When the Viaduct comes down and Alaskan Way is finally rebuilt as an epic, 9-lane boulevard, West Seattle buses will enter and exit downtown on Alaskan Way via Columbia Street. As Bruce reported at the time, SDOT hadn’t committed to dedicated lanes along the waterfront for buses, leaving open the possibility that buses (including RapidRide) could get stuck in ferry traffic.
Fortunately, the latest documents from Waterfront Seattle seem to indicate (and a follow-up call with Waterfront Seattle confirmed) that Metro will in fact be getting dedicated lanes as far north as Columbia St.
“The proposed Alaskan Way roadway configuration provides an all-day transit priority lane northbound along Alaskan Way to Columbia Street and southbound along Alaskan Way between Columbia Street and Yesler Way,” according to a report posted on the website.
The report also contains a deep analysis of “local transit” along the waterfront, a.k.a. the old Waterfront Streetcar, mothballed several years ago when the development of the SAM Sculpture Park necessitated demolition of the streetcar’s maintenance shed. The report lays out the pros and cons of re-instating the old George Benson streetcar, or replacing it with either a bus or a “modern” streetcar like the ones that ply South Lake Union (and soon, First Hill). The dedicated tracks you see in the photo above are already gone, and the tracks in Pioneer Square are substandard and would have to be replaced as well.
While the historic streetcar had a certain kitsch appeal and made sense for moving tourists from Pioneer Square to the Waterfront and back, this corridor seems unlikely to be a significant transit corridor for locals. However, a modern streetcar could, according to the study, make use of the new Charles Street facility being built for the First Hill Streetcar (with a $3-10 million expansion), while a historic streetcar would necessitate a new barn “located under Elliott Way” and costing “between $16.9 to $23.4 million.”
So for the price they list, does the car barn have marble walls and gold trim? And we wonder why nothing gets done in Seattle. Of course what happened to the money King County was to give the private developer for their new car house? Were any other more reasonable sites looked at? What happened to the idea posed in the mariners study of co-locating the car barn with the first hill line (sharing track to/from the yard, or even extending the WFSC through the international district on say King Street to access the car barn property) Their price estimates seem way overkill. Typical Seattle politics. Study something to death than say it cant be done because it costs too much or they ran out of money…
Always remember for these studies: it’s not always the answers to the questions that can affect the outcome of a project, it’s the question being asked or the requirements being made.
For example, the WFSC study performed a month or so ago had the requirement that the line be constructed to low-floor modern streetcars standards for a vehicle conversion at some unknown point in the future. It suddenly becomes an easy negative (historic vehicles not low floor and would require an ADA lift) to help outweigh the positives (reducing stops and passenger load on 1st Ave line, tourist attraction, better connectivity to northern waterfront, etc). The possibility of using the same high-floor platforms that the WFSC used for years, then removing them at the time of conversion, appeared to be precluded.
I know you link to the Alaskan way future road depictions, but I still think that stating “When the Viaduct comes down and Alaskan Way is finally rebuilt as an epic, 9-lane boulevard, ” gives the wrong implication about the state of the road. There will only be a small stretch of the road near the ferry terminal that will grow to 9 lines. Your blanket statement implies the entire stretch will the same size.
Agreed. 7 lane roads are much more appealing to the casual strollers down the boardwalk.
Hey, it has as few as 5 in some sections! That’s almost as narrow as highway 99.
Still wider than most Interstate Highways.
Using the lane counting methodology being used here, First Avenue is also five lanes. Calling that “Still wider than most Interstate Highways” is disingenuous.
We’re not just counting lanes. The distance from sidewalk to sidewalk is huge. There are certainly portions of 99 that are narrower.
The incredible shrinking road! Watch those lanes disappear before your eyes!
I think they have at least 9 lanes in front of Coleman Dock at the moment. They were using 3 lanes just to hold traffic turning into the ferry dock on the weekend.
The other question people should be asking is: how well will the right turn from 3rd to Columbia work? If buses back up at that intersection, southbound flow on 3rd can suffer badly. This was a major problem on bad traffic days until Metro put in the queue jump at the viaduct on-ramp. The contraflow arrangement requires taking a westbound lane from Columbia, and it’s vital that the intersections still work well in the outbound direction.
