The Transit Tunnel Shutdown

39 Replies to “The Transit Tunnel Shutdown”

1. when the buses are out, would it be even remotely possible for the DSTT to be operated more like a traditional subway/surface streetcar subway?… lots of little branches off of a main trunk line. at least then its all rail based and functions the same (vs. the bus and rail mix which operate very differently)

   those streetcar subways (Boston, Philly, SF) seem to quite efficiently get a lot of throughput and function almost identically to the bus tunnel… i.e. an open busway.

   1. It will once East link opens (you’ll have Central link running through and East Link running through branching off at IDS. Where will the trains origionate?

      1. i had in mind many branches vs. one or two branches

         1. It would be a really bad idea and rather expensive to add more than a West Seattle branch to the rail lines operating through the DSTT. For one thing the line to Northgate is going to use a majority of the capacity for going North out of the tunnel. For another a tunneled connection would have to be built which is going to be much more expensive than branching South of IDS.

            An additional line to the South, say to West Seattle might be possible as headways to both Rainier Valley and East link will be limited both by demand and by surface segments and the bridge (only 1 train at a time).

      2. This is one thing I don’t think I’ve quite grasped with East Link. Will it begin at the ID station and thus forcing a transfer there when coming from the North or South? Or will it be the sort of thing where half the trains from the North/South will go to SeaTac/Northgate and the other half go to the Eastside? In this case, I may not need to transfer?

         1. My understanding is that all the trains will originate at Northgate (or Lynnwood, eventually?), and then diverge after the ID station. A portion to to the Eastside, the rest continue to Sea-Tac. I don’t know if the split is 50/50.

            You should be able to go from Northgate Downtown Seattle Eastside without a transfer, but to get between the airport and the Eastside would require a transfer at ID.

         2. Yes, the working plan ST published several months ago showed all trains originating at Northgate or further north. Something like Northgate-SeaTac and Lynnwood-Redmond, and a daytime-only run for another permutation (Lynnwood-SeaTac? Lynnwood-Stadium?).

            Going between SeaTac to the Eastside, you’d have to transfer nortbound-southbound at Intl Dist, which means going up to the surface and back down. Unless they reconfigure it with a center platform (which I hope they do eventually, but they haven’t announced it). Going to Rainier Valley, it may be more attractive to transfer to the 7 at Rainier station.

2. “Efficient” and “throughput” do not describe the MUNI Metro subway from my reading or experience.

   1. Or Boston’s MBTA! Beware of branching…as one who lived for 2 years on the spot where the B/C/D lines converged at Kenmore Square, let me tell you it was often a miserably inefficient experience.

      1. Flat junctions are trouble in a high-capacity system. Thankfully the International District junction is going to be a flying junction.

3. Funny to hear that it was the phones. I left work about 20 min before the closure that evening and heard ringing of a telephone over some loudspeaker in the tunnel. It was eerily quiet and none of the usual announcements were playing. I could never figure out where the ringing was coming from, but figured someone had either jokingly or accidentally mashed the button on one of the blue phones. Used to hear that happen on the blue phones at UW from time to time. Or that someone left the PA system mic on and it was picking up the ringing from someone’s office.

4. Why not consolidate bus stops in the tunnel, either now, or in 2016 if Metro decides to keep some routes in the tunnel then?

   Continue to have all tunnel buses serve ID Station and Convention Place, but limit the middle stops to either University Street, or to Pioneer Square and Westlake.

   I betcha about three minutes could be shaved off of travel times for both the trains and the buses. University Street and Westlake are crying out for stop consolidation so that buses can move through the tunnel as fast as the trains can.

   1. I REALLY doubt this is doable! There are simply too many employers all over downtown. It’s far simpler to keep all the tunnel stops open. In addition, there would be alot of packed tunnel platforms to accomodate the closed stops. If boardings are spread out over 5/6 stops then it’s simpler to manage than cramming all Link/bus boardings into… say… 3 stops!

      1. Just to be clear: I wasn’t suggesting that Link stop serving any stations.

         If University Street Station were to become train-only, then passengers could get off their buses at Westlake or Pioneer Square, and walk onto Link a couple minutes later.

         Consider also, how long does it take to walk from Westlake to University Street Station? Is that amount of time much longer than the extra time it takes Link to get through the DSTT because the buses take longer at the platforms?

         1. Except the buses would still be stuck behind Link while it stops at University and they don’t?

         2. My estimate is that buses and trains take roughly half a minute to transit between each pair of stations. Link takes roughly half a minute to unload and load. A bus typically takes a minute to load and unload.

