think streetcars are a good way to encourage transit use on short- to medium-length trips involving light- to medium-haulage.
In the case of the Benson, it also had ROW, which will be worth gold when the trucks start clogging Alaskan Way, since the tunnel was designed primarily to serve North Seattle commuters (who would mostly rather have RapidRide or use light rail, but then, Governor Gregoire didn’t ask them).
Not having a transit plan for Alaskan Way will mean lots of parking lots, and tourist car congestion. Maybe the new administration can grasp that 1st Ave is up a hill from the Benson, and the Benson, unlike any proposed 1st Ave streetcar, already has dedicated ROW (unlike the SLUT).
Nor, as has been pointed out previously, is there any transit service to the cruise ports. What a shame.
I think the 1st Ave Streetcar is a goofy idea, sans continuation outside of downtown. We have plenty of bus service both ways on that street.
Yes, let’s take a look at what it would take to put Alaskan Way on an SOV diet so that freight can move and a streetcar can whiz waterfront patrons past congestion.
But I still hope it becomes feasible to couple the Benson and the First Hill Streetcar, so waterfront patrons end up cruising through Little Saigon, and then up to Capitol Hill. (kinda like San Francisco’s cable cars up Nob Hill)
“Nor, as has been pointed out previously, is there any transit service to the cruise ports.”
The waterfront bus goes there.
Streetcars have simple electric motors that don’t wear out for a long time, and wired vehicles can be powered from a variety of energy sources that aren’t feasable with self-powered vehicles. Of course, trolleybuses have these advantages too, so in that sense trolleybuses are similar. But the rails add efficiency in terms of energy per mile, as does the ability to “train” railcars together so they can share momentum.
“But the rails add efficiency in terms of energy per mile, as does the ability to “train” railcars together so they can share momentum.”
True, but we are so far away from reaching the level of demand necessary to justify multi-car streetcars that it is a moot point. Regenerative breaking would make a big difference, but it is unclear to me whether streetcars offer this feature. Anyone know?
Yes, most modern streetcars, including the Skoda’s used here, have regenerative braking.
Streetcars are a far superior riding experience. I suggest you fo out of your way to give the streetcar a try and think about what it was like next time you ride a bus.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Nate: a superior rider experience. That translates into higher ridership, and that is why streetcars are a worthwhile investment, or at least why they can be a worthwhile investment if the routes are well planned.
Thanks for the ear all… as best I can tell up until the Viaduct became a big issue, it was openly stated the Benson Streetcar would return. Everyone quoted in the Times and PI and Seattle Weekly was aboard. The Port at one point opted to pay in to see it happen. Amgen offered as well. Articles in the final two year stated ridership of more than 200,000 a year. The SAM Sculpture Park originally had two stops planned, one at either end.
When the talks shifted to Seattle’s new streetcar initiative, the Benson Trolley took time and money and interest away.. there seemed to be some concern folks might think they were getting a similar product. The Viaduct got mired in debate, the line went dark and now we have cars we paid for sitting in a warehouse (hopefully) a vague promise it might return after the viaduct is built, and a lot of diversion… “Stop thinking about that… Look at this cool FIrst Avenue line… which pretty much does the same thing [it does NOT!] (I actually got that paraphrased to me from Grace Cunchin in an email boilerplate response to one of my queries.!)
In the meantime, I work part time with moving folks at both piers. A historic, green trolley would be a boon to help with the flow, it would allow mid day transit to town and back prior to sailing, would be used by all staff at both piers, and would probably pay for itself within the ten year lease on Pier 91 in the five summer month cruise season alone! Amgen has stopped adding to its campus and one reason some think is the poor transportation… thats why they pay big bucks to a charter bus company to shuttle between town and the campus several times each HOUR all day long.
IF the city, the county and Metro will not do it, would they at least consider leasing it to an private consortium to build the rails from pier 70 to 91, and run the trolley south to the Ferry dock until the viaduct comes down, then to at least the Aquarium during construction.
We taxpayers in the form of city, county, metro and state and paid MILLIONS to get tourists and cruise ships here… the least we can do is attempt to recoup SOME of the spoils. Let tourists help underwrite the costs. I bet we can lay rails and start up this 2 mile line for a LOT less than 52 million…
Anyone want to run a shortline? Count ME in… I would be thrilled to pre-sell tickets at the pier.
