Council Likely Accelerating SLU-UW, Delaying Ship Canal Crossing

114 Replies to “Council Likely Accelerating SLU-UW, Delaying Ship Canal Crossing”

1. YES
   Please hurry with the 2nd rail line to the Univ. Dist, as one will never do.
   yeah, yeah, different market, blah, blah, blah.
   I’d rather see RR-D go there on a permanent reroute.

   1. If a 2nd rail line isn’t necessary, the study will give you some great data to support that. It’s an HCT study, not a rail study.

      And honestly, that bus is full, and has been for a decade, while the neighborhood has exploded around it. We need far more in that corridor than a bus can provide.

      1. Thanks Ben for reaffirming my belief that all studies are created equally, with little influence by those purchasing them as to their outcome. Yes, consultant integrity is still pure as the driven snow.
         I have to go now, but I want you and d.p. play nice while I’m gone :)

      2. I’m sorry, the idea that buses can’t provide the needed capacity on Eastlake is laughable. Ridership on the 70 is around 5,000 per weekday; 3,000 on the 66. San Francisco moves 50k a day on Geary with buses. The 71/72/73 locals which serve Eastlake nights and Sunday are overloaded, but they’re overloaded with people not going to Eastlake; virtually all of those riders will evaporate in 2021 if not 2016.

         Call me when the Eastlake corridor breaks 20k a day. Until then, a streetcar there will just be another high cost-per-boarding rail service that will undermine the credibility of transit advocates in this city. Signal priority, more frequency, and off-board payments for the existing trolleybuses are a sensible level of expenditure for this corridor; spend the big bucks on Ballard.

      3. Bruce, the TMP says 20,000 per day is the expected demand in the corridor if we stick with buses. That’s well over vehicle capacity for a single line at 5 minute headways (see capacity diagram on TMP page 3-10 – http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/tmp/TMP%20Ch3%20Corridors.pdf).

         It isn’t reasonable to compare to a place like Geary because the overall demand is spread over a lot more buses, not a single line, where bunching destroys usability and reduces capacity at about 15,000 per day.

         I would reconsider calling the capacity constraint “laughable” when that constraint is clearly documented in the TMP.

      4. If an analysis tells you something is impossible, and someone else in a similar situation is doing it every day, this tells you something about the analysis. Bunching is caused by traffic congestion, lack of in-lane stops, and shitty boarding, payment and wheelchair arrangements, not by being “spread out over” too few buses, whatever that means. Fix those problems, and you can run closely-spaced buses just fine.

         The 38L runs just fine at 4-6 minute headways all day, and its only “premium” feature is all-door boarding (which is amazing, BTW). We have enough real constraints to deal with without inventing new ones.

      5. Bruce, the TMP says 20,000 per day is the expected demand in the corridor if we stick with buses

         And the TMP projects an Eastlake streetcar will carry…drum roll please…25,000 per day.

         It also says the incremental capital cost over a BRT treatment is $190 million and the improvement in travel time is zero.

         The annualized cost per rider is lower for BRT, and the annualized cost per rider for any of the Eastlake options is higher than that for Madison BRT, yet Eastlake is the project that’s being studied. Eastlake is a narrow low-rise neighborhood squeezed between the lake and the freeway, whereas Madison serves several of the city’s densest and most walkable neighborhoods.

         This is modal fetishism, plain and simple.

      6. Matt, look back at 3-10. That capacity graph is important and I don’t think anyone’s looked at it in this discussion.

         The projected demand for the BRT is 20,000, but buses can’t carry that many, even at 5 minute headways. There’s a line on the capacity graph to show that the BRT would be above crush load much of the day.

         Again, this isn’t nearly as much about Eastlake as it is about local UW service that’s currently served by the 71/2/3 (the expresses are locals from 65th-Campus Parkway) and won’t be replaced by Link. Link stops every 20 blocks. A lot of people going to SLU will be stuck with a three seat ride if we don’t provide something to move them. BRT might be enough, but the expected demand shows buses can’t meet the capacity.

      7. I have looked at it, and it supports my position. It shows a higher capacity for BRT over the streetcars currently in use on the SLU line during peaks, far below the projected demand.

         Now, it also shows a line for a “coupled” streetcar (which still falls short of projected demand during peak) which begs the question: if your plan is to integrate this Eastlake streetcar into the SLU line, and the SLU line with the First Hill line, does that mean we have to go lengthen the platforms on Capitol Hill? That we haven’t even finished building yet? Or will we incur the operational hit to operate a separate line in Eastlake with different vehicles?

         I also looked at the one for Corridor 6 ages ago. That one shows demand far outstripping the capacity provided by 40-foot buses on 5-minute headways, which due to topography is the only mode possible at-grade in this corridor.

         Yet in the time since the TMP was published, has there been a great outcry that we need a grade-separated option to handle the demand in this corridor? Nope. All I’ve heard from our city’s elected leaders, when they even mention Madison, is a BRT option.

      8. I definitely think Madison needs a grade separated option, but I can just only fight so many battles at once. :)

         The coupled streetcar barely falls short of demand; it’s much more reasonable than the other options. I think we will lengthen our platforms – that definitely doesn’t seem nearly as expensive as any other option. Platform work is in the tens of thousands per platform, nothing like laying rail and building electrical infrastructure.

         It seems like you agree that we need higher capacity than BRT. I don’t understand why you’d just throw away two-car streetcars.

      9. Does the BRT treatment that is being studied for the UW have its own defined lanes, because if it doesn’t then its another Rapid Ride redundancy that gets stuck in the traffic with the cars and no vastly improved service.

