It’s quite common in Seattle to see bikes and transit compete for the same limited street space. Once in a while though, we have the opportunity to improve both transit and cycling at the same time. This is one of those times.
South Lake Union Streetcar
The South Lake Union Streetcar opened in 2007. Unlike most modern streetcars, it was not built because of increased transit demand along the corridor; it was meant to help redevelop the neighborhood. Local historians can argue whether it was key to the neighborhood being redeveloped or largely irrelevant. It is hard to argue that it matters much now as it carries about 500 people a day. It is owned by the City of Seattle but operated by King County Metro, and recently it was out of commission for a few weeks. Rather than run substitute service, Metro did nothing. This is telling — the streetcar contributes so little to transit mobility that neither the City nor Metro thought it was necessary to provide a substitute. We can do better.
Transit Replacement
The South Lake Union Streetcar provides service in South Lake Union that is is quite similar to the 40 and RapidRide C. It shares several stops, which means that riders simply wait for the first vehicle to arrive. The effective frequency for those stops is better as a result. But there are several streetcar stops that are quite close to bus stops, but not identical. This is bad. Effective frequency is much worse while riders have to walk just about as far to a stop.
The obvious replacement for the streetcar is the RapidRide H. The C and H would then share all of the stops from Alaskan Way & Jackson to Fairview & Valley. With both buses running every ten minutes in the middle of the day, that could mean buses running every five minutes (more or less) along a fairly lengthy corridor. Riders from Westwood Village would have two ways to reach South Lake Union. Riders along Delridge would benefit from having more one-seat rides. Unlike other RapidRide extensions, the cost would be minimal since the Rapid Ride “stations” (with ORCA readers) are already there. You would probably save a little bit in terms of operations (the distances are similar but it is more expensive to operate the streetcar). From a transit standpoint, this would be a huge improvement — at no additional cost — even before we improved the right-of-way situation.
Biking (and Transit) Improvement
But there is another aspect to this that is easy to overlook. As part of the RapidRide J project, the Eastlake Corridor — an essential corridor for cyclists — will be getting a major upgrade. Along Eastlake Avenue there will be bike lanes on both sides of the street. But at Fairview the bike path changes — there will be a bidirectional protected set of bike lanes (on the side closer to the lake) along Fairview Avenue all the way to Valley Street. But at that point, the bike path changes again. Rather then continue to hug the shore, cyclists are expected to cross the streetcar tracks and work their way over to the bike lanes on Valley Street. This is less than ideal from a cycling standpoint and it means that the RapidRide C (which carries about twenty times as many riders as the streetcar) is left without any right-of-way on Valley Street.
If the streetcar is removed, the tracks can be removed or paved over. That way the two-way bike lanes can continue around the southern part of the lake and connect to the bike lanes on Westlake. Thus riders of all ages would have a safe and straightforward way around the lake. With the new bike lanes closer to the lake, the bike lanes on Valley Street could be removed. Bus and BAT lanes could be added here, greatly speeding up the C and H. This is a rare “win-win” for transit and cycling.
This would not be the only area made safer (and faster) for cyclists. With the streetcar gone from Terry Avenue this would become a great corridor for cycling north-south through South Lake Union. It is well suited for this. Terry is a minor street. Cars are not allowed to cross Denny Way on Terry although pedestrians can. Cyclists can as well, although the crossing could be made better without spending much money. Once across Denny, Terry is again well suited for bike lanes and bike travel in general. It is a relatively flat street with very little car traffic (and no buses). It would help form an excellent set of bike paths around Lake Union and through the heart of South Lake Union to the Convention Center (where the street ends).
CCC
Hovering over all of this is the proposed CCC Streetcar extension which would add transit service on First Avenue. But like the South Lake Union Streetcar, we can do better. There are a number of different alternatives, including ones I proposed years ago. It’s hard to say what the best option is (I’m currently leaning towards adding bus lanes and moving the 1 and 14). Like the South Lake Union Streetcar it is relatively easy to provide far more functionality (at far less cost) than the poorly designed streetcar route.
Costs
Paving over the streetcar tracks would cost some money. Fortunately, there are several ways in which removing the streetcar would save money for the city. Not only in terms of operations, but also by selling off the assets. The streetcars themselves are worth money. The land beneath the streetcar depot is worth a lot of money. It was bought when South Lake Union property wasn’t worth much — now it sits in the middle of skyscrapers. It is quite likely the city would come out ahead financially in both the short and long term, even after adding new infrastructure for the bikes and buses.
It is rare that we have this opportunity; we should take advantage of it. Remove the South Lake Union streetcar and make the area much better for people riding bikes and taking transit.
Director Spotts does not use the suffix; his name is culture connector.
One half the capital cost of the SLU line came from an LID. What is their interest?
The streetcar service has already been surpassed. It does not have to be replaced.
SDOT spent quite a bit of time and effort to find a SLU layover for the H line and did not. On answer would be to through route lines C and D again and extend the H line to the C line terminal.
> SDOT spent quite a bit of time and effort to find a SLU layover for the H line and did not.
Interesting – presumably this was during the RR-H design?
Rather than mess with existing rapidride lines, how feasible would it be to replace the current streetcar lines with a new rapidride line that includes the CC route and also connects the northern termini of the existing lines? Create a circulator route that does cap hill, first hill, pioneer sq, downtown, SLU.
I know there are issues with circulator routes but I’m not well versed enough to say one way or the other.
A circulator route is cheap to set up, but very expensive to operate. The only way to pay for the operation of it is to pull buses and drivers out of existing routes (even if new money were found to run the circulator route, the same service tradeoff applies, as that money could have been used instead to boost frequency on other routes).
In return, you end up with a bus route that is likely to have poor ridership for the same reasons the streetcar has poor ridership – virtually every trip it offers would be redundant with either existing bus routes, Link, or just plain walking. The number of people that are willing to wait longer to save a block of walking *and* happen to have their origins and destinations precisely aligned so that the circulator route actually does save them that block of walking is quite small.
Extending the H line to SLU, by contrast, is a much more efficient way to boost downtown/SLU service. You’re not adding any new service through downtown, just SLU. The buses are already there. The RapidRide stations are already there. The only cost would be a couple extra buses and drivers, which could be easily paid for simply by not operating the SLU streetcar.
Yeah, what asdf2 said. Circulator routes tend to perform poorly: https://humantransit.org/2009/04/seattle-transit-blog-is-reporting-some-grief-from-the-rainier-valley-area-in-southeast-seattle-regarding-king-county-metros.html. This is similar to what Walker wrote about in this post as well: https://humantransit.org/2013/08/translink-high-and-low-performing-routes.html (which I referenced).
The same is true of the streetcar route if and when the CCC is finished. Never mind the mode — the route is terrible.
It may not be obvious why routes of this nature perform poorly (and long, straight routes perform so well). One way to think of it: trip pairs. Imagine a listing of every bus stop on a route. Not look at what combination is realistic and fast. Consider the RapidRide E. Every single combination is fast and probably best taken on that particular bus. No wonder it gets so many riders. Now consider a completed streetcar (with the CCC). There are plenty of combinations that would be silly with the streetcar (e. g. Broadway & Pine to 1st & Pine).
In terms of “messing” with the routes, it would be trivial to just extend the H. There appears to be lots of room to layover next to the C. I can understand why they would be hesitant now, given the congestion. But this would greatly reduce it (for the buses).
In contrast a new route takes a lot more effort.
