The P-I has summary of the city’s streetcar plans. The lines proposed (quoted from the article):
- A 3.5-mile line to the University District from Westlake Center, extending the South Lake Union line northeast via Eastlake Avenue East, the University Bridge, Northeast Campus Parkway and up University Way to Northeast 50th Street. Estimated cost: $179 million in 2010 dollars, or $50 million-plus per mile.
The city estimates it could carry up to 3.1 million riders per year. Major costs include reinforcing the University Bridge and reinforcing or replacing a span on Fairview Avenue that crosses a corner of Lake Union.
The 1.3-mile South Lake Union line, opened last year, cost $40 million per mile of track and is projected to carry about 330,000 annually. Since Dec. 12, its first day open, 200,000 have ridden the line.
- A four-mile line through downtown on First Avenue, connecting the King Street Station area and extending north to Seattle Center. Estimated cost: $180 million, roughly $45 million per mile. Ridership is estimated at up to 4.9 million annually.
- A 4.4-mile line from Westlake Center to Fremont and Ballard, extending along the west side of Lake Union, across the Fremont Bridge and up Leary Way Northwest to 22nd Avenue Northwest and Northwest Market Street. Estimated cost: $130 million, roughly $29 million per mile, with up to 2.7 million riders per year.
- A 2.8-mile line from Pioneer Square to First Hill and Capitol Hill, extending up South Jackson Street from Fifth Avenue east to Boren Avenue and Broadway, as far north as East Aloha Street. Estimated cost: $110 million, or about $39 million per mile. This line was part of a transportation ballot measure rejected by voters last fall but could be included in another Sound Transit expansion proposal if one is put to a vote.
The biggest challenge is obviously funding, and as the article mentions public-private partnerships would likely be needed. Some on the City Council are against spending on the Streetcar without proof of results. This is ridiculous to me, I think we can already call the SLU street car a massive successful from a least development standpoint. Millions of square feet of office space are being build around the SLU streetcar, the Amazon buildings by themselves are some 2 million square feet, with 1918 Eighth Ave, 818 Stewart the West 8th building and the office portion of the Enzo nearly another two million combined. The other Vulcan SLU properties combine to reach almost another million square feet. All of these are within just two blocks of the streetcar. Each million square feet of office space generally counts for about 4,000 office workers, so those offices could be 20,000 desks and jobs. That’s not even including the massive residential developments happening.
Obviously, all of that cannot be attributed to the streetcar, but some of it can be. I am sure the city would not have agreed to the taller buildings for Amazon had it not been for the streetcar. The heights along the other routes aren’t high enough to allow for the kind of density in the Denny Triangle and SLU, but some major developments are going on in the Westlake area that the Fremont proposal would serve.
So I’m definitely for extending the SLU line to the UW, that seems like a no-brainer. The others also seem like a good idea, though I wish the First Avenue line would be a proper subway, and would go up to at least Uptown around the Seattle Center. A 1st Ave streetcar might ruin the chance of that ever happening, and might especially keep a 1st Ave subway from getting federal funding.
Update I originally wrote the 1st Ave Streetcar would cost $180 per mile, it would instead cost $180 for four miles. I have removed the offending text, thanks Brad for pointing it out.
Could we please have some critical thinking on this blog, instead of just automatic support for anything that runs on rails?
The SLU may have encouraged development, but that does not mean it is a successful transit project. The SLU was a key point in many of the development plans of Vulcan, et. all. I’ve yet to see any numbers on whether the ridership is enough to consider it a successful transit project, which should be our criteria for extending the line.
With the SLU trolley running at grade, having a history of traffic accidents (more the fault of drivers, but still impacting), the issues with bicycle traffic on the rails, etc. I’m highly dubious about the utility of this mode of transit. Let’s put money where it will get the most use, which seems to be light rail. The SLU appears to be little more than a shiny trinket for developers to use as a feature of their new office parks and condos, rather than offering real transit choices.