            By the time Link pulls away from University Street Station, the buses behind it would probably still be loading.

            If the buses move briskly, they might have to wait a few seconds at the entrance to Pioneer Square Station (southbound) or Westlake (northbound), but generally wouldn’t catch up with Link.

            As it is, the buses do catch Link because once Link catches up with the buses ahead of it, it can then only go as fast as the slowest bus. And so, neither can the buses behind it go any faster.

            The biggest delay for buses is waiting to get into the tunnel. If a train is coming within a minute or two, the buses wait and yield to the train. This delay, unfortunately, is not removed with the stop consolidation algorithm.

         3. My very rough guesstimate, accounting for a minute of platform time for Link at Westlake, is that Link would take about four and a half minutes to get through the tunnel, if unhindered. Likewise, if the buses didn’t stop at University Street Station, then they, too, would take about four and a half minutes to get through the tunnel (not counting Convention Place Station) if unhindered.

            Buses that arrive at the entrance within two minutes before the next train arrives would still have to suffer a little wait, just like now.

      2. For me, I would shut down the tunnel entirely.

         Then I would select an Avenue like 3rd Avenue.

         I would give it a complete road diet, and make it an all transit and bike highway.

         Bikes would get at least a lane width, completely sequestered from foot and motorized traffic.

         LINK would be the centerpiece, with ground level stations right through downtown, up the Westlake.

         Buses would be put back on the streets where they belong and become the “feeders” to and from LINK.

         I would add bus service direct from Sounder at King Station which would be completely redone as a bus-train connector.

         1. Apart from moving Link to the surface (which I don’t think we should do and would never happen), I agree this should should at least be looked at. All buses to 3rd and a dedicated and sequestered bike lane along 3rd. The one thing that I can’t quite figure out is whether or not you still allow traffic across 3rd. If you don’t allow it, then you create an Aurora-like split in the city which I don’t think is all that good. If you do allow it, then there’s not a whole lot of extra benefit because you’ll still have cars going down third accidentally and “accidentally”. And you don’t really give much uninterrupted lengths between streets for buses and bikes.

         2. You could allow pedestrian traffic to cross at most intersections, but car traffic only at certain places (or even just the beginning/end).

            That said, this is silly. With Link running every 7.5 minutes at peak, the tunnel has tons of extra capacity. The overcrowding that currently happens only occurs at peak times, and then only because the tunnel planners have shoved dozens of peak-only buses into the tunnel, for reasons I can’t begin to understand.

            By the time that we need to clear buses out of the tunnel, the number of buses left in downtown will have decreased significantly, and this will be much less of an issue.

         3. “The overcrowding that currently happens only occurs at peak times, and then only because the tunnel planners have shoved dozens of peak-only buses into the tunnel, for reasons I can’t begin to understand.”

            So your recommendation would be to move all peak-only buses to the surface, now? Makes sense.

         4. Nathanael: Yes, but at the same time, I would move some more all-day buses into the tunnel (e.g. the 66), and possibly making 1st Ave transit-only during peak hours as well.

         5. Oh, and once I had done that, I would create a subway-style map of the tunnel and all its destinations. This map is a pretty good start, but without the commuter buses, it would be both simpler and more accurate (since you’d always be able to get to any destination on the map).

         6. I agree, I think all the commuter routes should run on 3rd and non-commuter routes should run on other streets or in the tunnel for now. It gets really crowded during rush hour on 2nd & 4th, especially if there is any kind of event going on downtown (especially Mariners nights). I don’t understand why all those ST and CT commuter routes don’t run on 3rd, since they only run during the hours that 3rd is transit/bike-only.

      3. I think it would add too much confusion. Bus riders have been told since day 1 that all buses stop at all stations in the DSTT.

5. I would like to see Third Ave. entirely dedicated to buses and bikes. No cars, trucks or taxis ever. Either dedicated bike lanes in the middle, or bike lanes on the edges with bus zone loading islands separating the buses from the bike lanes.

   What I find terrifying is bikes swerving around buses, riding between two buses, running lights or making sudden unexpected turns and manouvers. It is also frustrating to watch a bike driving in the middle of a lane delaying an entire busload of people.

   1. I get rid of the bikes on third avenue. they are like GNATS when I drive down third avenue (hard to see). Also, another source told me that ST may keep the buses in the tunnel even after 2016. Instead of increasing frequency, they will simply make 4 car trains instead. The major reason for keeping buses in the tunnel, is because once the buses are kicked out of the tunnel, guess who is responsible for the total O/M in the tunnel? Yep, ST will be, so there is an financial incentive to keep buses in the tunnel. Because KC Metro will have to help out with the O/M costs if buses are kept in the tunnel. However, once 2020 comes around the corner with Northgate and East Link? opening, the frequencies will be too much for buses to remain in the tunnel.