Reserved lanes to get transit past Colman Dock are absolutely necessary- remember, we’re talking about bus service that used to have an elevated express ride in and out of town.
But I think it will be more likely these lanes stay transit-reserved if they don’t have to deal with ferry traffic.
Best approach might be to put both lanes to the east side of Alaskan Way from point south of Pioneer Square where the new road comes down to grade. Streetcar could join this reservation between Yesler and Marion.
Mark Dublin
The buses are already turning from 3rd to Columbia.
With the Viaduct gone, there should be less traffic on Columbia because the on-ramp to 99 will be gone.
What Paul said. Also, traffic may be reduced enough that one lane of westbound Columbia, in addition to the contraflow lane, could be designated transit-only.
I agree that the city needs to do whatever it takes to ensure that buses can quickly make the turn off 3rd.
At the open house they said there would be full-time transit lanes on both Alaskan Way and Columbia Street to 3rd. So those lanes would not back up. As for adjacent traffic, I don’t see why it can’t be handled with a “two-lane turn” like some other intersections have.
The Viaduct today is fast, but to exit it, buses currently have to wait in a giant line of SOV’s. I’m curious what the wait time to get off at Seneca typically is during the AM peak. Is there a chance that with dedicated bus lanes, peak commutes into downtown could actually be faster, on average, than with the viaduct?
Last year I lived at 1st & Seneca, and I would be at that intersection every day at 7:30 AM to walk to 3rd.
It’s not an issue today. Morning rush hour really isn’t bad on First, so the ramp get plenty of light time. I think SDOT doesn’t want traffic backing up onto the viaduct for safety reasons. Every car gets through in the first green cycle, and sometimes had to wait for the 2nd. It’s really not that bad though because of the timing.
“While the historic streetcar had a certain kitsch appeal and made sense for moving tourists from Pioneer Square to the Waterfront and back, this corridor seems unlikely to be a significant transit corridor for locals.
However, a modern streetcar could, according to the study, make use of the new Charles Street facility being built for the First Hill Streetcar (with a $3-10 million expansion), while a historic streetcar would necessitate a new barn “located under Elliott Way” and costing ‘between $16.9 to $23.4 million.’ ”
Frank, I hope I’m not the only one who refuses to accept that the new Central Waterfront area will never become a part of the city where people can live and work in enterprises beside groundskeeping, hospitality, and entertainment. If it also became a place where people could work in small manufacturing, for instance, it certainly would need transit beyond a cute amusement park ride.
The reading room on the tenth floor of the Downtown library has several engineering studies of ways in which the Benson line could be extended, south past the stadiums and north past industries along Elliott and cruise ships at Pier 91.
A carline past IDS and the Victoria Clipper terminal could literally connect Sea-Tac Airport with Victoria BC- ‘way beyond a tourist ride
Second point: the main reason the Charles Street facility can’t handle historic streetcars is the First Hill Line project leadership’s insistence on hanging traction power overhead in one direction only, relying on gravity and battery power for the other direction.
San Francisco’s “F” line has no problems whatever running pantographs and trolley-shoes on the same wire for miles between Geneva Yard and downtown. On Market Street, PCC streetcars and trolleybuses run the same positive wire.
Seventeen to twenty-some million dollars is a good first quote on the cost of a really misbegotten idea.
Mark Dublin
I’m pretty sure you’re confused: the F line in San Francisco makes no use of pantographs in any way, shape, or form. That line’s historic streetcars use single trolley shoes for the live wire and the rails for the return. The trolleybuses in that area share that single live wire, but also a return wire next to it.
I would hate to see what’d happen if Muni’s modern streetcars were to run along the tracks beneath those shared wires.
It’s true. There is a segment of MUNI along San Jose Ave where historic vehicles deadhead to the maintenance facility at Balboa Park (Geneva Yard?) using a trolley shoe while the regular vehicles use a pantograph. If MUNI’s regular vehicles were to use that surface line, electrical chaos would ensue!