Some of these lines have merit, but I wouldn’t be see bold as to point out the “Seattle Streetcar – South Lake Union Line” as a obvious success. The report says it carries 1,000 people a day. Meanwhile, Metro is carried 22,000 more people a day this first quarter of 2008 over the same period last year and most of the Transit Now improvements are yet to come (see: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transtoday/2008news/apr/tt042808_continuedgrowth.htm). I’m sure the SLU Line ridership has room to grow, but after 5 months of operation it is too early to say it is a success.
As far as development and densification goes, the rapidity of development and intensity of the same is a result of the quasi-monopolistic interest Paul Allen has in the neighborhood and plenty of money to burn. A streetcar is a nice marketing ploy and way to assuage planners that the added density is mitigated with more transit.
There has been a lot of density in Ballard and I don’t see any light rail line. I do see overhead wires. Could it be the trolley(bus)? that is the cause?
After examining these proposals, I think they are redundant to many bus routes. This isn’t about transportation. This is a showpiece for the city.
People are more likely to ride a streetcar than a bus. Especially on a corridor like First Ave where there are lots of tourists. I think it makes tremendous sense.
By definition, the addition of streetcars to the transit mix provides greater transit choices overall.
Brad, you’re missing a big fact. The people who will be riding the street cars are people who are now riding the bus. How many people do do you think are currently jumping in their cars to get from first hill to downtown, or from Campus Parkway to downtown? They aren’t. They are now taking the bus to make that trip. The street car, because it is so localized, will not create many new public transit riders, it will just canabalize from buses.
I believe this proposal is more a jobs works program, a way to spur development, and as I said before, a city showpiece. if you believe this is about transportation, I don’t consider you a critical, unbiased, and serious transportation thinker.
I wish at least a few of you would just be honest and admit that the real reason you like it is it makes you feel more cosmopolitan and european to have a street car system in your city.
If the trolley was free (or a quarter)it would be used much more, personally I wouldn’t spend $1.75 on a one mile trip EVER.
Shouting louder doesn’t change an idea’s merit (or lack thereof).
Well, at least the McIveresque comments here give a few good chuckles. Who, indeed, would believe that a streetcar is “about transportation”? Clearly only some poor fool, deluded by the evil machinations of Paul Allen and his civil-service make-work projects.
(Memo to self- some incongruity here trying to believe that Paul Allen is simultaneously a cut-throat entrepreneur and a sponsor of make-work city projects.)
But let’s look at some of these throw-away lines, like the idea that a streetcar is a “way to assuage planners that the added density is mitigated with more transit.” And this is supposed to be a bad thing?
Planners, after all, are the people we hire to think about just this sort of problem. We spend even more money collecting information for them, so they can apply what they have learned about the experience of those who went before us to preventing problems. The whole idea, in fact, is that if they’re not worried, you shouldn’t need to worry either, and if they are worried, you will be worried too, in the near future. Witness the current state of transportation in Puget Sound.
Or, how about the idea that “the SLU may have encouraged development, but that does not mean it is a successful transit project”. Here’s a newsflash for ‘anonymous’- if a goal of the project was to encourage development, and development was encouraged, it’s a success. There isn’t an elevator in the city that measures success by farebox recovery, or by how many people choose to use it instead of the stairs, but people still put elevators in their buildings.
And, of course, Sam, with “This is a showpiece for the city.” This is the kind of remark you usually hear at the ribbon-cutting for a new park or art museum, or a clinic or school. But to Sam, this is a bad thing. Now, having worked at Harborview and University before they became showplace hospitals for the region, I kind of share his regret for the passage of the poorly lit and inadequate facilities of the past. Those were the days!
But, time moves on, and, alas, so must I. So many targets, so little time! And even before M1ek has had his morning cup of joe. This could be a fun thread.
And- Good work by SDOT to dig in and come up with some routes that serve markets and cost less than the commonly accepted figure of $50 mil per mile. (The 1st Ave line is estimated at $45 mil per mile, $180 mil total.)
The only one I think they’re missing is from Fremont to U of W. There really isn’t a good cross-town route north of Lake Union and south of 45th, and a lot of people live there.
Sam, bus to rail direct conversions usually see ridership boosts immediately. That means people who didn’t previously ride that bus start riding that streetcar.