As far as First Avenue is concerned there are a number of different options. But the key is serving with an existing route is much cheaper That is because the buses are going north-south anyway. Instead of going on Third, the bus goes on First. You also have a more linear route. For example consider the 1/14 combination. Every trip pair makes sense, and every trip pair would make sense if the bus ran on First. So you not only save a lot of (operational) money, you have a far more useful route.
“On answer would be to through route lines C and D again and extend the H line to the C line terminal.”
That would screw over Ballard. When the C/D replaced the 15 and 18, Ballard lost direct access to the southern half of downtown, Pioneer Square, and the stadiums. It complained about that for years, then finally the C and D were split and they got back more optimal service.
West Seattle has never had direct access to southern downtown on the viaduct/waterfront routes because of how the viaduct/Alaskan Way works, but that has been partly rectified with the stop at Jackson. Still, it’s a matter of taking something away from Ballard, vs West Seattle never had it.
You could extend the H to SLU and pay for it by deleting the streetcar, and have money left over for something else.
I think that the City largely pays for Streetcar operations. Would they be willing to pay for the “H” extension? Much of the H’s walkshed is outside the City.
This is not saying it’s a bad idea; it’s a good idea, but there are potential political problems.
I think the city had Metro pay for it out of Metro’s bus hours for Seattle. There was a controversy when it started that it would need more operational money than the equivalent number of buses, so it would displace more service than it would serve. That wouldn’t happen if the city were giving Metro the money to operate it.
“Would they be willing to pay for the “H” extension? Much of the H’s walkshed is outside the City.”
It paid for additional 120 service before the H, and it may have paid part of the H’s capital costs. The entire H extension we’re talking about is inside the city of Seattle, and its purpose is to get more transit capacity into a highrise district and replace the streetcar. All of those benefit the city’s taxpayers.
Yeah, what Mike said. The city subsidizes various routes, including those that extend outside the city. It just needs to spend most of its time in the city (and the H definitely qualifies). It is highly likely it would save the city quite a bit of money. The streetcar is expensive to operate. An extension is usually fairly cheap.
1st Avenue could be served by already funded bus routes now serving 3rd Avenue. Ones requiring large capital improvements are not needed. Candidates are routes 7, 14, 36, 21, 24, 33, 124, 131, 132.
And then we’ve come full circle – kinda. Buses used to be spread across 1st, 3rd and 5th Aves “back in the day”. It made transfers a b****. Then they were mostly all consolidated to 3rd for the ease of transfers. I think keeping service on 3rd is efficient.
The difference is right-of-way. The CCC assumes transit lanes on First. Any bus service should do the same. Consolidating makes transfer easier, but depending on the routes, it would just change where people transfer. For example if I’m trying to get from 10th West (on Queen Anne) to the south end of Beacon Avenue I would take the 1 and then the 60. Right now I could make that transfer anywhere downtown. Instead I make that transfer at several stops on Jackson. There are some trips where you wouldn’t be that lucky. For example if you are headed to Swedish Cherry Hill (3/4) you would have to walk a couple blocks. But you have another option. As the buses converge next to the Seattle Center, just get off and catch another bus. We run enough buses that the extra transfer isn’t the end of the world.
I’m not saying we should have service on First (or Fifth). But I’m saying if we have service on First we should service hours and just shift a bus or two.
Buses are completely at the (lack of) “mercy” from the brazen waves of jay-walkers at First and Pike. That’s why people in West Seattle and Ballard begged Metro to move the 15 and 18 over to Third Avenue and insisted that the RapidRide replacements serve Third. Getting through Pioneer Square can be almost as bad.
There’s some evidence that people are more respectful of streetcars.
There’s no doubt that First Avenue needs service, ideally unbroken from Jackson to Denny, but “moving” lines from Third will raise powerful objections from folks who use them, even with the unpleasantness around Pike and Pine on Third. I think you will find especially hard pushback from riders of the 1/14 because they both have tails in affluent “view” property neighborhoods, and their riders use them to access downtown highrise jobs. They won’t want to climb up the hill from First to Fourth and Marion.
Buses are completely at the (lack of) “mercy” from the brazen waves of jay-walkers at First and Pike. That’s why people in West Seattle and Ballard begged Metro to move the 15 and 18 over to Third Avenue
Nonsense. It was congestion. This would address that (by adding bus lanes). That is the main reason buses moved around — too much traffic.
Not “ninsrnse”. Stand at First and Pike for a half hour on a summer afternoon or even a winter Saturday and you can count the number of cars that can pass north-south on your twenty digits. It’s just one per light cycle. The buses would suffer similarly.
And putting a cop there won’t help. Folks would just cross on the side the cop wasn’t haranguing this light cycle.
Why were bus routes taken from 1st Avenue?
In 2011, routes 15, 18, 21, 22, and 56 were shifted to 3rd Avenue to make room for two AWV projects: a city light vault at Cherry Street and the WOSCA detour. In 2012, routes 10 and 12 were broken apart and taken from 1st as it was full of traffic diverted from the Elliott on-ramp to the AWV. Routes 11 and 125 were broken apart to end turns to/from 3rd Avenue with pay on entry fare collection. In 2013, the seawall project disrupted Alaskan Way layover of routes 16 and 66; in 2016, Route 66 used that layover; they used a few blocks of 1st Avenue; was it 2017 when the CCC streetcar utility work kicked routes 62 and 99 from 1st Avenue?
The AWV replacement project is complete. The deep bore opened in 2020. In 2019, the interim Southend pathway used 1st Avenue.
The 7/14/36 aren’t suitable to move because the form the core of the north-south and Jackson Street circulation system halfway between 1st and 6th where most of the riders and destinations are. It would be like ripping out one of the things Metro got right. The 1 could be detached from the 14 so that it could move.
The reason people originally bitched about all the Ballard and West Seattle routes being on 1st was that 1st was the sketchiest part of Seattle. Then the flophouses and X-rated theaters on 1st got replaced by swooshy boutiques and swanky condos, and the sketchiness moved to 3rd. The 1st Avenue buses were finally moved to 3rd because the viaduct construction was expected to cause more congestion on 1st.
Because the sketchiness is now on 3rd, people in those affluent outer view properties may actually welcome having their routes moved to 1st. How many times do we hear in the comments, “Third Avenue is unsafe to wait for a bus at or get off a bus in.”
The 7/14/36 aren’t suitable to move because the form the core of the north-south and Jackson Street circulation system
You would still have the 7 and 36. Even now, despite the driver shortage, each route is running every ten minutes (in the middle of the day). Synchronize them and you have five minute frequency along the shared corridor. That seems adequate.
Routes 7, 14, and 36 would still provide that circulation service; they would still be on Jackson; they would still go north-south; they would provide better circulation than the Kubly SDOT CCC streetcar.
We need to address the societal issues throughout the city. Transit and the city need one another.
Sigh. I really didn’t want to get into the whole CCC discussion (it wasn’t part of the first draft) but since you mentioned it…
Eddie is right. There are a bunch of options for covering First Avenue. Unlike the streetcar extension, these would cost nothing to operate. You are shifting service, not adding it.
I now lean towards the 1/14 in part because of the study (and in part because it is a pretty simple change). Any choice would require trade-offs. But ultimately service on First is based on coverage and it makes sense to maximize coverage on First. The 1/14 would serve Belltown. The CCC would not.
The trade-off is that it doesn’t connect to as many routes. If the 70 was sent to First Avenue, then it would cross paths with buses like the 5, C, etc. To me that is a small price to pay, especially since it does connect to plenty of buses. The big advantage is that it keeps the routing simply and fast.