      10. East Coast, the point of the study is to figure out what’s needed.

      11. I would argue that the TMP is flawed with respect to the Eastlake corridor study. I looked into this in depth when it first came out, and for whatever reason the analysis for UW-SLU-Westlake does not distinguish between routes that use Eastlake and those that use the reversible express lanes. In fact there is not a single figure or table in the TMP, briefing book, or UVTN monitoring reports that shows bus use on the I-5 reversible lanes. In fact the only mention of express lanes at all in the TMP is for San Diego!? So when you add the routes that bypass Eastlake to those that run on it, yes you can get to numbers that justify a streetcar level of service although slower than the express routes it replaces (until Link is extended when I would assume much of the peak use moves to it also reducing demand peak demand here). I welcome this study and look forward to seeing a more accurate and honest assessment of need.

      12. k.c., Link will increase demand from SLU-UW because Metro is unlikely to continue operating the 71/2/3 downtown through that corridor.

      13. That literally makes less sense than any amalgamation of words I’ve ever encountered in my life.

      14. The Madison-BRT study is already funded so it doesn’t need council action. I asked an SDOT rep about its status when I was at the city connector open house, and he said they’re currently hiring a project manager for it. That will take a couple months, and then the actual study can start. So the first open house will probably be next year or possibly the end of this year.

      15. I don’t understand the comment that buses, even a single bus line, cannot handle 20,000 riders per say. You can see on the Translink 2012 Bus Service Performance Review that there are 11 bus lines that handle 20,000 boardings per day, or very close to it:

          http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2012%20BSPR/2012_BSPR_Appendix_C_Routes_1_99.ashx

          See the stats for the 3, 8, 9, 16, 20, 22, 25, 41, 49, 99 and 135. The 99 has over 50,000 riders per day (but I wouldn’t wish the 99 on anyone – it is way too crowded and needs to be a subway pronto).

          These lines get crush loaded at the peak periods, but that is a reasonable efficiency as long as they don’t get Tokyo Subway crush loaded.

          I would also check out the diagram on page 16 of the summary report:

          http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/2012%20bspr/2012_bus_service_performance_review_summary_report.ashx

          Nice reminder that simple routes are usually better routes.

   2. I want you and d.p. play nice while I’m gone :)

      Nope, I’m staying out of this thread…

      …except to point out how the “new ship canal crossing” — attached to an otherwise traffic-logged, grid-addled, zig-zagging-all-over-downtown streetcar with a terrible DSTT connection — is being intentionally set up as the urban big-ticket item for ST3.

      The further conflation of streetcars with our inevitable “solution” has not escaped notice.

      1. I see no reason that a new ship canal crossing would be for a streetcar. I intend for it to help locate a subway tunnel.

      2. You can “intend” for it to do whatever you please.

         Unfortunately, when the mayor, the council, the media, or anyone else who isn’t you refers to the “new ship canal crossing” in this particular study, they are referring to a crossing in the vicinity of 3rd Avenue West as part of a streetcar and nothing else.

      3. d.p., when are you going to stop crying wolf? The Ballard study has resulted in subway options. This study will be similar, considering many options.

      4. This crossing study has never, in any manner, been affixed to any proposal aside from 3rd Ave West, by anyone other than you.

         I will stop pointing out that you make stuff up when you stop making stuff up.

      5. It’s never been affixed to 3rd Ave NW (not West) except in pointing out that’s one of the options.

         Just like I’m the “only one” who claimed the Ballard study would consider subway, it’s probably just because I’m the only reporter digging in. This is the same.

      6. It’s 3rd Ave West on the the SPU side of the canal.

         But thanks for reminding me that you never come to northwest Seattle except for hype events, that you rarely (if ever) use transit in northwest Seattle, and that your knowledge of even the basic geography of the area is scant.

         And yes, you’re “digging”. But not in the way you claim to be.

      7. I assume you’ll all be at the Ballard open house June 27th.

      8. I will be there, Mike!

         d.p. won’t be, I’m sure, because then he would have to admit that the study offers a tunneled rail alternative. :)

      9. What Mic said: https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2013/06/17/council-likely-accelerating-slu-uw-delaying-ship-canal-crossing/#comment-342482

         But sure, I’ll be there.

         We can scan every document and grill every representative to reveal the total absence of the word “both” in reference to the foregone streetcar/subway studies.

      10. From the scope of work document, the word “both”:

          “Workshops will be used to engage the public and key stakeholders in the project’s Purpose and Need, alternatives process, and final report. While these workshops will include both HCT and Rapid Streetcar discussions (i.e. Task A and Task B), for budgeting purposes two sets of Work Products are assumed to be delivered as part of Task A and one set of Work Products is assumed to be delivered as part of Task B.”

      11. As always, that “both” refers to the study tasks, and not to construction actions.

          There is no desire / intent / political will to apply “both” to construction; no real-world document so much as hints at executing both. As is obvious to everyone involved but you.

      12. d.p. You do realize you are posting in a thread about the City moving forward on studying a NE streetcar project to compliment a NE subway line, yes? So then why do you so vehemently deny that it is possible we could have a NW streetcar line to compliment a NW subway line?

      13. Yup, can’t deny that one, just like the article says, we’re gonna study HCT from near Westlake to the U-Dist along Eastlake. As Ben points out U-Link, doing virtually the same thing, doesn’t stop often enough (20 blocks between stops), or provide any service to SLU or Eastlake where demand will be many times that being provided by bus now.
          Having ridden the 70 many times over the years, I can tell you there are thousands of riders hanging around the bus stops that just never seem to get picked up. It’s tragic!
          So shame on you for not trusting the TMP to provide both Link and a streetcar/BRT to downtown Ballards CBD at Market/15th. (think migrational TOD).

