SLU Streetcar and Monorail, by Oranviri, via the STB flickr pool
A lot of people say that streetcars are really most useful if they are traffic-separated, unlike the SLUT which generally runs in lanes shared with traffic. I’d say they are still useful even in shared lanes, but I want to show an example of how, over time, streetcar systems can develop into traffic separated and even grade-separated transit. San Francisco’s Muni Metro has developed from a streetcar network to a hybrid system that has a mix of shared-lanes, at-grade but traffic-separated lanes, and even fully grade-separated routing.
San Francisco’s Muni Metro started as an entirely at-grade streetcar system. The first lines, A-H, all now defunct, were surface lines. Over time, various degrees of separation came about. Land for a private right-of-way was acquired for the J-line. In 1918 the Twin Peaks Tunnel was constructed, with two subway stations, and eventually the K, L and M lines ran through it. The Sunset Tunnel, which has no stations, was constructed for the N line. Ironically, it was those separated sections that meant these lines would still run after the other streetcars were replaced by buses in the middle part of the 20th century.
T-Third Street tracks, via Wikipedia
Over decades, portions of some of the lines were moved to separated sections in the road ways they operated. When BART was built in the 1970s, all of the lines moved into the new Market Street Tunnel. This decade, the T Third Street opened with most of its track in a separate right of way, and with all high-platform stations like Link has through the Rainier Valley. Even in the last few years plans for a Central Subway connecting new downtown neighborhoods with the rest of the muni system have been approved.
A Central Subway Routing Map, via the SFMTA map.
So what’s the point? Streetcars won’t necessarily prevent real rapid transit from being built. If the system is done correctly, streetcars can both take advantage of the rapid transit construction, and can themselves become rapid transit. Now, I’m not saying just because it happened there that it will happen here. Obviously, timing and a bit of luck played a big part in the development of that systems but San Francisco is not the only place this has happened. In Philadelphia, many of the streetcars operate in a tunnel shared with SEPTA’s rapid transit system. As Seattle becomes more dense, these streetcars can play a big role in transit, and become a part of a city-wide rail network. It just takes a bit of time and vision.
Has anyone else noticed that the “central line” would go all the way to 23rd ave?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/390343_streetcar03.html
That’s way east, and just a few blocks south of garfield high!
(Go bulldogs!)
I’ve heard 23rd as well:
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/future.asp
plus other sources.
The P-I map actually looks like empire way, which is another 5 blocks toward the lake. I think 23rd would be the actual terminus.
SF Muni has one of the oldest streetcars I have ever heard of. There are a few that might be older, but Muni No.1 is special. It was built for SF Muni in 1912, the year MUNI first started, making it the oldest vehicle built for a publicly-owned system in the country. It’s out of service for now, but they are planning to fix the wiring so it can be running in time for the 100th Birthday. THey also have PCC cars in storage that can be fixed up to add service on the F line, and start the E-line. I heard the Geary Corridor has the density to support rail but they are pushing BRT on that one instead.
The F line is full of beautiful old rail cars, many from around the world. I’ve been in cars from Hiroshima, Milan, and Boston.
Geary is an odd one. From Richmond until Van Ness it’s like a highway. About like Aurora really, though surrounded by San Francisco density rather than north seattle sparcity.
I’m sure transit heads would love to put a streetcar there, but with traffic the way it is, there’s no room to spare, even for construction.
Plus, it would be really difficult to get rail across those grades. From Van Ness to Gough, you get Cathedral hill, then way down to the cut on Filmore, then back up to Anza Vista on the Hill again. It’s hundreds of feet each time, and that’s only about a mile.
And yet, Geary was the site of the first line built by the San Francisco Municipal Railway, the nation’s first municipally-owned street railway.
Muni ran streetcars on Geary for years until replaced by the route #38 buses, i believe shortly after WWII.
Right, but the road way has been replaced since then. If the road didn’t go down under Filmore street, no problem, but that extra 100 feet each way make the grade impossible.
Actually, here in SF the MTA is planning a “rail-ready” bus rapid transit line on Geary, at least west of Van Ness (also a BRT line on Van Ness). Both lines will have dedicated, separate lanes for buses with level boarding platforms. For the grades at Cathedral Hill and furher out at Masonic, the line will use existing tunnels built for the Geary “expressway” in the 50’s. Yes there will be some dimunition of auto capacity, and loss of parking but the Geary bus line carries something like 70,000 people a day (more than most light rail lines) and is the busiest bus line west of Chicago. Hopefully, when this is a success, there will be political will to add rail and build a subway from Van Ness to connect it downtown.
Wasn’t Seattle’s bus tunnel “rail ready”…lol
You have to walk before you run. People talk a lot about separating it out immediately, but you need to prove the concept first since nobody is going to approve and nobody is willing to take the right of way int he first place.
I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if 10-15 years from now, the next stage of streetcars is contemplated. Elevated? Tunnel under part of Madison?