While just shifting the bus would provide extra service on First, it might be worth overlapping the buses to provide extra service. This would cost money, but still be a lot cheaper than operating the CCC. The 14 could layover with the 8 (unless there was a good layover/turnaround close to Denny) while the 1 could layover in Pioneer Square somewhere. Right now the buses are running every 15 minutes, so that would mean 7.5 minute combined frequency along First Avenue. Once the driver shortage is over, I could see 12 minutes on each route (and thus six minutes on the combined section).
“I now lean towards the 1/14 in part because of the study”
What study?
RossB: there is no ETB overhead on 1st Avenue between Lenora and Broad streets. It did have overhead between 1940 and 1963.
@Mike — This study that came out a while ago: https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-Update-on-Waterfront-and-Northwest-Belltown-Transit-Report.pdf. e discussed it on the blog. On Page 9 there is a section on “Report Requirements”. They list three ideas: an extension of the 125; a new fixed-route waterfront route; extension of trolley Routes 1 and 14. They then list a summary of the concepts. For the last one:
Trolley wire extension on 1 st Ave
• Routes 1 and 14 are through-routed together, meaning both buses transition from one route to
the other along a shared pathway. New trolley wire along 1 st Ave. could support moving the
routes from 3 rd Ave. to 1 st Ave.
• Trolley wire extension on 1st Ave. is not in the current Metro Capital Improvement Program but
could be explored to provide continuous trolley service between Pioneer Square and Seattle
Center.
• This option requires approximately 0.6 miles of two-way trolley wire to be constructed and re-
establishing bus zones on 1st Ave.
• The added operating cost for this option would be low.
That last sentence is key. To get to Eddie’s point, that isn’t much wire. It is also possible that it can run off-wire in that segment. There are a wide range of options with the 1/14:
1) Add BAT lanes, maybe some wire and then just move the buses. Keep the schedule the same, which means fifteen minute service on First Avenue. This would be quite cheap from both a capital and operations standpoint.
2) Overlap to provide higher frequency on First. This is the plan with the CCC. You pay more for service, but it is still quite a bit cheaper than the CCC.
3) Run the buses in the center of First using the “weave” pattern (https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/segment1_busway-1.png?w=986&ssl=1). I’m not sure if that is practical, but it should be considered. It didn’t make sense with a streetcar (might as well run it down the middle) but it would make sense with regular buses.
4) Add stops in the middle of the street, but run buses with doors on both sides to serve them. This is the most ambitious, but there are a few advantages:
* It is possible we could replace the diesel RapidRide G buses with trolleys. My understanding was that the company would sell us trolleys, and sell us buses with doors on both sides, but they wouldn’t sell us trolleys with doors on both sides unless we made a bigger order. This (combined) order might be big enough.
* You set the stage for improving Jackson. The 7, 14 and 36 could all be similar buses. Then the streetcar (and those buses) would all run in the center on Jackson. It is quite possible that purchasing (and running) these new trolleys would be cheaper than moving the bus stops. That is because of the streetcar rails (moving them would be expensive).
It is not clear at what point you can keep the money the money the feds gave us for this project. Providence did this, so there is precedent: https://humantransit.org/2017/06/providences-downtown-connector-a-streetcar-transformed-into-useful-transit.html. It would not be hard to turn the 1/14 into RapidRide. Even if you just run it every fifteen minutes (option 1) that might be enough to satisfy the feds. More ambitious projects (like the last one) would certainly be enough.
My article about it is here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/05/21/county-council-receives-update-on-waterfront-shuttle/
Answering Ross’s earlier point here because this subthread is about which routes to move to 1st if any.
“For example consider the 1/14 combination. Every trip pair makes sense, and every trip pair would make sense if the bus ran on First”
Those aren’t the only trips. The point of routes being on 3rd is for transfer to Link and other routes. Those are trips too. 3rd is where Link is and the routes to the most places are; it’s halfway between the 2nd/4th couplet transfers; and it’s in the center of the population concentration and office/retail concentration between 1st and 6th.
So if we move some routes to 1st, they should be lower-volume ones so the negative impacts of transfers and walking (sometimes up a steep hill) impact the least people. Among eddiew’s routes that would suggest the 21, 24, 33, 124, 131, and/or 132.
The 1/14 could be considered, contrary to my previous comment, because it doesn’t add much to the combined 7/14/36 frequency since it’s much less frequent than the other two.
The 124 may not be a good candidate because it’s a Link shadow (for Westlake-TIB trips). Although you could say the distance and time between Westlake and TIB is so large it dwarfs the 2-block transfer walk from other bus routes.
The 131 and 132 are routes I use regularly, so I have a stake in them. I have mixed feelings about them. I transfer from the westbound Pine & 4th stop, so it would be two more blocks to walk. At the same time, I’m not transferring from another 3rd Avenue route or Link where short transfers are most expected, so my transfer is less important and affects fewer people. Waiting at Pike Place Market would be nice to avoid what I call “the worst bus stop in Seattle” (3rd between Pike and Union southbound).
I’d personally like to see the CCC/CC built, but I also think the City has better things to spend $400M (or whatever the cost is these days) on than a route that could much more easily served by a dressed-up trolley bus. The streetcar expansion could have been part of the Transportation Levy, but it’s not. It’s not a political priority today, and it won’t be for years to come.
In the meantime, another thing to keep in mind is that assuming the Ballard Link Extension is still affordable, construction of Denny Station will make the SLU Streetcar inoperable for about 4 years in the 2030s. This might force the city to reconsider continued operation of the streetcar if it can’t build the CCC/CC by then.
While it seems a shame to “downgrade” transit infrastructure, the SLU Streetcar is simply not very useful and more expensive to operate than equivalent bus service. Unlike the First Hill streetcar, which struggled to find riders at first but is now rather well-ridden, the SLU streetcar was somewhat well-ridden and now struggles to find riders as the buses running parallel to it have been improved. It’s apparently served its purpose – SLU is very shiny now. Unless the streetcar can be made as or more useful than the 40 or the C, it’s time to seriously consider putting it to rest.
It would not need to close the streetcar on Denny Way. When the BART/Muni tunnel on Market was built the streetcars ran on the surface the entire time. They just decked the street and excavated the tunnel underneath it. The same can be true for the Denny Way station.
Stop with the Seattle Process thing, finish the damn streetcar already, and run it frequently. You will see at least as the ridership as the bus alternatives, likely more because rail bias is real, especially for tourists and casual daytime visitors. Your target riders are people who would take Uber rather than figuring out the busses. And that’s IF the busses will run in an equivalent, fully dedicated ROW, which, look at how the Rapid Ride G stop was dumped into mixed traffic downtown because the joint center running platform stop with the CCC didn’t happen. If anything, building the CCC would help fix that part of the G. You can’t blame the low ridership on it being a streetcar when it is a short “starter system” that is the tail end, not the center, and only has one or two cars plying the route.
Other than the Wooden Boat Center, there’s not that much on this line of interest to tourists, and even it isn’t that big a draw.
It’s not anywhere near a fully dedicated ROW.
Streetcar needs to be fixed, not removed. It’s the best in terms of rider experience.
Like I said, I fully support the CCC/CC in concept, but there’s two things to consider:
1) Is a rail-based streetcar really the best transit mode to serve the needs of the SLU/1st Ave/PSQ corridor? If there’s such a strong need for transit, why don’t we re-energize the existing trolley wire, build some bus bulbs, paint some red lanes, and give that a try before dedicating nearly half a billion dollars to the project? We could even be clever and build stations on 1st Ave that could be reused by a subsequent streetcar.