This is mostly because people are more aware of where something on rails goes, and it’s more permanent to them. This reasoning applies to developers as well – a bus route could simply stop, it could be rerouted, it’s “flexible” – also known as “unreliable”.
By the way, the FTA agrees with me – the federal agency responsible for transit – even when led by this anti-transit administration!
I love it!
A few qualms-
I don’t know if the Ballard extension is a good idea. It could turn out it needs more. Also, I think it would be a mistake to go down what looks like Westlake instead of Dexter; there is too much climbing for pedestrians to do for those on Queen Anne who would otherwise walk to Dexter, and there is less traffic on Dexter.
A quick cost effectiveness calculation shows us which routes are the best deal-
Tie for 1 – First Hill/Broadway and King Street/Belltown/Seattle Center
2 – Fremont/Ballard
3 – Eastlake/University
These routes are remarkably close to ones I had drawn myself! I see this as a sign that there are some routes that just make too much sense to build ;-)
Streetcar Map
Obviously from what I drew I would like to see an upper Queen Anne and Capitol Hill/Madison Street extentions. In today’s day and age, there HAS to be someway to get those things up hills. However, this is a fantastic start!! So happy there is a zoo connection in Fremont :-)
Ben, then it is your assertion that the SLUSC line is used by a large number of people who never used to take the bus, rather used to drive their car to make part, or all of that trip?
I think that adding streetcar lines is a great idea, as long as they connect together. If we don’t keep building something that is affordable , and can be built now, we’re going to end up with another monorail-type failure. Yeah, who wouldn’t love subways criss-crossing the city? But can we afford it and have it built in our lifetimes? No. Let’s do something we can actually use before we die.
I agree wtih daimajin about the 1st ave line. it should be underground along 1st, turn left underground at Easy Street Records, and then pop out of Queen Anne Hill at about Mercer and Elliot and continue up 15th Ave W at grade to the Ballard Bridge.
I’d vote for that, Frank.
How much developable or redevelopable land is on each of these alignments?
What I would like to see is this.
My opinions are all focused on the potential King Street – 1st Ave – Seattle Center Route
I think this line has the largest potential for ridership but …
1. They need to make 1st avenue Northbound only for cars. Southbound is more than services by 2nd ave.
2. place the streetcar tracks in the southbound lanes of first ave (if possible so that Busses can also use those lanes in both directions to help relieve some of 3rd avenues bus traffic) or when the streetcars aren’t running (like late night)
This way the tracks are in their own area … and the cars in their own area … and no business will be affected, etc …
3. the line should loop at lower queen anne, not just the Seattle Center … maybe by the old QFC on Republican
4. AFAIK the Trio trams are quite up to the job … but they need to also invest in some of the 5-unit variants because 1st ave is a busy run for transit (especially for the Key Arena, Seattle Center, Pioneer Sq. Pikes Place Market, and Qwest / Safeco.
5. the line should terminate at king st in such a manner that it can easily be stretched up Jackson St.
6. Metro should offer free service for this line during events as well as the evenings to help the bars and restaurants (and to remove some drunk drivers and/or the need to drive to dinner /drinks). For Seattle Center events … like the Bite of Seattle / Bumbershoot / Folklife … they already run free busses … so this wouldn’t be too large a stretch.
I am fully behind this streetcar plan. I really hope we can make this happen. Like someone in the comments said, this system could be a showpiece for the city. I do almost anything to avoid riding a Metro bus, but I would ride a streetcar in a heartbeat.
The bus-to-rail conversion cases that are cited are invariably replacing buses with objectively superior rail service (some portions of reserved guideway or other improvements). It’s never apples-to-apples; Seattle’s streetcar is actually the best new case we have for “replace a bus with a streetcar that does the same thing the same way”, and so far, results are Not So Good.
Sam, you’re completely wrong that the streetcar riders are those who would have been riding the bus anyway, I’m sure Nickin206 can attest to this: he rides the thing every day.
Ballard is not a good comparison, and weakens that arguement. About 1400 units of housing have been built or will be built this decade in ballard. Seems like a lot, but SLU is getting about 12,000 housing units and office space of millions of square feet. That’s an entire order of magnitude more than what’s happening in Ballard.
pantograph trolleypole’s point about developing land is a good one. The Downtown CDB obvious has little space for a lot more development, though there are a bunch of parking garages on 1st ave that could eventually go away. Belltown has a little more land, but not as much as Westlake. Eastlake has little left.