2. WTF Publicola?

   1. I am shocked. Shocked that Publicola is wrong

3. Sigh. An Eastlake streetcar might be nice to have… after higher-priority needs all over the city are met. The 70 is a good bus line along a street that could serve a streetcar well, in a neighborhood that is very walkable and (despite d.p.’s protestations) has significant growth potential.

   But the idea that we should study Eastlake (alone) now, while putting off all of lower and upper Queen Anne, Fremont, Interbay, and Ballard until next year, is just self-evidently and transparently absurd. It’s 5,000 people (with potential for 10,000) versus 100,000+ (with potential for many more).

   1. I believe you misunderstand. The Ballard study (including all the places you mention) is already 50% complete. This is lining up the SLU-UW study next.

      And, again, the endpoint fallacy. Every time someone says “Eastlake” a transit planner dies somewhere – if you focus on that middle bit you lose sight of the utility. This is about UW, where Link will only stop every 20 blocks, and SLU, where heights just went up to 160′-400′.

      UW-SLU and Ballard-SLU have very similar transit demand.

      1. Then why is the really full part of the 70 the part between Eastlake and downtown, not the part between UW and SLU? If the 70 didn’t go downtown, it wouldn’t have enough ridership to justify more than 20-minute frequency.

      2. Everytime someone says “Eastlake streetcar” a bunch of transit planners slap their faces. If UW is the area of overwhelming demand, why are we wasting money on the rest of Eastlake? Why are we building a transit service that only goes halfway from the UW to Northgate, when those two transit centers are the natural termini of the corridors?

         North Link, plus additional frequency on the existing services downtown-SLU services will get people from the U-District to SLU just fine.

      3. Guys, if the study says we don’t need a streetcar, then we’ll do BRT. But North Link will mean we need a new local service through the U-district, and a large number of those people will prefer to stay in their seat downtown. So we need to do this study to figure out what to build.

      4. So, assuming this streetcar extension does get built, what are people for whom Eastlake is their bike route to downtown supposed to do both during and after the construction. Unless you’re prepared to wage a big fight in removing parking, the only option remaining (short of demolishing buildings) is to force anyone who wants to ride a bike from the U-district to downtown into a long detour.

         While Eastlake does not have, exactly, great bike facilities today, it is still much safer than sharing a lane with streetcar tracks that pose a tripping hazard.

      5. asdf: There’s a signed bicycle route paralleling much of Eastlake about a block or two to the west that involves less traffic.

      6. asdf – “unless you’re prepared to wage a big fight in removing parking”

         Have you met me? That’s exactly what the SLU-UW study will provide data to fight for.

      7. The alternate route is longer and has very bumpy pavement in some sections (which, granted, could be fixed). It also steers you towards Fairview instead of Stewart/Eastlake at the junction, which means many more stoplights, including the light at Mercer, which takes 3 minutes to change, in and of itself. All in all, the route would be a 5-10 minute detour. Furthermore, Fairview also requires you to cross or ride along the streetcar tracks, which Eastlake all the way currently avoids.

4. As I have said before it’s disingenuous and inaccurate to say that because ECB (and many others) thinks there are higher transit priorities than a streetcar on Eastlake that she is opposed to a streetcar.

   1. I don’t know what opposition is if it’s not “we should spend this money on something else.”

      1. Opposition is a strong word. Just because I don’t want or think a cheeseburger is the right idea for breakfast doesn’t mean I oppose cheeseburgers. I might think a bowl of cereal is a better idea and perhaps a cheeseburger later for lunch. Just as at this time, a streetcar along Eastlake might not make the most sense when there are more pressing transit needs in the city and region, and a streetcar in the future for that corridor might make more sense.

      2. If you don’t think a cheeseburger is the right idea for breakfast, you oppose a cheeseburger for breakfast. I didn’t say Erica opposed streetcars, I said she opposed this streetcar. She’s said so several times.

         The idea that we can’t do more than one thing at a time would doom us to fall farther and farther behind. Remember ST2? That was for lines to Lynnwood, Overlake, and Federal way, and the FHSC at the same time. Nobody argued then that we should do one at a time, and it’s similarly silly to argue that we should do one at a time here.

         In Seattle, let’s build the downtown connector, the broadway extension, Madison BRT, subway to Ballard and West Seattle, streetcar from SLU to Fremont, and streetcar from SLU to UW. Then let’s build streetcar to Uptown and SODO, subway from Ballard to UW, and something on 23rd for the east side of the city.

         And let’s build for the region at the same time, push for a state rail plan, fight highway expansion, and grow renewable energy.

         And let’s make sure the city is affordable while we do all this.

         It’s a lot of work. We have a lot of people. Our job is to push, not to put on the brakes.

5. Ok, I’m new to this blog and maybe an idiot but..how does the SLU play with Light Rail in terms of coordinating efforts? Like there’s a light rail under construction from Westlake to UW (that extends the light rail from way south) and there’s SLU from Lake Union to Westlake. Isn’t SLU from Westlake to UW redundant? – couldn’t someone take SLU to Westlake and then Light Rail to UW? I think there’s also a streetcar going in from International district to Capital Hill and I think it stops one block from where the Light Rail will take passengers from International District to Cap Hill. I don’t get it. When I lived in DC, if you lived at the end of the line, you either took a well-timed bus to the other end of line or you subwayed into the center and then out again. For a few years I took a well-timed, frequent bus to the subway then to a well-timed bus and got to work 15 min later (and half the price) than had I driven. Was that system subsidized or something and we don’t want to repeat that? I just don’t understand what we’re doing.