2) If we do need to lay rails, who is going to pay for it? It’s not in the Transportation Levy, it’s apparently not a priority for property owners in SLU, and it’s apparently not of interest to properties along 1st Ave who have been paying for the Waterfront rebuild.
There are basically three possible futures where the CCC is built:
1) The City convinces either the PSRC, the State, or the Feds (or a combination) to pay for 90+% of it;
2) A private consortium offers to pay to build it if the City gives some sort of tax break;
3) Sound Transit offers to pay as mitigation for a significantly scaled-back Ballard Link Extension, like they did for the First Hill Streetcar
Options 1 and 2 are highly unlikely; Option 3 would be a fairly thin silver lining on a very bad result for regional transit.
@ Glenn:
MOHAI too.
“Stop with the Seattle Process thing, finish the damn streetcar already,”
Stop with the Seattle Process thing, finish the damn West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions following ST’s preferred alignment already.
Not really. Mostly because of the wide line-to-line transfers between the tunnels, and taking away the southeast-northeast Seattle improvement Link achieved. This is parallel to the issue of moving some bus routes from 3rd to 1st, because what’s at stake in both cases is the the central/core transfers, and taking away a previous transit achievement
Link is the far bigger issue, because of the 9-level vertical difference in the transfer path on top of the 1-2 block horizontal difference, and the fact that Link has far more riders and transferrees than any single bus route or any 2-3 routes.
Building the Culture Connector (aka CCC) doesn’t raise this issue because it’s a new service on top of existing bus routes, not taking some routes away from their 3rd Avenue transfers.
@Glenn, there’s fairly strong tourist draw to Lake Union. I believe the City’s vision that building a tourist-oriented streetcar line would be fairly popular with visitors uncomfortable with public buses, but I don’t agree that it’s either streetcar or bust for connecting SLU/First/PSQ with transit. I think it’s wild that 1st avenue has (excluding the one stop on RR-G) no direct transit service whatsoever.
rail bias is real
Right. They said the same thing with this streetcar in the first place. Ridership is way less than what they said it would be. Ultimately, people just want the fastest way to get there. That isn’t the case with these streetcars.
The same goes with the CCC. Somehow it is the magic key to the streetcar system. Nonsense. Ignore the mode for a second — the route is terrible! It embodies all of the flaws with circulators. It is really weird that people say things like “Well, no, no one would take it end to end” and then in the same breath say “the problem is it is too short — once it is longer it will be much better”.
If they finished the streetcar it would still be short, squiggly and looping. Various trips just wouldn’t make sense. Not only that, but it would lose out to the competition (as it does today). Imagine you are going from one end of Second Avenue to the other. Do you walk up the hill to get to Third, or down to get to First. Obviously you go up to Third, since the buses will be way more frequent. Even a trip from South Lake Union is no longer competitive. Imagine they extend the H (as suggested). Now the C and H are running every five minutes from South Lake Union to Alaskan Way and Jackson. Now imagine you get off the ferry and want to go to South Lake Union. Why on earth would you walk up to First and take the streetcar?
Yes, you are right — rail bias is real. But the bias isn’t in terms of ridership, it is the way they view projects. No one in their right mind would have a route like the South Lake Union Streetcar if it was a bus. Or at least right now. Same goes with the fully built out system. But because these are streetcars, people build these terrible projects.
The city’s best argument for the CC is what Mayor Durkan said, “You can be at Pike Place Market and take the streetcar to MOHAI or Little Saigon!” Both for the tourist ridership/spending money, and for filling a slight transit hole on 1st. Downtown Seattle is a dense city center, so parallel routes on 3rd and 1st makes more sense than it would in Ballard or Lake Hills. At the same time, the CC corridor doesn’t address the transit hole on 1st between lower downtown and Belltown, which is more of a hole. Especially for those living in the Belltown highrises west of 1st (on Western and Elliott Avenues), which have no transit at all and a steep hill up to 3rd or the 8.
Durkan’s corridor vision gives an opportunity to consider how we might replicate it with buses. The 14 would address the entire Pike Place to Little Saigon issue. What could address the Pike Place to MOHAI issue? Not the 1; it goes to Queen Anne. Probably not the C, H, 40, or 70/J, because those are core trunk routes. That leaves… the 62? Could any other route, or an extension of a route, serve it?
(Of course, most of these routes don’t go directly to MOHAI; they stop somewhere east of it. So that wouldn’t fully address Durkan’s goal. And the walking distance from those routes to MOHAI would be as long or longer as the distance from 1st to 3rd. Still, somebody might be able to come up with a more creative concept than I can.)
It’s difficult for me to imagine the huge crowds that line the Seattle waterfront being drawn to Jeff Bezos giant balls in sufficient quantities to make the SLU streetcar worthwhile.
If the goal is to make it a tourist attraction, it needs to go where tourists already are. That’s the waterfront and Seattle Center. It goes to neither.
Seattle had an example of a tourist streetcar, with significant sections separated from traffic. It had a higher fare to help pay for its upkeep. It had attractive, tourist oriented rolling stock. It also went to places that were up and coming tourist destinations.
@ Glenn –
SLU is definitely a center of visitors who are either in town for tech related conferences/work or tourists. Both of whom stay in the plethora of hotels in SLU.
From a tourist perspective South Lake Union has some appeal, but you could say the same thing about Belltown (which the streetcar won’t serve). Pike Place and the Seattle Center are probably the biggest tourist destinations. The waterfront will soon be up there (with the connection to Pike Place). Pioneer Square is another big attraction.
That is why the run the tourist shuttle where they do (https://seattlewaterfront.org/free-seattle-waterfront-shuttle/). Notice it doesn’t go to South Lake Union.
But let’s get real here. You can run whatever shuttles or streetcars you want. It doesn’t really matter. People will find a way to get to these places. My guess is a lot of tourists take Link to Westlake and ride the monorail to the Seattle Center. Sure, the monorail itself really is cool. It is historic. You get a view you can’t get any other way. But ultimately they just want to get to the center. A lot of people who go to Pike Place ride Link to Westlake and just walk. A lot of people who visit the waterfront will just walk from Pike Place. A lot of people who go to the waterfront from Pike Place will walk down to Pioneer Square. I have no problem with these touristy shuttles, but ultimately not that many people ride them — even tourists. Even if the streetcar managed to serve all the major tourist destinations (and it won’t) there won’t be that many tourists (or other people) riding it.
I couple times I’ve thought about using the waterfront shuttle but didn’t because I didn’t know where a stop was or what hours it ran. It takes time for people to internalize these things.
The one time I made the mistake of trying the waterfront shuttle, it just happened to be sitting at the stop. It then spent 45 or so minutes stuck in traffic and I wound up having to get off and run to get to King Street Station before my train left.
In short, nice idea, but at least the Benson streetcar was separate from street traffic for the length of Alaskan. The shuttle could use some work.
I don’t think anyone is going from Pike Place (tourist trap) to Little Saigon (meth/fentanyl market).
“I don’t think anyone is going from Pike Place (tourist trap)”
A lot of tourists seem to be trapped, because the crowd is so thick inside and on the sidewalk that you have to walk in the street if you don’t want to crawl and dodge people. Locals go there too. I get produce at Frank’s every week, and tea and spices at Market Spice, and jam and kimchi at Woodring, and greeting cards at the artists’.
“to Little Saigon (meth/fentanyl market).”
There are Asian restaurants there too. And Asian shops, although those are more targeted toward the Asian community.
“The one time I made the mistake of trying the waterfront shuttle … It then spent 45 or so minutes stuck in traffic”
That was probably during waterfront construction when lanes were closed.