You are correct that the Waterfront and 1st Ave streetcars serve fundamentally different purposes. They are not redundant and building one should not be used as an excuse not to build the other. However, even though they are not redundant, they would be perceived as redundant by most of the population. Transit nerds understand the subtle differences, but the general public just looks at two streetcar lines at $30 million per mile built two blocks apart and sees redundancy. Furthermore, the two lines do compete with each other for resources. Given that, I think 1st Ave should be a higher priority. 1st Ave is surrounded by more trip generators, and in particular, those trip generators are locals meeting their everyday needs, not “outsiders” just here for a couple of days. I know that there is a huge economic benefit to tourism, but that’s the politics of it. Also, a 1st Ave line can be connected to the SLUT (making it actually functional), while a waterfront line cannot.
Once 1st Ave (or 5th Ave) gets built, I’ll be all on board to bring back the waterfront streetcar.
I hate rain on anyone’s parade, but before spending US$50M or twice that for ROW and some new streetcars to Pier 91 please consider the following.
You’ll find that the vast majority of our cruise ship passengers are arriving or departing the ships docked at the two termini. These are not “port of call” passengers who arrive in the morning (as in Kethchikan or Skagway for example) and leave at night. They arrive at the ship from the airport of from a hotel with their week’s worth of (way too much) baggage, and when the ship returns (at 6:00 in the morning)they take all that baggage plus their newly acquired Alaskan booty straight to the airport or to a hotel for a couple of days of R&R from their cruise. Those folks are NOT, I repeat NOT, going to be riding the “extended” waterfront streetcar to/from the Aquarium and the Colman Dock ferry terminal with all their baggage. Further, the cruise ship business is primarily a Friday-Saturday-Sunday operation in the months of May through September, 60 days out of 365. I’d ask the park department about use of Myrtle Edwards park, and the SAM about use of the Sculpture Park. I seriously doubt you’ll find enough passengers (except for workers at Amgen) to make this a viable proposition.
Some commentators above may wish to persue the “private” option. I wish them well.
Even if most cruise passengers go straight from the Airport to the ship and vice versa enough people get off to see the sights that the Market and the Waterfront is crowed any day the ships are entering or leaving port.
During the peak of the season there are ships arriving and departing 7 days a week.
Now you may be right and it may not make sense to extend the streetcar any further North than the sculpture park, but lets at least take a look at it. One other factor is the Port wants to re-develop the Pier 90/91 uplands north of the Magnolia Bridge. An extended streetcar could provide access to this development.
I’m not entirely sure there would be ROW acquisition costs involved. Most of the land needed is owned by the City or the Port. Though some BNSF land might be needed.
Only about 30 of the 223 arrival/departures are mid-week in 2010 – all the rest are on Friday, Saturday or Sunday except at the beginning and the end of the season when there are some “port of call” visits.
The Port predicts 800K+ cruise passengers spread over 5 months this year – if 10% rode a streetcar whilst in town that’d be 80K riders (16K/ month or 500/day); a significant chunk of ridership, I’ll admit.
And from Jarret at Human Transit today:
I remember the Waterfront Streetcar well. It was cute. But it ran mostly on a single track, and therefore could never run very frequently, which is a problem because it was supposed to serve very short trips; the whole line was only 1.6 miles long. I spent a lot of time on the waterfront in the course of downtown-related consulting projects in 2000-05. Just ONCE in all those years, I happened to be in a place where (a) it was going where I was going and (b) I saw it coming. So on that one providential day, I rode it. But since it couldn’t be counted on, it did nothing to expand my range of mobility, my sense of where I could go, in that part of the city.
So yes, as a provider of actual mobility — getting people where they were going — it was useless. But if it had been a great tourism amenity, or if it garnered broad enthusiasm as a recreational service and as a statement of Seattle’s embrace of its own history, then sure, it would have been great.