There isn’t really any reason why a modern streetcar couldn’t use a trolley collector. It would require changing poles at terminus stations, which could be done automatically.
Of course there will be increasing local use, but it will never be a major residential/job center like Broadway & Pine. The issue is whether the vintage streetcars are worth the cost over modern streetcars. There’s not only the upfront costs but the ongoing costs of maintaining two different kinds of vehicles. (Actually, I would not object to a bus on this route, as long as it’s frequent. It’s not a persistently high-demand corridor like downtown-Queen Anne counterbalance.)
It doesn’t need to be a major residential/job center to be a big trip generator.
Depends om the frequency of service. There are plenty of businesses and residential towers/midrises along Western and Elliott, north of the Market, who are not well served by buses. It’s easier to walk to Alaskan Wy than go up the hill to 1st or 3rd to catch a crowded bus.
(I used to live there)
There are some questionable assumptions in the operating costs section of the report. The maximum assumed operating cost of the rubber tired vehicles is $116/hour which is lower than Metro’s current operating cost and given that the waterfront buses would be a small and unique fleet, it doesn’t make sense that the rubber tired fleet would have an operating cost lower than the rest of the fleet (if operated and maintained by Metro). Also there isn’t any analysis of the lifetime cost of operating any option. Over 30 years it’s likely that the historic streetcars will fall apart and have to be replaced with new, historic streetcars, the rubber tired buses will have to be replaced several times and the modern streetcars would likely be able to last 30 years, but there would need to be a sizable allowance made for mid-life maintenance and modernization.
Where are the ridership projection numbers? If the new waterfront does succeed in reconnecting downtown Seattle to the waterfront and the area is reactivated as a destination, how many people will be using transit along the corridor? Would ridership be best served by a smaller bus or should an investment be made in building higher capacity rail transit in the corridor? Who knows? Not anybody that read that report.
Usual habit: lowballing bus costs and exaggerating rail costs. Ticks me off.
Or highballing bus amenities to make the project more appealing, then ending up with something like RapidRide.
$116/hr is plausible for a smaller, battery powered vehicle. Much of the $120/hr number that people are fond of ball-parking is depreciation. If the vehicle is cheaper than a full-size transit coach, but exhibits the same tear-year life cycle, its fully-allocated cost will be cheaper.
I agree about ridership estimates. On short-haul circulation routes like this, frequency is more important than speed, so the small-bus options likely provide better mobility, assuming the capacity of rail isn’t needed.
Have they looked at running a Link line from IDS to the waterfront? It could split off just north of IDS and run west under Pioneer Square, ending up on Alaskan Way for a stop at the Ferry Terminal. Another stop could be placed at the north end for the cruise terminal. The line could then head north and have stops in Lower Queen Anne, Ballard, etc. This would provide a one-seat ride from King St. Station and Seatac to the waterfront ferries and cruise ships. It could run on the dedicated transit lanes along the waterfront, and even run mixed with a waterfront streetcar line for some sections.
Have they looked at running a Link line from IDS to the waterfront?
I’m sure they haven’t looked at that idea. One of the many problems would be that Link and the streetcars use different power for their motors and they can’t operate from the same wire. There was at one time a semi-serious discussion about extending the Benson streetcar north to the Amgen campus and the cruise terminal. I don’t know if BNSF would be willing to cede a right-of-way to a streetcar, but a streetcar connection to the cruise terminal and Interbay might be a useful connection someday in the future.
Trimet will be running streetcars and MAX over the new transit bridge in 2015. I guess I assumed they used the same overhead system.
Enough already with the 9 lane doom & gloom. That’s only 2-3 blocks south of Coleman dock to get people trying to reach the ferries out of the way. 90% of the waterfront roadway will be no worse than what you see today … if not better.
Thank you.
Yeah! No worse than today! If Not better! Worldclass!
Only $4.25 billion! Call now for special deal!
Hooray, bus lanes!
I see no problem with a “modern streetcar” route. Really, you can still run historic streetcars on a “modern streetcar” route, as San Diego has proven.