While it seems a shame to “downgrade” transit infrastructure,
Except it isn’t a downgrade. It is an upgrade. That is the point. This would be a massive upgrade for transit and bike travel — at no additional cost.
It’s a downgrade in terms of rail bias, which is important to keep in mind. The streetcar is simply a more comfortable ride.
The streetcar is simply a more comfortable ride.
So what? The buses are pretty damn comfortable in my opinion. Ultimately, people don’t care. They just want transit to work. Put it this way:
Imagine they had a poll. You can have your existing bus running every fifteen minutes or we can replace it with a streetcar running every half hour. How many people would prefer the streetcar? My guess is very, very few.
Never mind the capital cost. To operate the streetcar means someone’s bus doesn’t run as often. This is just not a smart approach.
> Imagine they had a poll.
I mean we don’t have to imagine, the rapidride C’s ridership is higher than the streetcar.
I was talking about the perceptual downgrade, not the practical one. hence the air quotes.
The sheer amount of other service that could be sent elsewhere for the cost of moving those 500 passengers…
Yes, rail bias is a thing. People take Amtrak from Seattle to Portland even though the bus could be faster. However, rail bias isn’t just because something is rail. It can be better scheduling, better documentation, better comfort, better facilities, better equipment, etc. Virtually none of which are the case with the streetcar.
hence the quotes.
Fair enough. I should have focused on the quotes.
But I do think it is worth mentioning that the primary advantage of a streetcar is capacity. Done right and it *saves* and agency money. Instead of running a bus every couple minutes, you run a train every five. Sure, the riders are actually a little bit worse off. But you save money, which can then improve some other route. The improved ride is nice, but it isn’t why you do it.
Our streetcars are the opposite. They would cost money, not save money.
People take Amtrak from Seattle to Portland even though the bus could be faster.
Sure, but our streetcars are more like our buses than an Amtrak train. They aren’t much bigger than our buses and the ride really isn’t much different.
In contrast there is a big difference between a Greyhound and a train. You can’t get anything to eat on a Greyhound. You aren’t going to walk around, just to stretch your legs (or check out the view).
Greyhound toilets are like porta-potties, and there’s no water to wash your hands with, just packets of chemical-soaked towelettes. There’s no place to go except sitting in your seat. Less legroom and storage space. No electric outlets (although that may be addressed now). You’re still in a vehicle on a freeway like all your other sucky car trips. At the stations the bus has to get off the freeway and navigate local streets with turns and stoplights to get to the station, again like all your sucky car and bus trips. Train stations tend to be grand-looking, and better located for transfers to other transit. The train ride can be smoother and quieter. Some trains have a so-called bistro, although Seattle-Portland runs may not.
This idea sounds like a great idea to me! Almost, to the point where it makes too much sense for people in power to seriously consider it.
Classic slut-shaming. ;)
I think this a great idea. My only concern in extending the H is that it will get stuck in Mercer Mess traffic. My last experience with it was pretty awful. Like 4 Hs bunched up around Virginia, if the app could be trusted. We would need to be very careful about dedicated right-of-way if this sort of thing is implemented.
Seattle did that on the second day after opening, when it saw the “I ride the SLUT” T-shirts and renamed the SLUT (South Lake Union Trolley) to SLUS (South Lake Union Streetcar).
In a wet rainy climate, SLUS (sounding almost like “slush”) never caught on.
I wonder if MOHAI has one of the T-shirts.
Yeah, I regret not buying one of those.
Though at the time, I could almost always walk substantially faster and so, in truth, I rarely rode the SLUT, even though I worked across the street from the Westlake triangle parky-thing where it originates.
Classic slut-shaming. ;)
Cute. Well done.
My only concern in extending the H is that it will get stuck in Mercer Mess traffic.
Understood. Hopefully the changes to Valley (that would come from moving the streetcar) would help. In fact I would do it in that order:
1) Stop running the streetcar.
2) Pave the tracks.
3) Add bike lanes over the old streetcar tracks.
4) Replace the bike lanes on Valley with bus/BAT lanes.
5) Extend the H.
It still might be a bit congested approaching (and crossing) Mercer, but it is better to deal with one street instead of several. That is another advantage to consolidation. The city can focus their efforts on fewer streets. The city is more likely to fix a particular problem if more buses run there.
Funnily, I know one of the people on the citizens’ committee to name the streetcar line. They all thought “South Lake Union Trolley” was great, and it never dawned on them to check out the acronym. Not his proudest moment.
I also had friends from L.A. who were staying in South Lake Union and wanted to know how to get to the Seahawks game. They cracked up when I matter-of-factly told them, “Hop on the S.L.U.T. and ride it until you get to Westlake Center, and then head to the bus tunnel and take the next bus to the stadium.”
Funnily enough, a family friend was on the citizens advisory board naming the streetcar. They all thought “South Lake Union Trolley” was great, and it didn’t dawn on them to check the acronym before approving the name. At least it made for entertaining conversation for family and visitors, especially a couple who needed to take the unfortunately acronymed line from South Lake Union to a Seahawks game.
The comment section a few days ago: “It’s a tragedy Seattle got rid of its streetcars in 1940. ” The comment section today: “Let’s get rid of our streetcars.”
I get it, nuance is a difficult concept.
Btw, the correct decision is to get rid of both streetcars, not build the CCC, and never build another streetcar line in Seattle again.
…unless it’s separated from other traffic as much as possible, as done with streetcar lines in Europe.
Also known as light rail.
In other words, build good streetcar lines, and don’t waste money on bad streetcar lines that are slower than a trolleybus.
By slower I’m referring specifically to how the C, 40, 60, and 70 run like perfectly normal bus routes between Westlake and SLU, with the usual speed limitations of level crossings and mixed traffic, and they don’t get bogged-down slow like some more congested corridors. While the streetcar, in the same corridor as these respectably-running bus routes, gets stopped by a traffic light at every block, in addition to its excessive number of stations two blocks apart. Those excessive stations are part of the reason it misses the next traffic light.
Another case is the First Hill streetcar’s turns around 14th and Yesler. I’ve been on it multiple times where it waited a while to make one of the turns. None of the surrounding bus routes wait that long for any turn beyond what the stoplights force them to.
The point of rail transit is to be faster, more convenient, and higher capacity than an average bus route. Not to be slower, less convenient, and lower capacity — and cost more. The rest of the world understands this by not building low-quality streetcar lines. But in Seattle and Portland, the very definition of streetcar vs light rail is that streetcars are mostly in mixed traffic, while light rail is mostly exclusive-lane or grade-separated (and Link has no mixed-traffic segments at all). In other words, we define “streetcar” as corridors where most cities wouldn’t build streetcars.
In other words, build good streetcar lines, and don’t waste money on bad streetcar lines that are slower than a trolleybus.
And carry fewer people than a bus. Folks often forget that. The primary advantage of a streetcar is that it can carry more riders *per trip* than a bus. It makes sense if you reach the point where you are running buses primarily because of crowding, not to benefit the rider. There is not a single route in our system that is like that. Vancouver has a bus route like that, but they are building a tunnel for it (and making it part of SkyTrain) instead.
They’ve had nearly 18 years to try and make this work. That is a long, long time in terms of testing out an idea. It costs a great deal to operate with virtually no benefit at all. If that money can be transferred to providing better bus service then by all means that should be done. There is no chance that it will be expanded in the forseeable future or likely EVER in order to increase ridership and South Lake Union in that area is mostly built out. Time for it to cease.