That photo of the T-Third Street tracks … that is what I’d like to see on 1st ave for the central tram line here in Seattle … that and making 1st ave Northbound only for vehicular traffic (we already have 2nd ave running southbound)
This would allow for better traffic flow through downtown and still allow for parking on both sides of 1st ave
Tn = Tram northbound
Ts = Tram southbound
P = Parking
V = vehicular traffic
Tn Ts P v v v P
Tn Ts P v v v P
Tn Ts P v v v P
or perhaps, since the market is on the west side of 1st ave
P v v v P Tn Ts
P v v v P Tn Ts
P v v v P Tn Ts
as for lower queen anne … the tram should run split on 1st ave north (northbound) and on Queen Anne Ave N. (southbound) like the busses do today. On these streets, the single track could easily be also made into a dedicated bus/tram lane
Ideally, the old QFC at 1st ave N and Mercer (well the whole block) could be made into the Queen Anne Transit Center / Car barn/mx shops.
this way the 74, 8, and 1 (night owl), and BRT lines can terminate there … and the 1/2/13/15/18 can stop there.
The southbound 15/18 can then continue up Mercer to this new transit center, and then head West down Republican St. and turn South on Queen Anne Ave N and continue down their existing routes (with the Central Tram line doing the same)
The Republican Street extension that goes around the old QFC could still have parking for trucks for Seattle Center events … and would otherwise be dedicated to Transit use only
Interesting idea grouping the two directions on one side of the street like that. Your diagram shows a total of 7 lanes (including streetcar and parking) is the right-of-way on 1st ave that wide?
Opening a car door into a streetcar RO may not be safe. How about:
Tn Ts GS P V V P
(one lane each N and S with shrubs and a sidewalk between cars and trams)
or
Tn Ts V V V V P
(two lanes each N and S with a curb between vehicles and trams)
with “GS” being Greenery and sidewalk, like shrubs that create a physical barrier and a narrow sidewalk for parkers.
Near intersections, you could remove some parking to make a turn lane.
I didn’t intend for 1st to be one way. I used “V” for either north or south, envisioning a two-way street.
I’d be afraid of one-way on 1st. First has a heavy pedestrian presence, and we should be working to slow down traffic in the area, not speed it up.
Well… that is an incredibly well thought out plan! I’m on board. If there isn’t enough room for 7 lanes, the parking lane next to the tracks could be eliminated.
1st ave is mostly Pvv^^P however, when you have fixed tracks you can space them closer together than you could if you were dealing with traffic lanes since the width of the vehicles is a known constant.
Regardless, where there are some thin spots (like 1st and Virginia) one could always lose parking for a block or two.
You also lose the need for rush-hour lanes since half of the traffic is redistributed onto 2nd ave.
anyway … this is how i’d plan it.
I think this is a really mistaken attitude to take, and you even seem to have some reservations based on your final paragraph. SF and Philadelphia (and Boston) got lucky, their rails survived and were then adapted to the new street environment. We were much less lucky, but electrified transit survived on a great deal (but not all) of the old trolley routes and that service is very much maxed out even with the dip in gas prices, but it is held up by traffic, uncomfortably packed, slow, etc.
In case the point to which I am working toward is less than clear, let me be frank. The city already has electrified, regular transit routes that are very near capacity (or beyond capacity). They simply have rubber rather than steel tires. The streetcar plan basically spends a lot of money ($25+ million per mile) to put a few of them on rails without removing the routes from traffic (darn, there go most improvements to on-time percentage) AND as an added bonus only increases per “vehicle” capacity by err… ~33% since the first wave of streetcars are going to be gimped so that they’re cuter (thus they can’t entrain).
Sure, your point is that these systems take time to grow into their own but rather than building a (relatively) extensive streetcar network that will take 90 years (if we’re as lucky as SF) to build toward high capacity, why not build higher-capacity now on an slightly more limited set of routes (or even the same number of routes but over slightly shorter distances)? The difference in cost between a reserved or exclusive right of way (NOT grade separation as with LINK) and this mixed-traffic street running is quite small in the grand scheme of things (compared with the per mile costs of true rapid transit or even “real” light rail like LINK).
AJ, what are your thoughts on running buses (or, in the future, trains) to the suburbs to build ridership and political support for still more transit? I can guess from your previous comments but I’d like to know from the asses’s mouth since you’re advocating something quite similar here (though admittedly your idea is more capital intensive and what they county is doing is more operations intensive).
One could just as easily say that San Francisco tore up their shared lane streetcar lines and built new separated lines (because that’s what really happened – if we take your history as a guide, it appears that no existing physical rails were ‘upgraded’ to their own lane; instead the shared lane rails were abandoned).
Why is this nit-picking important? Because many people are under the mistaken impression that it’s cheaper to start with shared-lane and then go to exclusive-running later on, but it turns out that’s nearly impossible to do in the practical universe we live in – you’d have to completely shut down the street on which it ran, or run in very difficult conditions (upgrade to exclusive running on the right side or start with shared running on the left side, both of which are awful ideas).