   1. Sharon, great question. You’re running into something I like to call the “endpoint fallacy” – people naturally consider the ends of a line, not the middle.

      The First Hill streetcar is about getting people from Capitol Hill and the International District to a dozen points in between. Yesler Terrace, First Hill hospitals, and Little Saigon aren’t served by Link, but have thousands of transit users.

      Just the same, it’s easy to ignore all the places between NE 65th St and Westlake. But Link will only stop every 20 blocks in the U-district, and as you say, only at Westlake. If someone’s at 55th, or Campus Parkway, or along Eastlake, or in the middle of SLU, they won’t have a great transit option. My coworkers in SLU often choose to drive over taking the streetcar to Westlake. Demand in this corridor is increasing significantly, as the Transit Master Plan has found – and will be too high for buses to meet.

      1. Your friends opt to drive in SLU because of other reasons, too: the egregious lack of transit signal priority means it takes forever, poor connections to other modes (for now!), lack of orca integration. (This last one is particularly baffling to me, devout bus rider and longtime participant on this blog. I feel a bit like I’m missing something when I ride the SLUT without paying in the knowledge that somehow, my bus pass counts as fare.)

      2. adam, the primary reason is the walk from Westlake. I asked them! :)

         ORCA would cost more to implement today than fares would account for. It would be wasting money. When the downtown connector is built, I expect ORCA to be implemented as part of that contract.

         Do you know that the SLUS has a lot of signal priority? 14 intersections. I watch it flip the lights as it cruises up Westlake.

      3. The SLUT may be the only streetcar that has lots of signal priority but still gets caught behind every stoplight. I wonder what the signal priority is accomplishing.

         The Link route correctly follows the heaviest ridership patterns. The first two streetcar lines have some weaknesses due to the ad hoc way they were created. The SLU line was a starter line championed by Paul Allen because it went by his real estate, not because it was the area with the highest transit need. The First Hill line was a concession to First Hill after the First Hill Link station was deleted due to engineering issues and construction risk. First Hill wanted rail and would not be mollified with another trolleybus, which they feared would be watered down like the existing trolleybuses. So the net result is two streetcar lines in growing but less-than-ideal locations. So for those of us who want a citywide streetcar network, the only thing to do is extend them and make the best of it, and hope we can retrofit some transit lanes for them later.

      4. Mike, good explanation. Although with the growth of downtown toward SLU, it seems like the SLU Streetcar was a good choice. :)

   2. Oh, fiddlesticks. If no one else is willing to do it…

      Good question, Sharon! I appreciate the way you have drawn upon your experience with a functional east-coast transit system to highlight your bafflement at particulars of Seattle planning.

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that transit is for getting to various destinations quickly and efficiently, and that a well-integrated, non-overlapping system of subways and quick surface connections that combine to offer comprehensive mobility would be a good way to achieve that.

      What you seem not to have realized is that in Seattle, steel rails come sprinkled with magic fairy dust, thereby solving whatever ails us regardless of where those rails go, how slowly or infrequently the vehicles on them arrive, which other vehicles block them in their lane, or how badly they connect to other forms of transit.

      Remember, any time you get confused about a Seattle urbanization strategy, the answer is probably “magic fairy dust”.

      1. I really look forward to the day that d.p. will engage positively on transit instead of just attacking other advocates.

      2. (ad hom)

      3. I really look forward to the day that Ben will engage positively with reality instead of just arbitrarily removing legitimate critiques from other advocates.

      4. Telling me nothing I’ve ever written has been based in reality is simply an ad hominem attack. It’s beneath you – you understand a lot of these policies well and could do a lot of good, and I implore you to make an effort instead of only engaging to attack your allies.

6. Is there any chance of a Madison BRT study coming soon? Or did the city rule that out because it had the lowest annualized cost per rider of any of the routes studied?

   1. That’s already funded and on its way.

      1. Source? When?

      2. 2013 budget. :) Madison is the one that council didn’t fight.

         http://mayormcginn.seattle.gov/mayors-2013-2014-proposed-budget-to-dedicate-5-million-for-rail-expansion-in-seattle/

      3. Cool. Thanks for the link.

   2. Do we know yet how far east BRT on Madison is being scoped for? I’m hoping at least as far as MLK.

      1. 23rd. Past that the neighborhood opposed it.

   3. As I said above, SDOT is currently hiring a manager for the Madison study, so it should get underway in a couple months, with an open house next year or maybe late this year.

7. The university district has one of the highest concentrations of people who use public transit in the city. It makes sense for the SLUT to connect downtown and the research facilities in SLU with the students and research facilities at UW. Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont and West Seattle are also great transit priorities but connecting those areas to existing rail lines will take substantially more time and money because it will require an entirely new line instead of just an few mile extension to existing infrastructure.

8. Oh what the hell, let’s build the damn thing to U-dist and see watch what happens.
   And what better place to do it in than SLU, with all the labs and experimenting going on. Like so many journeys into the unknown transit universe, this could well end up being another fragment of transit, like the current monorail, or some morphing of two very different types of streetcars (SLUT & FHSC), or some hybrid variant of Rapid Streetcar looking rubber tired trolleybus.
   Bring ’em on in the name of science. Let’s put the Benson Cars on the tracks and see what happens.
   You know, eventually Seattle is going to stumble on something that the rest of the world will be all gaga over. Brilliant! they will shout.
   Seattle transit planner/politicians are great at looking into the future but really suck at looking in the rear view mirror. It’s almost sacrilege to question past decisions around here as if you wanted everyone to join the communist party. Case in point, ST has been screwing around with a Before and After Study on Central Link that was due 2 years after startup. After spending a million dollars on it, it gathers dust in draft form until the data will be so obsolete as to be worthless. So what have we learned?