The cessation of service and the paving over of tracks are two different issues. I would think that the City would stop running the streetcar informally then formally at first. After several years that’s when the tracks would probably be paved over or removed. Plus there is the issue of having the special district and whether those entities could sue.
I understand that bicyclists would want the tracks eliminated ASAP. I just don’t think that the wheels of politics in Seattle would move that fast. Perhaps a bicycle injury lawsuit would speed the elimination task — although past hazard lawsuits were apparently dismissed.
I’m not an attorney, but I could see that legal hurdles would need to be overcome before the tracks are eliminated.
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2024/09/11/seattle-will-pay-5-75m-to-two-people-who-say-streetcar-tracks-caused-their-bike-crashes/
Settled. Not dismissed. And the settlements are getting larger.
Interesting.
Those lawsuits appear to be related to Jackson St and the FHSC — not the SLUS. Plus the City did not legally admit fault in the settlement.
However the tea leaves related to accidents are pretty damning for streetcar tracks overall. That plus low ridership certainly suggest that their continued existence is in trouble.
I’m not saying that track removal isn’t justified. I’m only saying that removal may come down to legal issues rather than logic.
I understand that bicyclists would want the tracks eliminated ASAP.
Not just bicyclists, but transit advocates too! The C gets about 10,000 riders a day. The H gets about the same. By getting rid of the SLU streetcar we could make transit better for a lot of people.
When I was living in Philadelphia, I biked a lot (it is flat and dense, unlike Seattle, and the transit service sucks, much like Seattle), and tracks in the street were a pretty big problem. Some of the tracks hadn’t been used since I think the 70s (tracks for trolleys that had been converted to buses) but some hadn’t been used even longer (tracks for freight trains serving factories that shut down in the 50s). They weren’t paved over, because the city could hardly care less about anyone not driving.
Seattle is a bit better than Philadelphia at caring about people getting around without driving, but I would be surprised if the tracks were paved over so quickly.
It would be interesting to see the cost of transporting those 500 passengers too. The data is mixed in with the SLU so it’s a bit harder to sort it out.
The big problem with the South Lake Union line is lack of a purpose.
To make it really useful, it would need dedicated right of way, and extended all the way out to UW in place of the 70. RapidRide is doing that cheaper and faster.
It’s not built in the right spot to really be able to adapt the track for light rail use, which is the direction it should go if it is retained.
That would cost literally hundreds of millions to provide absolutely duplicate service. It will never ever happen. No such funding will be forthcoming and there is no public demand that this occur. The right of way through Eastlake is extremely narrow as well. So no.
Kill the Southlake Streetcar. Its a well-proven failure and the only hope of change are extensions to the U District or Fremont that would slow down public transit at massive expense. Kill off the RR-J and keep the Route 70. Until the University Bridge and Mercer Mess bottlenecks are fixed, transit speeds can’t be noticeably improved on Eastlake Avenue. And how about we save “Rapid Ride” for its true purpose — suburban-urban limited stop “express” service? The Route 70 is — and should be — a local short line.
the only hope of change are extensions to the U District or Fremont that would slow down public transit at massive expense.
Interesting that you should mention that. This idea came out of the comment section of the bike blog. The article made the point that we killed the streetcar the day we decided to make the 70 replacement a bus: https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2024/08/20/seattle-decided-9-years-ago-to-kill-the-slu-streetcar/.
I disagree about your other points though. RapidRide (or any form of BRT) works best in an urban environment. A route like the 70 is very good for that. Whether they did everything right when it comes to the plans is another issue.
Absolutely. If it had gotten to Fremont or U-District, it would be absolutely packed on every run.
Rode hard and put away wet, you could say.
To me the best reason to get rid of the SLU Streetcar is to continue on and delete (most of) Westlake Avenue south of Blanchard, thus getting rid of a bunch of long, annoying crosswalks that make walking through the whole area really unpleasant. What to do with the space? Just about anything would be better than this dumb street! Some spots might be big enough to build buildings (as with Westlake Center) some spots might make good public plazas or pedestrian blocks (as with Westlake Park).
IDK, maybe you need one more block, southbound only, to Lenora, to get the 40 in, or maybe you have to make changes to let the 40 turn and run counterflow on Blanchard for a block. Whatever changes would be needed to the street network in Westlake’s absence should be easier than dealing with its presence today.
I once took the Streetcar to get to MOHAI a decade ago. I remember it as nice but short and not much for the fare value. That said, it’s worth came on the return trip. When I got off at Westlake, I was surprised to see a lot of policemen in the area. Then it dawned on me that it was May 1; no big deal for suburbanites like me, but huge for Seattle activists. If anything, the Streetcar shortened the time and distance I spent in a potential outdoor trouble zone until I got into the bus tunnel for the 255 home.
Perhaps a more appropriate name would have been Westlake On-street Really Slow Trolley — or WORST! Lol
I say this as a city planning graduate who has a great interest in urban planning and transportation. I care deeply about cities having great transit and infrastructure. … And it’s time to take this thing behind the barn and s—t it.
Ditch the CCC and move Route 1 bus to First Ave. This is all the more timely now with Overlook Park open and a major connection to the waterfront available.
It doesn’t take that much money to trolley wire the last few gaps of First Ave. Route 1 would then connect Pike Place/Waterfront and Seattle Center.
Route 1 would then connect Pike Place/Waterfront and Seattle Center.
That is a good point. It would basically be the tourist route. It would serve Pioneer Square, Seattle Center, Pike Place (and thus the waterfront). The viaduct used to effectively cut-off Pike Place from the Waterfront. Now it is the opposite.
1st Avenue transit allows you to get to one waterfront destination. It doesn’t help you get from one part of the waterfront to the other. It’s too much hassle to go from Alaskan Way east to 1st, catch a bus, get off, and go back to Alaskan Way.
Plus these connecting paths aren’t always easy to find or visible from a 1st Avenue bus top. The new Overlook Walk is tucked behind a Market building.
So 1st Avenue and Alaskan Way are really different corridors, and just having transit on one is not an ultimate solution. If we have limited transit dollars, then we must first put frequent service on 1st, because it has not only the waterfront’s number of destinations but also highrises, an art museum, and Belltown residents without a route on 1st. But we can’t just stop there. We also need a route on Alaskan Way. It can be a coverage route at first just to get something there, but ultimately it should be a frequent route. The Waterfront Streetcar ran every 20 minutes, so we should aim for that or better.
The worst thing we could do is reroute a downtown bus to the waterfront. That would displace the larger number of riders that are going anywhere but the waterfront.
Sometimes, I feel like the actual purpose of the SLU line isn’t even really about the transit, but something for people who drive to the office to see when they look out the window, so they go “oh, how quaint, a streetcar”, and are more drawn to renting office space there vs. somewhere else.
But, to fulfill that purpose, you don’t even need a real streetcar that moves, just a cheap metal shell of a streetcar with a proper paint job. There is plenty of room for that at Lake Union Park.
If you want something quaint, especially for tourists, you can get reproduction heritage cars from Gomaco, Brookville or TiG/m. The latter are battery electric so no overhead wire. Especially if you don’t plan to operate it.
This is true, Glenn. Plus slow speeds don’t affect ride quality much either.
The new RapidRide G vehicles pretty much offers everything that a streetcar does. It’s a reason why I support taking the CCC money and just extending RapidRide G or just create a new line that goes through SLU too.
“It’s a reason why I support taking the CCC money and just extending RapidRide G or just create a new line that goes through SLU too.”
Al. S, all transit is is a solution to a problem. When you say you want to create a new east/west route via SLU, you are putting the cart before the horse. Explain the problem first. Then give your solution. What problem are you trying to solve?