But let’s remember where the Waterfront Streetcar ran. (If it had been scenic, I’d have pictures, but if someone else has them, send and I’ll post.) It was not right on the pedestrianised waterfront, where it might have integrated with the streetscape. It was on the opposite side of six-lane Alaskan Way, and directly under a double-decker freeway, and next to a lot of all-day parking lots. Cuteness in such a grim setting can look a little forlorn, so it’s not surprising that it failed to stir civic hearts, or tourist industry wallets, as the San Francisco cable cars and historic streetcars do.
The rallying cry of “legacy transit,” too, can cut several ways. It’s fun to be sentimental about the glory days of the streetcars, circa 1900, especially since nobody alive can remind us of what life was really like then — the prejudice, the violence, the grim prospects, the sewage flowing in the street. But it seems like every city is trying to be sentimental about that era, so why not do something else? Why focus your nostalgia on an era when you were a small and remote logging port?
As one of the more than 400 folks involved in meeting these ships, I would like to both agree, but also correct a few notes Lloyd:
Yes, the vast majority of our cruise ship passengers are arriving or departing the ships docked at the two termini. Yes, they are not “port of call” passengers – about a third arrive the day BEFORE they sail or stay longer, and would use the trolley to check out the waterfront. Many arrive early the same day of sail, and once delivered to the ship are STUCK aboard until it sails. The Trolley would allow them to escape into the waterfront for a few hours before the run life boat drill. Each ship has at least 400 to 800 CREW who DO have the day off and have to wait at the pier until the van shuttles can take them… So few can make it into town, they have a small store for the crew at pier 91. A trolley could get them cheaply to the base of the Pike Place Hill Climb…
Then there are the couple hundred who WORK the piers, who have to get to and from work. Many cannot afford to drive, and the bus is a mile away, thank you.
Beginning THIS year, the cruise ship business is FRIDAY Through TUESDAY all summer long…
And we should point out ththose working at Amgen and all along the waterfront from the World Trade Center, Art Institute, all the CONDOS, with more than 6,000 folks who live from Broad Street NOrth to Pier 86 above piers and all the offices from Pier 70 NORTH who have lots of folks working and living YEAR ROUND. Like the 1200 folks at Holland America, and those folks at F5, Amgen and so on… YEAR ROUND support of the Trolley, but enhanced by tourism 5 months of the year.
Far more in the neighborhood than the last years of the line. FAR more. And it should not cost us 50 million for this 1.2 mile run. We already own the land. It is level fill, mostly unpaved sludge dumped there from years past… No roads to tear up, few utilities to relocate, cost should be far less than 50 million…
Ack! Holy Wrong Thread Batman! Someone please delete!
Well well well. My post supporting reinstallation of the Waterfront Streetcar Line was removed, probably because it exposed Grace Crunican’s “fraudulent” redesign of Alaskan Way, especially how the Wide Plaza is not a feasible design. Censorshipola. Seattle psuedo-environmentalists might have a hissy-fit if they learn how they’re made fools by automobile-related business interests that dictate DOT planning.
Hint: Seattle traffic is as bad as it is because these dictatorial interests like it that way. The more chaotic the traffic, the sooner cars wear out and are replaced. Ka-ching! They figure it’s too expensive to save the planet from ecological collapse, so golden parachutes are their investment priority.
Wells, your comment is in the thread above. Please leave your conspiracy theories at the door.
SDOT is either incompetent or corrupt or both. The deep-bore tunnel and related surface street ‘derangements’ go uncriticized by sycophants and psuedo-environmentalists. I’ll criticize the project til enough of you numbskulls realize it’s a mistake. I’m a patriot looking out for Seattle’s best interest.
Thank you to everyone who came out to the Streetcar talk last night; thanks to STB for the plug!
It was a great dialogue and lots of folks in our ‘hood are interested to see what’s up with the plans for the new lines, and our neighbor and historian Junius Rochester had some inside intel on some of the bigwigs who live in Madrona. The Waterfront Streetcar definitely seems to still be important to folks who make decisions around here, and those who have their ear.
Facebook users can show support on FB for the Waterfront Streetcar here and for the proposed
Central Line here.
[...] agree with Tony the Economist, but he usually brings a unique and intelligent perspective. In this comment, he lays out the main points in the argument for streetcars with characteristic deftness. I [...]