Notes on Queen Anne

I am posting this density map as an adjust to my previous post “Notes from a Vancouverite” as an explanation of my stop on Queen Anne.

Seattle Population Densityre

Taking into account the caveat that not all the darker area is in fact up the hill and also that the density variation within one colour is large, I still note that Queen Anne isn’t nothing.

Notes from a Vancouverite

My purpose here is to put a few ideas in front of Seattleites that I think might be useful in the debate about transit expansion. Obviously I live in Vancouver, but, as folks here have noted, Vancouver does have useful transit lessons to other cities in the region.

1. West Seattle

The current plan is Option 1:

image001 West Seattle Options

Instead of running parallel to the current Link line, my proposal is for a line that crosses the current line and continues into the central district:

image002 West Seattle Proposal

Double dots indicate stations and single dots are just to show the route. The line needs to curve against the harbour headland to stay within shallow water. The stations would probably need to be deep, so it would go under the existing Link line and the existing train line. Because the station under Broadway would be the deepest, there would be a possibility of a level entrance at Boren that would access the platform more or less horizontally with a moving walkway. Expensive, yes, but far cheaper than a whole separate Boren station.

This line is cuts the distance from Alaska Junction to downtown from 9.5km to around 8km, and obviously the distance from North Admiral is shorter still.

Length of current plan:

image003 ST3 West Seattle Route Distance

Length of proposal:

image004 West Seattle Proposal Route Distance

Obviously the actual station locations could be adjusted to meet the connection requirements to the current Link line:

image005 West Seattle Route Station Options

I’m also not sure whether continuing the line down Madison is the right thing to do or rather have it continue due east on Union might make better sense for bus connections.

The stations south of Admiral could be built later, but in any case, a BRT or BRT lite system would have to be implemented on California to get the maximum benefit of such a line.

The line could also be extended further south to serve more areas and improve bus connections. This diagram is penciled out to White Center, but Burien might also be a logical termination point:

image006 West Seattle Extension Options South

The principal improvements over the current proposal are:

  • The line serves the central district.
  • The line makes for a very fast trip from the north part of West Seattle to downtown and the central district. Quick trips make for good ridership.
  • The line requires no interlining, so it could run at full two minute frequency which is beneficial for a bus transfer system. And it also would not burden the existing Link line.
  • The line is separate from the rest of the system so it could be automated. The natural location for the operation centre would be under the Hiawatha playing field at the park in North Admiral. Playing fields don’t need deep soil like trees, so they could easily be accommodated over the deck of an underground op centre which also does not need to be that big as there would not be very many trains and they would be short two or three car units.
  • The line would eliminate the need for the Madison BRT and finally serve First Hill properly.
  • The line need not be heinously expensive. What I have penciled out matches the Canada Line in Vancouver which was $120m CAD per km. Double it for Seattle prices, and that is $180m USD per km or $1.85b from Alaska Junction to Madison and 23rd.

Principal drawbacks are:

  • Requires transfer to other parts of Link.
  • Possible worse bus transfer from buses on Delridge. Might mean needing to build further south than Alaska Junction even on initial segment.

A possible extension, but very fanciful at this point, would be to extend such a line to Bellevue with a tunnel under Lake Washington or a new floating bridge for trains and bikes:

image007 West Seattle Extension Options East

Built as a buried fully grade-separated metro, such a line would offer very fast service between Bellevue and Seattle downtowns which would be as transformative as the UW Capitol Hill Link extension. And a frequent automatic line would enhance the operation of bus transfers off Bellevue Way and I-405. An absolutely vast improvement over the current East Link plan.

To serve the central district Seattle Subway and commenters on this blog have pushed for a metro 8 subway as in yellow below:

image008 Seattle Subway Plan

I am skeptical about this line. Such a line would be perfectly useful, but it also would be basically the same distance as my Junction to Madison line and thus the same cost. And while serving SLU is laudable, there is still more employment in the traditional downtown and thus more demand there than to SLU.

There are also other solutions to ease connections to SLU. I think that a bike and moving walkway tunnel from Capitol Hill to SLU might be just the ticket. The tunnel would have a level entrance down the hill and elevator access up the hill:

image009 Capitol Hill SLU Connector

Other commenters on this blog have pushed for another DSTT to serve a network of West Seattle buses to avoid transfers and to better serve the more diffuse population in West Seattle.


image010 WSTT Plan

Or, more efficiently, a new DSTT and turn current DSTT into a bus tunnel again:

image011 Second DSTT Plan

I am also skeptical about this idea. First, because bus stations need to be so much larger to allow for long platforms and passing, building a bus tunnel is more expensive than building a rail tunnel. If you were to do such a thing, it really would make more sense to build another train tunnel through downtown, move the current link line to the new tunnel and then use the existing DSTT for buses again. Second, by having so many buses continue to go downtown, the bus service within West Seattle is not necessarily optimized, eg the natural bus corridor up and down the entire length of California. And third and most importantly, having bus to rail transfers before heading downtown is so much more operationally efficient than continuing with so many buses heading downtown.