I think the CCC line might make sense, but only if built to full Link standards and connected to Link. The idea would be to have something that could act as a better backup to the transit tunnel when it closes.
But, that’s a topic for a different thread.
Sorry to ruin your response Sam. “ew” was a typo. I meant to say “new”. It’s hard to respond when on an airport runway ready to take off.
Regardless, the point I was making was generic. It was intended to respond to Glenn saying that there are buses that look like streetcars.i was simply pointing out that he was right — and that with articulated buses with doors on both sides, the vehicle does everything a streetcar does. It has about the same capacity too. The big negative is ride quality — which is barely noticeable at low speeds.
I was actually referring to modern streetcars designed to replicate the ornate woodwork and metal of heritage streetcars.
Gomaco:
https://gomacotrolley.com/index.html
Brookville:
https://www.brookvillecorp.com/products/streetcars/replica-streetcars/
TiG/m:
https://tig-m.com/gallery-trolleys
(You have to sort through the photo gallery)
If you want a streetcar aimed primarily at tourists, those are what I would suggest.
To be clear, I am not proposing we get rid of *all* the streetcars. Nothing in this post suggests that. I only mention the CCC in passing because it has been used as an argument for keeping the South Lake Union streetcar. But the main argument here is to get rid of the South Lake Union streetcar.
If we keep the *other* streetcar, then it can be a heritage style. Why not? It does go down to Pioneer Square (pretty much the only part of town with a long history). One of the few reasonable arguments for a streetcar is that it helps make the area more attractive. I’ve heard 12th & Jackson is really lovely. Seriously though, you might as well keep the one streetcar line and make it more attractive to tourists (by using heritage style train cars).
Of course the best option for that was the one we abandoned. The George Benson streetcars were legacy streetcar and they took advantage of some of the existing tracks (by the waterfront). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfront_Streetcar. Of the three, it is the last one I would get rid of. Oh well.
The original reason for the streetcar was Paul Allen wanted to replicate the Portland Streetcar. He envisioned a new highrise district, and part of that image was a streetcar. His vision of transit was something that looked nice and nostalgic, as opposed to something that would best serve passengers and mobility (which need speed and high frequency). The streetcar would attract developers to his real-estate land, developers who likewise didn’t understand the difference between the appearance of transit with real functional transit.
Allen and later Mayor McGinn were hoping to extend the streetcar north on Eastlake to the U-District or Northgate, and on Westlake to Fremont and Ballard. And maybe south on Jackson-Rainier to Mt Baker station. That would at least make it connect several neighborhoods. But the longer the distance, the more the speed limitation would become apparent and travel time would be infeasible to expect passengers to succumb to. A streetcar in the abstract — like Link on MLK — could be a solution, but not one that was slower than parallel buses and had stations every two blocks.
It seemslikt it really wasn’t missed during the recent disruption . Enough said. Kill it for good.
What I’m looking for in transit is the ability to get from A to B quickly and conveniently. So good routes connecting the most common destinations, short travel time, short waits. And high capacity if needed to avoid crowding. Link does this well between Westlake and Lynnwood, better than any previous buses or any conceivable bus route. Link does it moderately between Westlake and Rainier Beach or SeaTac. Robust surface trams like Link on MLK could improve other corridors.
But the SLU streetcar: is it as fast and frequent as the existing bus routes? No. Does it connect important destinations? Some, but it doesn’t go to Eastlake or the U-District. Likewise with the First Hill streetcar. Is it faster or more frequent than a trolleybus route could be? No. Does it connect important destinations? Some, but if you’re going north or south on Broadway you find it ends at Denny and Jackson and you’d have to transfer to go the rest of the way. Do either of these corridors have so much demand that even 7-minute buses would melt down with overcrowding so rail is essential? No.
But, the streetcars cost more to procure and operate than buses. So if we spend limited transit dollars on them, we get less transit service. Do we have plenty of transit service so that’s no issue? No, we need a lot more frequency and coverage overall.
I can’t think of a good use case for the kind of streetcars Seattle has or wants to expand. And maybe if the city could forget about the Culture Connector and consider deleting the SLU streetcar, we can think of something more effective and beautiful for SLU and 1st Avenue.
They should be Rapid Streetcar aka small-scale light rail, something more akin to the original segment of Tacoma Link where it has dedicated lanes in the median but uses these smaller cars (but could be coupled together) and simpler track construction that is less deep and doesn’t require a full rebuild of the entire right of way. And put them down the center. Our Central Link light rail is more on the heavy rail side so this would be for the areas where lighter is warranted.
I would like to see the CCC be center transitway with a few key bus lines running on it, whether some Rapid Rides or the 1/14. It should never have been viewed as and designed as a solely a streetcar project. It should have been for three or four transit lines going through downtown north-south with one happening to be a streetcar.
They should be Rapid Streetcar …
Yeah, but why not just run buses? That is really the fundamental problem with the streetcar. It was a solution looking for a problem, not the other way around. There are plenty of places — around the world — where they could use a streetcar. Our nearest neighbor (Vancouver) could use one to replace the 99-B-Line (they are building a subway instead). Seattle just doesn’t have that.
“ and simpler track construction that is less deep and doesn’t require a full rebuild of the entire right of way. ”
Weight of a Siemens S700 as used by SoundTransit central Link:
102,500 lbs
or 17,000 lbs per axle spread across 6 axles
Weight of a Brookville Liberty streetcar as used by SoundTransit Tacoma Link: 79,000 lbs.
or 19,750 lbs per axle spread across 4 axles.
Really, they’re the same class in terms of the amount of construction needed. Truly, there’s no difference between “streetcar” and “light rail” except for semantics, one gets stuck in traffic, and the feeling that somehow ordering a car 8 inches narrower is somehow a revolutionary concept. Both car designs are intended for the same type of lines.
When I say “a streetcar like Link on MLK”, I’m referring to how robustly it moves, not the size of the train. Naturally we don’t need a big 4-car train on Eastlake when most people are on the parallel Link line to UW and Lynnwood. We just need something sized for the demand on Eastlake and SLU.
Yeah, the difference between a “streetcar” and “light rail” is similar to the difference between a ship and a boat. To a certain extent it is just semantics. It is best to consider how they operate, what the capacity is, etc.
My point is that a small light rail vehicle rarely makes sense. If you have existing rail that you want to leverage, then sure. But to go to all the expense of adding rail from scratch and then run vehicles that have the same capacity as a bus ends up being a waste of money — at least from a transit standpoint. You are better off just running buses or serving a corridor that gets the kind of ridership that requires much bigger vehicles (like Link). Sometimes, it takes lots of speed improvements (and a long distance) before that can happen.
In contrast, small automated trains can make sense. But they are still pretty big — much bigger than our buses (and our streetcars). For the sort of thing we want to Ballard we are thinking trains half the size of Link, but with a lot more than half the capacity per train (and running frequently enough to provide great throughput capacity).
“My point is that a small light rail vehicle rarely makes sense.”
The single Skoda car design that pretty much all the new USA streetcar lines have used, either direct from Skoda or near replicas from other makers, isn’t that common in Europe either. From what I have been told, this car was designed to meet a very limited market of European cities with very narrow streets with tram lines dating back to the last century or earlier, some of which still use meter gauge track.
So, even in Europe, what has been marketed here as “streetcar” apparently really isn’t that common.
The tracks should always have been in the center of Westlake which would have allowed for a shared center transitway with buses (islands with right door boarding) allowing for a frequent transit corridor trunk line while being protected from cars impeding it. The jog over to Terry makes no sense.