   1. I don’t see how an extension of an existing line would be a “fragment of transit”. Come on – this stuff is all getting connected. First Hill and South Lake Union will be one line when the downtown connector is built.

      1. One line, under traffic, impractical, with zig-zags and detours for all.

      2. That’s several alternatives together, not a plan. d.p., please stop.

      3. Every “alternative” in that diagram — including the one under construction as we speak — is slow, indirect, zig-zagging, traffic-light-addled, and precisely as I described.

         No one would treat it as a single through-route unless they’ve got all day to kill.

         And none of this should be news to you.

      4. Oops, I forgot “poorly connected to any real transit”.

         Seriously, what in hell is that ridiculous “bus hub” icon doing at 5th and Stewart, nowhere near the bus tunnel or the awful proposed streetcar/subway interface?

      5. With better signage, 5th and Stewart is quite near the bus tunnel. There’s an entrance on 5th between Stewart and Pine.

         When every comment you make is about how things are “ridiculous” or “awful”, you really limit your usefulness.

      6. There is a limited-capacity elevator on 5th between Stewart and Pine. There is no tunnel entry that is able to scale.

         There is also no “hub” of any sort at 5th and Stewart. That is a pure mapmaker’s fiction.

         Furthermore, two route alternatives travel along Virginia, with stops placed 1-2 long blocks and across multiple pedestrian-hostile intersections from the nearest tunnel entrances. Other alternatives make up to three 90° turns in order to crawl up and down Pike and Pine, while still stopping blocks from the tunnel.

         This map is the holy grail of awful.

      7. No, there’s a wide staircase. Other side of the street.

      8. Oh, you’re referring to the zig-zagging interior route — with limited hours — through the Westlake mall.

         Even worse.

9. I wish this mayor would stop launching transportation studies and instead actually build a little real transportation. The Aloha Ext ought to be a reasonably low cost, slam dunk that would demonstrate that he is serious, but we get another study and a few polls….

   I feel like we’ve lost 4 years of progress with nothing to show for it but more studies….…

   1. Aloha Extension is under way in design. It can’t go any faster. There’s no opportunity cost to this other work. Do you want to help get it funded? Call me and let’s work on a ballot measure next year to do that and the downtown connector. 206-683-7810.

      1. It used to be that we had leaders who led and we didn’t have to vote on every little thing. I for one don’t want to vote on the color of the paint in the men’s room. That is what we have a government for.

         And I certainly don’t remember voting on the SLU SC. But this is a different administration.

         But the CCC and Aloha Ext are the right segments to do next. If Steinbrueck wins office a vote might be the only path. But until then
         am hearing “go slow” on an initiative. Best wait and see how things play out

      2. If you want to have leaders who lead and not have to vote on every little thing, call that number so we can put some pressure on.

         I’d say even with McGinn, the fastest route to these is a 2014 ballot measure. Want to help?

10. I’m a bit concerned that we’re creating a system of redundant connections that prioritize modes that run between several destinations. UW is already being brought into the Link system, and SLU already has the streetcar (and its impending downtown connector all the way through the ID to the First Hill segment).

    I’m worried that we’re pressing ahead on depth while sacrificing breadth. Yes, UW is important, but it is already very-well integrated into the transit system with only better access ahead. I’m all for connecting the streetcar to UW, but I think that prioritizing it ahead of a Fremont/Ballard connection is a grievous error, and a slap in the face to the residents of those parts of the city.

    1. Nobody is prioritizing it ahead of a Fremont/Ballard connection – this is the second time in these comments that someone’s claimed that. Where do you get that idea? Ballard is way ahead.

       1. The idea (misconception or otherwise, as the case seems to be) came from the text itself: UW-SLU connection before a new ship canal bridge study. I assume, however, this is a misunderstanding. If the city council isn’t actually prioritizing, but won’t fund a ship canal bridge study….well, what exactly does that mean? An examination of making one of the existing crossings multimodal? Making one transit-only?

       2. It only looks funny because each project lasts several years and overlaps other projects. The ST study is underway, which will give us high-capacity and medium-capacity routes for downtown-Ballard. The bridge study may be deferred a year. But we don’t know if we even need a bridge or how well it relates to ST’s routes. The high-capacity line may go under the Ship Canal, in which case it won’t need the bridge, and trying to approach the bridge may slow it down too much. The medium-capacity line will likely want a bridge, but maybe not this bridge. The worst that can happen is the line is ready to go but the bridge is holding it back. That won’t happen for a few years at minimum, and there’s plenty of time to accelerate the bridge study to time it with the rest of the work. And in my opinion, the medium-capacity line is less important anyway so who cares if it’s delayed; the important thing is to get the high-capacity line built ASAP.

          Meanwhile, the 45th and West Seattle Link studies are underway or starting soon, the Madison-BRT study is starting soon, and the FHS Prospect extension and the Northgate ped bridge are approved but awaiting full funding.