That PCC is cool. I loved riding it around at lunch. It was beautifully refurbished by volunteers with 100% private money. It even had a built-in wheel chair lift. SD is refurbishing more because it’s proven to be quite popular and they’re looking into using them on a new streetcar line.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=389140
I find the whole discussion of the waterfront to be incredibly depressing. The entire assumption behind the road is wrong. It’s not a through route, so it doesn’t need any more lanes than an average downtown street, with the exception of the staging area for the ferries. If state law requires four lanes for ferry loading and unloading, that still means you need only six lanes for that small stretch. The rest should be four lanes max, maybe only two (or two plus two street parking lanes to buffer sidewalk traffic from vehicle traffic.
All subsequent planning based upon a massive surface highway is broken. The only upside of the tunnel (which I opposed) was that it was supposed to carry enough traffic to obviate a surface highway. What happened? And what can we do to encourage the conversion of this street to normal scale in the future, if we can’t get it done right the first time?
It is a through route, and always was going to be. It will carry traffic to Western and Elliott, and will be the major connection between Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, and the south half of the city. The DBT can’t serve this function because there is no longer a Western/Elliott interchange. And there is no way that the surface option would have avoided it either. You can’t use I-5 for that purpose for the same reason you can’t use the DBT; north of downtown, it’s too far east.
Imagining Alaskan Way as a small city street was never realistic, under any scenario. (Except maybe the viaduct-rebuild scenario, but then just making it narrower wouldn’t make it any more worthwhile or inviting.)
I believe the Port’s contribution was contingent on four through-traffic GP lanes all the way. So two lanes for ferry queuing, two more for transit, and a parking lane to assuage the waterfront businesses, and you have nine.
You don’t need a parking lane in the vicinity of the ferry terminal.
I agree!
The ferry traffic is south of Columbia Street. The main cultural part of the waterfront is north of Columbia Street, and will remain so after redevelopment, even if a few secondary attractions are south of it. Conveniently, the road narrows and becomes quieter when it enters the culural nexus. East of Pine Street, the boulevard moves away from the waterfront to a new Elliott Avenue, and a quiet two-lane road branches off of it to Pier 70. That provides an opportunity to install attractions in the even-quieter northern part.
Huh? Mike, I’m pretty sure that’s 4 lanes all the way north to Broad/OSP. Not two lanes anywhere.
Whatever the outcome, it’s just going to universally suck for West Seattle folks and to a lesser extent anyone coming from North Seattle via 99. It’ll be interesting to see how traffic modifies to this all.
The noncommittal answer about the streetcar really tells me that “it’s not happening”.
Rule #1 for arguments. Find the cheapest possible quote for your method and the most expensive quote for the alternate method. Compare, rinse, rather, repeat.
I really want to know why the tunnel meant to totally avoid Seattle was ramrodded through so we could have a nine lane boulevard installed in lieu of the viaduct? Wasn’t part of the plan to make the whole stretch of land occupied by the viaduct into something pleasing for the city? What’s so pleasing about a nine lane boulevard on the waterfront? Were we in Seattle sold a bill of goods for a Seattle version of the big dig that many of us will never use (the tunnel) and a monstrosity of a “boulevard” that will make use of the waterfront a genuine dangerous PITA?
Joseph,
The 9 lane portion is (gratefully) not very long. Its placement sucks, given it intersects with the ‘recommended’ pedestrian connection from Pioneer Square to the waterfront. There are details of the configuration still to be worked out (the joys of an in-process ‘design’ exercise driven by people whose overriding goal is ‘no one gets everything they want’) and I’m not particularly thrilled about it (I would far rather see the State buying property to store cars, than using a wide street profile for temporary car storage).
All that said, the tunnel ‘debate’ didn’t include the $$ required to make Alaskan Way a ‘front porch’ for the City. The State’s paying for the tunnel; Seattle will have to decide how much $$ to put into the waterfront, in competition with all the other things we need to do.
North of Columbia, at least, the street should be reasonable for pedestrians and bicycles. God only knows about transit riders (if there will be any transit for us to ride).