Anyhow the infrastructure is where it is, end of the day people will take the first vehicle headed their way, the 40 and C should turn onto Westlake much sooner (like Stewart or Virginia) so there is more overlap. The streetcar plays a critical piece as these other lines are longer and can be delayed with bus bunching. Not that the streetcar doesn’t have delays (due to poor transit priority) but it isn’t traveling 10+ miles and going over drawbridges. Westlake needs to be treated more like a 3rd Ave or SF Market Street with a bundle of lines enabling hyper frequent headways with the combination of lines.
The streetcar plays a critical piece as these other lines are longer and can be delayed with bus bunching.
Not too critical. It only carries 500 people (many of whom would have been just as happy had a bus shown up first). When it wasn’t running Metro just ignored it.
Not that the streetcar doesn’t have delays (due to poor transit priority) but it isn’t traveling 10+ miles and going over drawbridges
The C isn’t going over a drawbridge. The H doesn’t either, making it a solid choice for an extension. The 40 added redundancy. It goes over the bridge, but that is only southbound. Northbound it starts downtown. That means it is more reliable that direction. Southbound you would have the C and H which would start in South Lake Union. That means it is a more reliable option for going southbound (and the changes I’ve suggested here would make it more reliable).
There are several problems with the streetcar, but one of them is that it is just different enough to have its own set of problems, but not different enough to serve unique trips. It is the worst of both worlds for riders and the worst of both worlds for the city. Riders have worse frequency and the city is stuck trying to fix multiple streets instead of one. It also makes any set of changes really expensive. For example I agree about Terry. It makes no sense for the streetcar to go that way, especially given the improvements on Westlake. But just consider that for a second. Imagine the streetcar — which started in 2007 — was moved to Westlake in say, 2012. Cool. Except in 2016 they added the center bus lanes and special transit signal (https://maps.app.goo.gl/hiCyAhiepNYKqMCCA). So that means that the streetcar tracks would have to be moved a third time — this time a few feet to the left — just to take advantage of the right-of-way granted to the buses. This is a lot of money just for a little bit of redundancy.
As for moving the C, 40 (and 62) over to Virginia/Stewart instead of Blanchard/Lenora, I could see it. But that only makes sense if it is faster (and I see no reason why it would be). Otherwise there isn’t much benefit. You consolidate with the 70/J which I suppose is good but I’m not sure it matters. With the C, 40, 62 (and hopefully the H in the future) the existing corridor seems like it has enough service. Sure, it would be nice to have stop consolidation with the streetcar, but that would only give you one stop (just north of Virginia). The stop at Westlake close to Olive would remain unique to the streetcar. It would also make the streetcar even more redundant.
The streetcar is one of several options available for Westlake Hub to SLU and thats exactly the idea, its like Market Street in SF and I’m suggesting it be more like Market Street with more of a bundle of lines where the F is redundant to the many bus lines. The other routes are traversing longer distances, it’s good to have one route in this corridor not traveling 10 miles, essentially the streetcar a ‘short turn’ route.
Sure the streetcar wouldnt be built today but 20 years ago SLU was envisioned as a different neighborhood, nowhere near the level of density, development and regional need it became where it needs much more than a streetcar. We have it though, its built and it layers service when combined with the other bus routes. That’s why I suggest having the other bus routes overlap it even more.
“20 years ago SLU was envisioned as a different neighborhood, nowhere near the level of density, development and regional need it became”
This was the vision. The city always knew SLU needed a future after 99 and I-5 but kept kicking the can down the road. Paul Allen assembled the land parcels, got the council to rezone it substantially in his vision, and built it.
I’m seeing a stronger case emerging for a future without the CC or the SLU streetcar. The CC debate has always pivoted on “we must connect the streetcars”. But if the SLU streetcar is deleted, there’s nothing to connect to.
The Metro study Ross linked to gives a persuasive case to move the 1/14 to 1st Avenue to replace the CC, and it says it would be INEXPENSIVE. That gives us something positive to argue: we’re not just taking away your CC streetcar but giving you something better. That “better” is serving Belltown, and connecting Seattle Center West to Pike Place and the stadium area which has been a long-term goal. And it continues east to 12th & Jackson street as the streetcar extension would. And allows you to go to eastern Jackson and Mt Baker.
The “something better” for SLU can be a RapidRide H extension, improving the bus/bike street channelization (now safely without streetcar tracks and their space), and improving RapidRide J’s design.
This may not be enough to sway the politicians, but it’s the strongest argument we’ve ever had. I hope it could come in time to make RapidRide J better (instead of working around the streetcar), although that may not be possible since I think construction is about to start. Still, a later project could eliminate the streetcar tracks and repurpose the lanes.
I agree. I was thinking about the arguments for the CCC. Consider the idea of connecting these routes. Imagine we were planning on connecting them via Third Avenue. Does anyone really think that this would make the streetcar hugely popular? The western part is still redundant. In fact, the middle of it (from roughly Pine to Yesler) is a first-class spine. But even from Pioneer Square to South Lake Union it is not that different than the RapidRide C or the 40 (or the bus I want to send there, the H). For people starting or ending their trip on Jackson it is the same story. The 7 and 36 go up north, too. The only unique trip pairs are those involving Broadway and the middle of downtown, and for those the streetcar would be silly — a slow, roundabout way to get there. Connecting the routes — by itself — doesn’t really add anything.
Adding service on First Avenue does. The strongest argument — the only worthwhile argument in my book — is that the CCC adds service on First.
That got me thinking about the various ways in which people would take advantage of service on First Avenue. Trips from First to Third (or Third to First) will always involve travel along Third. Service on First can not compete with the Third Avenue Spine. Likewise, trips along Second Avenue will always involve walking up to Third.
Then there are transfers. Consider sending the 70 there. The advantage of doing that (versus the 1/14) is that the 70 cuts across more routes. For example someone taking the RapidRide E would get off the bus on Third and then ride the 70 down to First Avenue. But would they? My guess is the vast majority of riders would just continue riding the E and then just walk two blocks. Thus the ability to transfer from a bus is really not a big advantage unless the streetcar was extremely frequent (e. g. every couple minutes) and that won’t happen. It only happens on Third because several different buses run on Third.
Almost all of the buses that go downtown travel through downtown. That is true of Link as well. But it isn’t true of Sounder. It drops people off close to Jackson and they have to take another bus to get to anywhere downtown. Thus it is ideal if the service for First also connected to Sounder. The 1/14 would do that.
That basically just leaves travel *on* First Avenue. Right now, someone who wants to go from the north end of First to the south end of First has to go up to Third and then back (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1c3yynBikSg9MuwLA). These are the key users of transit on First Avenue (those riders and people to the west). Every rider to the east is likely to ignore it. Since the key is travel along First it makes sense to go along all of First, from Denny to Jackson. The 1/14 would do that. The streetcar wouldn’t.
Not only that, but it requires the least amount of work. The 1 already dips down to First (only to head back to Third). Thus extending the 1/14 would be most efficient from a service standpoint. It is quite possible that the 1/14 would be just as fast as it is now. You would have to run wire. But it is a fairly short gap which means that not only would it be relatively cheap, but it is quite possible the buses could run that section without wire and simply reattach at a bus stop later. I would say the trickiest issue is whether the buses run in the middle of the street and if so, how. I think the weave approach makes the most sense and seems quite possible on First. If not, then we consider BAT lanes or special buses with doors on both sides. If we did the latter than I think they should be trolleys and I think we should replace the diesel buses for the G at the same time.