The First Hill line will definitely spurn more development on the under-utilized areas in Little Saigon and First Hill.
m1ek: Actually, the SLU streetcar doesn’t replace a bus line — it’s an addition to several existing bus lines, some of which have added service.
That said, Seattle’s waterfront streetcar was an example of the opposite case — we replaced a streetcar that charged a fare with a free bus painted like a streetcar and the ridership plummeted.
Anyone able to find the video on the cities website. I can’t find it.
Steve: the waterfront streetcar had its own right of way. The SLUT (and the proposed new routes) don’t. Not the same at all.
I’ll trade a new jail in West Seattle for an at-grade, right of way rail line…
Streetcars may be glorified buses, but they’re glorified buses that get 50% more ridership, are safer, are quiter, and are better for the environment. And I think a 1st Ave subway is a terrible idea because if you’re going to put in a new subway it needs to connect into the existing transit infrastructure, i.e. the bus tunnel.
Oh, I just so wish that these could connect together. I mean, one more stop on that cap hill route and it could connect to the u district. Keep it moving west around lake union, and there would be a way to get from ballard to the U district that didn’t involve 45th street traffic!
Has a comparison been done on these routes between buses and streetcars (and/or other transit alternatives) for trip time, operating costs, construction costs, safety, noise, greenhouse gas emissions (operations and construction)?
I don’t think we can form reasoned opinions about this idea without this information.
Anonymous: Technically, the waterfront streetcar had only partial right-of-way (it was in traffic near Pioneer Square/ID), but you’re right — that is a non-trivial difference.
Still, I’d bet that the reason nobody takes the waterfront streetbus is not that it’s in traffic. It’s that it’s cramped, has tiny, dark windows, rides like a bus and has no olde-tyme charm or novelty.
Well, you know, by a happy coincidence this latest summary of four possible routes has been prepared by the Seattle Department of Transportation. If you didn’t know this you might guess it from the fact that somebody realized Westlake N. is grossly underused, and that streetcars can run over the Fremont Bridge.
At this point, though, you realize the wisdom of democracy, because it’s obvious from a lot of comments here that they would like nothing better than to see these proposals nibbled to death by mice.
In this case, it seems obvious that none of these proposals are going forward unless local property owners are willing to form LIDs to provide funding. I know this will enrage some commenters, but property owners are allowed to form LIDs to improve the value of their property. It may not matter too much to them to split hairs over trip times or other calculations of this nature if they see a streetcar as a durable improvement they’re willing to invest in.
Naturally, all of this is public process, although you may not have a vote on a LID where you don’t own any property (that’s what makes it ‘local’). Apparently in the case of the SLU trolley, city, state, and federal funding was added to the LID funding after public process determined the project was eligible. (Hint: Westlake N got repaved for the first time in 40 years when the streetcar tracks were installed- the cost of this repaving is generally included in “what the streetcar cost”.)
My point is, that if you think you’re a stakeholder, and you don’t like what’s going on, get in touch with your representative. Seattle has a tremendous inertia to do nothing about building rail transit, and if you’re in the majority, maybe you can help keep Seattle living, not in the past, which the Seattle of today does not resemble, but in a state of automobile addiction. We’ll thank you for it later.
Personally, I think SDOT did a great job of coming up with some potential routes in a timely manner. I imagine now the whole thing will hang fire until property owners are willing to foot the bill, but who knows- diesel at $4.50 a gallon is a powerful wakeup call, and not least for the managers running hundreds of diesel buses every day. Maybe change is in the air.
I’m sure all of you would like to read through the full report with details of the 4 proposed lines/extensions.
Executive summary
Here’s some juicy stats on the proposed “Central Streetcar Line” (Seattle Center to 23rd & Jackson via 1st Ave)
18 hours daily service with trains coming every 6 minutes (typical). Annual operating cost is $8.5M but after subtracting savings from [bus] route restructuring, farebox recovery, and sponsorship revenues, the net is only $0.2M! Ridership is estimated to be 85 riders/hr (4-5 million/yr).