2. Ballard

My proposal is not a new idea, but a critique and revision of the current plan based on optimizing the bus connections of a new line. This is the current plan:

image012 Ballard Route

image013 Ballard Route Option 2

image014 Ballard Route Option 1

This plan has some serious weaknesses:

  • Huge cost
  • Misses Queen Anne and Belltown
  • Only one bus connection point north of the canal.
  • Moveable bridge
  • Peak headway of 6 minutes
  • So-So ridership with 60,000 to 74,000 riders using the system north of Westlake

My proposal is to reconfigure this line as a bus collector with four stops north of the canal such that any sensible person going to Belltown or Downtown would transfer to the rail line. As a bonus, these four stations also have decent walksheds:

image015 Ballard Route Proposal

Such a line would naturally be fully grade separated and automated with two minute headways.

The connection off Aurora will have to be somewhat trippy with bus stops on the bridge deck and elevator or escalator access down to the Fremont station underground, probably involving rebuilding some of the buildings adjacent to the bridge deck, but such a connection would be a good one.

Some route options like this proposal was investigated by Sound Transit, but those options were not optimized to encourage bus connections. Even with the lack of optimization, the ridership estimates were unreasonably low. This table from the Ballard Options Study of May 2014 have very low ridership estimates for all of the options studied:

image016 Ballard Route Options

The low ridership estimates for Corridor D were ammunition for criticism of this option on the STB, but the low estimates of all the options shows that bus connections were not optimized or even really considered for any of the corridors. The Ballard Line Comparison Chart of December 2015 had greatly increased estimates for all the options that survived the first round:

image017 Ballard Route Option etc

I could not find a reason why these estimates went up so much, but they do imply that an all tunnelled option a la Corridor D would have the highest ridership of all.

The current plan skips Belltown in favour of SLU, and it is possible that such a route might have higher ridership, but I haven’t chosen this because it isn’t obvious to me that, fully built out, SLU will have higher employment+residential+commercial density than Belltown. Additionally, SLU does have a streetcar connection to Westlake that can be improved.

The principal improvements over the current proposal are:

  • Line and stations location is optimized to serve connecting bus passengers on all of the north south avenues west of Green Lake. The current plan does nothing for people in Fremont, Greenwood, Phinney Ridge or the Aurora corridor. And a bus optimized metro system will also mutually reinforce the bus service justifying increased frequency and full BRT on Aurora and BRT lite on some of 24th, 15th, 8th and/or Greenwood.
  • In addition to being an effective bus collector system, the line has useful urban stations that allow it to act like a traditional metro. The current proposal just does not have as many of these. Clubbers in Belltown, cyclists to Fremont and the Burke-Gilman, walkers to Woodland Park and weekend brunchers to Old Ballard all get something useful.
  • The line serves Queen Anne which really ought to have quick service considering its central location.
  • Avoids any moveable bridges and has much better frequency. With trains every two minutes, the system could be split and extended up one of the north south avenues at some point while still maintaining four minute service in each branch.
  • Likely far better ridership.

Principal drawbacks are:

  • Skips Interbay and SLU. I’ve explained Belltown over SLU, and for similar reasons Queen Anne and Freemont are more suitable destinations than Interbay.

On this blog there is big support for a Ballard to UW connection over Ballard to Downtown connection as shown here in comparison with my proposal:

image018 Ballard Route Comparison

I would not support a UW connection before a downtown connection. First, there is more demand to downtown from both Ballard and Fremont than to UW so it makes sense to serve that demand directly:

image019 Ballard Transit Demand

Second, if the UW line is interlined with Northgate, the frequency suffers which harms the desirability of bus transfers to the UW line, but if the UW line is not interlined with Northgate, it adds a transfer which also harms the desirability of bus transfers to the UW line. In short, such a line would not be an optimized bus transfer system.

One thing that I have left out is the second downtown tunnel and connection to the maintenance area. Ideally when the DSTT was converted to rail, the possibility of fast interlining ought to have been built in, but it wasn’t, and such ST is committed to a second parallel downtown transit tunnel. If combined with my West Seattle proposal, stations at Westlake, 5th and Madison and Yesler would make sense. Through SODO to the maintenance centre, whether that was located at the current facility, the line would have to be elevated.

One fanciful thought experiment, as if blog-posted transit fantasies were not fanciful enough, would be to use this line as the Rainier Valley bypass line and extend this to link to Link at Seatac at full two minute frequency:

image020 Ballard Route Extension Options

Since there does not seem to be any streetrunning planned for Link from Angle Lake to Tacoma, this could use the automated, short train, high frequency model that is better for transfers.

The Rainier Valley link could then be redirected toward Renton at which is an odd lacuna in ST1 to 3.

I welcome your suggestions.


March 29, 2017