       3. Mike, the study is to determine feasibility and placement for a bridge AND a tunnel. It advances all the alternatives. That’s why I keep calling it a “crossing study” and specifically listing all the things it will study, not calling it a “bridge study”.

          adam, if this study doesn’t get funded, the major outcome is that ST will forge ahead with a light rail crossing that doesn’t necessarily consider city connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians. This study request would lead to a holistic plan for all the crossings – ensuring bicycles and pedestrians can safely cross, and that transit gets priority or separation. It could be a new bridge. It could be a tunnel with bike/ped access, too. It could be reconfiguration of the existing bridges to provide more space for transit, bikes, and peds. It could be a combination of all of that.

       4. Those bike/pedestrian tunnels and myriad subway-routing alternatives all sound lovely, Ben.

          Have you any evidence, of any sort whatsoever, to back that up?

          Because your friend the mayor, who proposed both the study and the redirection of surplus Spokane Street money to fund it, has in every press release explicitly targeted it at a 3rd Ave W/NW bridge crossing for his streetcar… and nothing else.

          A healthy imagination is laudable, but does not constitute evidence.

       5. d.p., evidence abounds if you show up to the city council meetings and read the budget request text.

       6. I’ll be there.

          I dare you to get ST rep to commit to the idea of “both”.

       7. Oh, this is the sub-thread where you flogged your “not just a bridge at 3rd claim” about the “bridge at 3rd” study.

          How about posting this “budget request text”, which would by definition be a matter of public record?

11. Has anyone (in power) talked about gondolas/trams for this area? Would that be part of the study? It sure seems like this would make a lot of sense. The first one would go from the Broadway station to (a bit north) of Denny Park. Then a series of small hops from there to the U-District station. It is my understanding that smaller aerial lines make a lot of sense (I forget the technical details, but I know there are lots of options when it comes to aerial transport). If you need to get to the Hutch from the UW hospital, you could ride the train to Broadway and take a couple tram rides. If you are closer to the U-District station, then you could ride a couple trams directly to the other side. I can’t help but think this would be a lot cheaper than a new bridge. It could also be built piece meal. Build the first tram from Broadway to Denny Park, and see how it goes from there.

    1. No, and for good reason – trying to force transfers between modes just results in people driving instead.

    2. Considering the way everyone here lops down trees to “enhance” their views (which, ironically enough include lots of beautiful trees), I think a gondola/aerial idea is a non-starter.

       I really wish it wasn’t because it’s a pretty amazing concept.

       1. I think that is why it makes sense to study it. Local opposition is a factor, and may kill it, but studies usually include that sort of thing. For example, the study for a line from Ballard to the UW probably considered going above ground, on (or over) the Burke-Gilman. But local opposition would probably kill that proposal, and I would guess that would be part of the report.

          In this case, I’m not so sure the views would be thrashed. Most of the views (from either side) are views of the other hill (as opposed to views of Mount Rainier or the Olympics). A gondola is pretty thin; there are towers, but people are used to towers. It wouldn’t surprise me if people didn’t mind these going up, especially if they design some nice buildings.

       2. I agree it makes sense to study it, but I thought it was given a once over and found to be impossible pretty recently?

       3. Ben – By whom, when? I’ve never heard of any such study (though, admittedly, I haven’t been following Seattle transit before last year.)

       4. I’m not sure at all, William – it may not have been. But I thought someone considered it and threw it out. Maybe it was a mode option for another study. I’m pretty open to QA-SLU-CH.

12. I’m not sure if you are serious or not. By the tone it looks like you are, but I have a hard time understanding why you feel that way, since your posts usually make a lot of sense.

    The only reason people don’t like transfers is because they are usually riding on a slow, infrequent bus followed by another slow, infrequent bus. But with a “normal” subway system (which is fast and frequent) this problem is solved. Every subway trip (with the exception of Seattle) that I’ve ever made involved at least one transfer. This was in cities like Montreal, Paris, New York and Toronto. I wasn’t alone on my transfer journey. For a lot of the stops, way more people were on the way to another line, than were on the way to the street.

    Just about every Link plan I’ve ever heard about will involve transfers. For example, Conlin is trying hard to add a station at 130th Ave NE. He doesn’t expect this area to suddenly because densely populated. What he does expect is for the people in Lake City (which is dense) to ride a bus and then transfer to the train. The reason is obvious: speed. It will be much faster (and more frequent) to ride that bus and transfer than it is to ride the existing 41 (which is a very popular bus). With the savings, Metro can just run that bus more often. It can also run that bus to Bitter Lake (another densely populated area).

    Another example is a line from Ballard to the U-District. If that line is built first, the fastest, most reliable, most frequent way to get from Ballard to downtown (or downtown Bellevue or many other spots) will be to ride that train and then transfer. The same is true for a ride from Northgate to Ballard, or Lynnwood to Fremont, etc. A subway can be thought of as a freeway. It is just so much faster than a regular road that it makes sense to take it, even when you have to transfer.

    A subway is fast because it is grade separated. So is a gondola. A subway train can move a lot more people, but it is also a lot more expensive. This is a trade-off, and one worth considering. On the other hand, while a streetcar can move a lot of people, it will be as slow as a bus. A streetcar isn’t as expensive as a subway (although in this case, since a streetcar would involve a new bridge, the savings wouldn’t be huge). These are all trade-offs (speed, throughput, cost).

    At the very least, it makes sense to study this. The obvious reason that they aren’t even considering it is politics. The experts can study it, but only if they get money from the politicians. McGinn doesn’t want to even think about aerial trams in an election year, given his “hippy” reputation. That is why I really don’t expect much leadership or creativity on these issues until after the election.