I’m really excited.
I have a hard time buying most of the arguments people give for the streetcar. For example, I can’t imagine Amazon’s decision to move to SLU had anything to do with the streetcar. (They wanted to set up a campus in Seattle, and SLU is about the only contiguous real estate available for development.) The streetcar may a perk, but certainly not a motivator–no more than the Monorail encourages development in Queen Anne. Development happens for other reasons–look at Bellevue.
The argument that it’s more permanent is hard to believe given the counterexamples. (eg. the waterfront streetcar, and all the other historic streetcars.)
It’s certainly prettier, but that’s more a factor of age. Modern buses have nice interiors too, and old streetcars look just like old buses.
Overall, if it’s stuck in traffic just a like a bus, I just don’t see the advantage for me as a rider.
I do like the argument that “people are more aware of where something on rails goes.” I haven’t heard that one before, but it makes a lot of sense. I like the bus tunnel because I know exactly where it goes.
David, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the “we know where rail goes” argument, but let’s be fair here: of the in-city bus routes (single- and double-digit route #s) that streetcars would replace/supplement, how many have changed in the past 20 years? Or even the past 30 years? Most of them still run along largely the same routes they did back when they were operated by Seattle Transit.
Personally, when I say streetcars feel more “permanent” I am generally refering to “you know where it goes.” Of course just about any piece of infrastructure could be ripped up and torn down. However, with streetcars, they are highly unlikely to be re-routed, to have daytime/nighttime routes for the same number, there is usually a simple system map you can look at and know within seconds where you need to go, and they come much more often. Overall, streetcar feels like an intentional extension of the city, rather than something that whisks you through it.
Cale:
Ok. I guess rather than making decisions based on cost/benefit analysis or the actual utility of a particular mode of transit, we’ll just make decisions based on what “feels” better.
Nice try anonymous. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Of course cost/benefit from an economic standpoint should be the primary indicator of whether this is a good idea or not.
However, it would be stupid to dismiss how a mode of transportation feels. Obviously if it feels better to ride it more people will ride it. If it feels better to live around it more people will live around it. However, the total impact of this is not totally quantifiable. We can look at case studies, but no one can say for sure what the impact will be here. It is impossible to take in all the factors in a cost-benefit analysis. We are talking about extremely dynamic systems here.
If the cost-benefit and utility analysis show that streetcar has a high chance of getting more riders, getting transit oriented development to occur, and we can tap money from LIDs we should let intuition and common sense jump in and just make the decision to build it. From that point we have to follow through with our decision and make decisions about urban land use to get the most out of it.
Otherwise we run the risk of being mired down by study after study trying desperately to collect every fact that could possibly be mustered on the damn thing. We run the risk of splitting hairs, wasting time, running up costs, not getting anything done, and perpetuating the monopoly of the automobile.
What is a worst case scenario here? The only thing that would fuck up these routes is incompetence in making the most of it. We’ll reduce risk as much as we can but at some point you have to take that leap of faith.
Cale pretty much nails it. The people who don’t like streetcars would love to mire the whole thing in quibbling about details.
The idea that a bus ran there for 30 years and it worked just fine is baloney. In reality, when gas was cheap, people moved out of town because they didn’t like to depend on bus service. Now that gas is expensive, people are moving downtown because they don’t want to depend on bus service. The city-wide spike in housing prices during the mortgage balloon years should not be read as America’s love affair with the bus.
If a bus route hasn’t changed in 30 years, why isn’t that a streetcar? In those time frameworks the economy of the streetcar over the bus, and the higher taxable values along the line, can pay for any additional up-front cost.
And that’s always the way it’s framed- buses are cheap to begin with, and to heck with the long-term costs. Saying that you don’t care about the long term costs is about the same as saying you don’t think you’ll pay them, because the bus line may be discontinued, or reduced to a skeleton service for a few hold-outs who really believed the bus would keep running there.
And that’s how we end up with buses running for 40 years on routes where a streetcar would have paid for itself by now.
(Javascript void? Or, double-post city? I’ll try again.)