      1. Yeah, I thought I’d read something on this blog that going rail-only in the tunnel wasn’t likely to happen until the 41 and 70-series didn’t need to go downtown anymore. The 70-series can be truncated to the U-District when U-Link opens, if we can get them to UW Station. The 41’s going to have to wait for Link to open to Northgate, unless we can make an express route to the U-District to complement the 66/67/68.

         It doesn’t sound like anyone in the article actually said buses would be kicked out of the tunnel in 2016, only after 2016.

   2. Maybe the outer lanes of 3rd belong to buses (against the curb, to pick up passengers) and the inner lanes belong to bikes. No cars on 3rd (emergency vehicles exempted)

6. And tonight ~1 a.m. the train hit someone in the tunnel. But apparently he didn’t die, so hopefully no disruptions for Sunday’s runs. Thank god it wasn’t a weekday morning. And that he didn’t die, I guess.

   1. Word on Twitter is it was a drunk guy at Pioneer Square Station. Of course, nothing on any “official” twitter feeds though.

      It seems like one of the great advantages of using Twitter is that all you need is one person with a computer or cell phone to send out an update, so it should be pretty easy to send out information 24/7. But you get an accident at 1 a.m., and the Twitter feed has nothing.

      I sent an email to SDOT about the same thing a few months back after a fire shut down the Ballard Bridge for a few hours on a weekend night.

      Given that the Ballard Bridge was closed for a relatively short amount of time in the overnight hours (from approximately 11:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.), tweeting was not the most appropriate approach… An alert saying it was closed and then reopened that virtually no one will see until well after the event is over isn’t really helpful to most Seattle DOT Twitter followers.

      So rather than waste a tweet, they opt for not relaying any information to the public at all? 99% of SDOT’s twitter followers don’t give a damn about the 200 times the Spokane St bridge goes open each day, yet they dutifully tweet about every single opening. But a bridge closes for 2 hours, and SDOT relays no information to the public whatsoever by any means. I just don’t get it.

      1. The tunnel is partially closed this morning, but there’s no news at all on Metro’s site, Seattle Times, etc. Everyone’s fallen down on the job here. How could a person being hit in the tunnel not be in the news!?

         1. Nobody was hit. Someone running on the platform ran into a pole and was knocked unconscious.

         2. And that’s the downside of Twitter: one guy can come up with any bullshit they want (or even just exaggerate facts) and it’ll take off like a rocket before the truth can get its pants on. Which is a problem with the Internet in general, really.

         3. It also demonstrates the problem with official sources remaining silent on issues that people notice. I mean, the tunnel was partially closed, and there was no explanation. Is the person in charge there just overwhelmed with the one or two blog posts per day?

         4. @Morgan: Nobody was talking about a closure in the morning, and assuming he knows how to use the reply feature, Bruce Gray was responding to Nobody when reporting that nobody was actually hit. (This is all sounding a bit Polyphemian…) I’m the one who mentioned Twitter, and I was talking about an accident the night before. Neither Bruce’s comment nor anything else I’ve seen refutes the “version” of events I relayed.

            The problem you state is real. I intentionally didn’t mention the length of the delay my Twitter friend mentioned, because it seemed like the sort of detail someone would jump on and say “Oh, he’s just overreacting, it wasn’t 40 minutes, I was on that train. It was only delayed 25 minutes!” But as Nobody points out, if there’s no official word to counteract such Twitter rumors/exaggerations, they become as good as fact in the minds of those who hear them.

7. Two points everybody’s missed so far:

   1. A year into joint rail-bus operations and twenty years into Tunnel operations, somebody still owes regional taxpayers and their out-of-town guests the control system they contracted to deliver.

   2. Almost everything that doesn’t work about joint operations has its roots in two decades of telling ourselves that since Tunnel bus operations are temporary, it’s not worth the effort to make them work very well.

   The faster we change point two, the easier it’ll be to fix point one- and the sooner public transit will become, in your word, “bearable.”

   Mark Dublin

8. It was not a “phone failure” or “Control failure”. It was a network backbone crash. (Everything rides on a single backbone.)

   1. It doesn’t sound like the network was well engineered. You can throw everything on a single backbone, but you have to ensure there are no single points of failure.

      For signals and fire, life, safety you’d think they would want the system at least as robust as any network for a production 24×7 web site.

Comments are closed.