    1. (sorry — that was meant as a reply to Ben Schiendelman)

       1. No worries!

          I thought you meant a gondola to streetcar transfer. Neither would be as fast or frequent as a subway, so they’re already providing a lower level of service (they’re less competitive than a subway with even a one seat ride). I’m totally cool with transfers between multiple fast rail lines.

    2. As someone who spent most of his life riding DC’s metrorail, lots of folks transfer at Metro Center– from Red to blue/orange and vice-versa.

13. I want to quote from a recent post of Bruce’s:

    With this proposal, SDOT again demonstrates that they grasp what makes transit useful: frequency and span of service on high-performing core routes, throughout the city. As with all of the bus improvement work coming out of SDOT these days, my only complaint is that there isn’t more of it.

    Let’s assume that Bruce and d.p. are right, and the streetcar is a waste of money and capacity.

    Building a streetcar still has an important political advantage: it’s service that will be planned by SDOT, rather than by Metro.

    Consider the SLU streetcar. It runs at 10-minute or 15-minute headways all day, for the entire route. That makes it one of the most frequent single routes in King County.

    Consider the Broadway streetcar. It will run at 10-minute headways all day, for the entire route. And it will run from 5 am until 1 am, 6 days a week. Again, this makes it one of the most frequent single routes in King County.

    Both of these services have a single, relatively straight routing, along major arterials. No turnbacks; no branches; no complex through-routing. Again, unlike virtually every other route in the area.

    In an ideal world, Metro would replicate Portland’s 1982 “big change”, and set up a grid system overnight. But barring that, having SDOT take over planning authority (and funding) for key in-city routes is definitely a step in the right direction.

    1. Relatively straight?

       Meanwhile, the official site offers no better than 15-minute service any time outside of rush hour* and complete closure every Sunday evening**.

       Lastly, that the official project site is a work of advocacy rather than a city-maintained informational tool reminds us, yet again, that streetcars and transportation expertise have little to do with one another.

       Really surprised to see you taking the unsupportable side on this, Aleks.

       *(Confirmed: you are better off walking than riding for the line’s stated purpose of reaching First Hill from Link.)
       **(So much for rails representing legibility and an expectation of consistent availability.)

       1. Ohmygodohmygodohmygodohmygodohmygod!

          Will I be able to use my ORCA card on the streetcar? Yes, the ORCA card will be the primary payment system.

          How much will it cost to ride, and how will I purchase a ticket? The fare will be established by the Sound Transit Board of Directors and is anticipated to be similar to Link Light Rail and Metro peak hour fares.

          http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/fh_faq.htm

          Similar to peak hour fares!? It’s going to cost 25 cents more than the bus — and by extension, more than the in-city Link fare that was supposed to reach First Hill in the first place — to use this infrequent, slow, roundabout thing?

          They can’t be serious!

    2. “Both of these services have a single, relatively straight routing,”
       You have looked at a map of FHSC, right? It’s a huge right angle, with several blocks of out of direction travel because it couldn’t play nice with the trolley wire, that is actually more direct.
       And SLUT is so short it’s virtually a horizontal elevator bouncing back and forth.
       As for the big political advantage being run by SDOT, how does that parly into better utilization of transit services throughout the city?

    3. The SLUT is 15 minutes because that’s what they threw together as a schedule. The FHS is 10 minutes because ST insisted and wouldn’t let SDOT cut corners to get the Pioneer Square extension. Metro is mostly 30 minutes because it can’t afford to run more often. Metro’s longstanding goal is 15 minutes full time on all the core routes, which it has achieved on the 36 and 44, and almost achieved on the 49, by gradually adding runs as money was available.

       1. Corners. Cut. http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/fh_faq.htm

          Fucking useless.

       2. It was 10, then it was 12, now it’s 15.

          Just in case you keep wishing your eyes would deceive you:

          The streetcar will run at 10-minute intervals during peak hours (Monday to Friday 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) and every 15 minutes at other times.

          Portlandia Everywhere.

       3. d.p., you spend a lot of time complaining for the zero advocacy you do.

       4. Advocates for smart investments and reasonable endeavors are in short supply around here.

          We have no dearth of people who advocate stupid crap that ends up going nowhere slow… every 15 minutes or less.

       5. OK, but what do you actually support?

          (Agree FHSC makes little sense.)

       6. YVRlutyens,

          As I’ve written many times, I support building a functioning, unified multi-modal network, by targeting investments in high-quality, unimpeded grade-separated transit where demand patterns and land usage most warrant, while at the same time consolidating, streamlining, and otherwise improving surface connections and auxiliary routes, in order to give as many people as possible access to real life-changing public transportation rather than nominal lip-service spindle transit.

          This should sound very familiar to you, as the city that your YVR handle suggests is your home has been working in fits and starts toward that very same set of goals for 30 years.

          In addition, and as a matter of least-of-evils necessity, I support commuter-oriented lines that offer the option to bypass the worst traffic chokepoints (i.e. Lynnwood, East Link, South 200th).

          The subways are crucial, and need to be built right the first time. That means no platinum-plated overbuilds that make stations so expensive they end up spaced miles apart, with the clueless clamouring for slow-ass streetcars to fill gaps that shouldn’t exist in the first place. It means prioritizing quality of service, and correct station placement for walkshed coverage and ease of connection, over quantity of rail as measured in miles of trackage.

          That’s why I do not support promising everything to everyone. Distant connections like Everett and Tacoma need frequent all-day urban-style subways precisely never. Issaquah and Federal Way and Woodinville are not going to sprout miraculous urban centers that overcome their bedroom-community-ness (separated from the region’s actual urban centers by miles of sprawl). I rabidly oppose more sprawl-enabling BARTs, and I refuse to allow a repeat of the harm that has already been done to urban Link segments in the name of expediting very-long-distance commutes.

          Ben’s problem – the reason that he makes for a very bad figurehead for the cause of Seattle transit – is that he seems to genuinely believe in “everything everywhere”. (Or, if he doesn’t, then he believes in promising “everything everywhere” in the hopes of getting some portion of those miles of trackage lain in arbitrary locations.) Moreover, he will jump down your throat should you dare to point out obvious: that things he treats as inevitable are quite simply not going to happen.

          He believes that a line will cross the Duwamish by bridge or tunnel, somehow serve the still-95%-sprawl of West Seattle, continue to the sprawl of Burien, turn left, cross the existing Link line, and wind its way through the sprawl of Tukwila to the sprawl of Renton. He believes it’s impossible to build a branch junction in the U-District, but believes that very same station will one day grow a deep-level addition to serve a totally separate line. He believes our mid-size children’s hospital will get its own subway stop, though the same transit agency has already dicked over the region’s primary medical district downtown.

          And he believes a second Lake Washington crossing is so assured that he’s willing to risk other priorities on it. Despite the fact that the first lake crossing has such borderline usage figures that the federal government would not have been willing to kick in a single dime to build it.

          I’m tired of being told I “oppose everything”, when all I oppose is incompetence and insanity. There’s plenty that I support: it just has to actually work!

       7. Thanks for the update. I didn’t actually think you opposed everything, but I was getting awfully curious about what you supported. Still curious about what specific initiatives you would support.

          You’re correct that I live in Vancouver, and we have had fits and starts of better transit here, though there is plenty more to do. I do differ a bit with you on what makes for an effective transportation. I support fairly widely spaced stations on metro lines even if requires shadow feeder service. What makes the metro system in Vancouver work is that it draws heavily on bus connections. Certainly the walkshed is important, but the bus-shed is more important for some stations. They become real bus hubs. And the metro is faster than the bus, and often driving, so people are happy to make the transfer.

          The Vancouver experience leads me to think that transit should not just about “getting people out of their cars” but about providing something good. Which for transit usually means speed, frequency, reliability and going where people want to go. In that vein I would advocate scrapping the East Link plan in favour of a direct tunnelled automatic metro between downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. This would be tunnelled under Madison to about 23rd and then directly under the lake and under 8th in Bellevue. This would be real money, but it would create something that people would use because it was desirable. Downtown to downtown in about 13 minutes with 3 minutes headways. The East Side commuters would demand a transfer in Bellevue because it would be so much faster. And such a line would offer good connections to First Hill and buses that ran along Rainier/Broadway and along 23rd. Such a line could also continue west, skirting the deep parts of Elliot Bay under the port, to West Seattle. This would put California Ave and Alaska about 10 minutes for downtown. Also a useful service that would make walk, bike and bus connections desirable.

          I have looked at Ben Schiendelman’s Seattle Subway plan – at least I think it is Ben Schiendelman’s plan – and I agree that it builds a lot of lines. I’m all for transit fantasies (see paragraph above), but at some point they need to be whittled down into something realistic. That plan seems to envisage three transit ROW’s under or over the Ship Canal. I doubt that that can be supported. With Link going to UW, there seems to be two transit corridors available, up the 99 corridor up Aurora and through Interbay to Ballard. Seattle Subway considers the Ballard line to be the most important, but I’m not sure that this is correct. It seems to me that a 99 corridor line would be able to get higher ridership because there is so much possibility for redevelopment along Aurora, and it is a more direct route to North Seattle. If built as an automatic metro line, it would have 3 minute headways and that would allow much easier transfers to the new line and would support very frequent east west buses to Ballard, Fremont and UW. That alignment would also allow a slight deviation west under Upper Queen Anne to greatly improve transit coverage up there.

          The North Link plan is supposed to cover North Seattle, but the trouble with Link is that it is not automatic meaning it cannot be operated as frequently as an automatic line, and even when operated at its maximum frequency, all the required drivers drive up the operating costs. This seems to me to be another metric of useful transit: operating cost coverage. Useful transit is something that people are willing to pay for. The big trunk routes of a transit system ought to be getting close to 100% operating cost coverage

       8. I don’t have the energy to reply in full at the moment, but I must say that while I appreciate your ruminations, there is much in your last paragraphs that suggests you are not terribly familiar with the topography, land usage, and movement patterns of Seattle proper.

          Which is perfectly fine, since you don’t live here, but which is leading you to a few backwards conclusions. Will explain when I have the chance.

14. Well this conversation got interesting…I am learning a lot. Um, Is there a simplistic gantt chart or something of all the projects and their major milestones (and org leads) – that would be helpful since some things seem to be in design, while others are in build and others are in vision/waiting for $$$. I didn’t even know there was a SDOT playing in this field – I thought it was just ST and Metro with $ from WADOT (ooops WSDOT) and Feds. So, we have KCMetro, STransit (regional), and Seattle – hm I had no idea. I think I understand the end-point fallacy – I think back in DC that would have been a Direct/Express or Local bus (that I took to the metro). (which it seems could have translated to Link being express and a bus being local instead of the street car – so is it more $ to run the bus then build the street car? I still feel like I don’t see a big picture and maybe I’m getting taxpayer/voter fatigue. I think the Portland 1982 thing looks interesting…will have to read about that. Thanks for the info/forum!

Comments are closed.