Both transit advocates and politicians have been discussing the idea of a second downtown tunnel through Seattle. The tunnel would act as the foundation for future rail service to Ballard and West Seattle. Seattle Subway’s proposal currently looks like this and seeks to address a few issues:

• Mitigates the closing (for buses) of the current Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel by building the tunnel initially for buses
• Provides capacity enhancements in the downtown core
• Can provide exclusive lanes for buses heading to West Seattle and Ballard

The proposed tunnel could also have a few drawbacks:

• Costs of unused railway infrastructure: If the tunnel were to be built initially with railway infrastructure (tracks, power and communications) as Seattle Subway suggests, these would still require some form of maintenance even if they were not being used. These infrastructure components don’t stand still over time, and will have an aging effect. No one really knows how long it would take for rail services to begin, but it would be a waste to maintain infrastructure that is not being used.
• There are only 3 stations (Westlake, Madison and International District), fewer than the current DSTT. Although this would give a direct connection to Madison BRT, it would also mean that buses serving the new tunnel have farther stop spacing and potentially shorter travel times than light rail in the DSTT, the opposite of what it should be.
• Conversion to rail could be a slow process due to institutional and political inertia, which may result in another DSTT situation where buses are “phased out”. The lesson to be learned from the DSTT, is that joint-operations is difficult and results in unreliable service for every mode, even six years into operations.
• Alignment constraint in the current DSTT are not addressed, such as the Westlake or Chinatown curves

In an attempt to explore how these issues could be resolved, I’ve created another proposal, which is a tunnel on 4^th Ave that will accommodate all light rail services from the beginning and in the future. The current DSTT will then serve buses (again) and potentially streetcars. The “Westlake curve” will also be removed, allowing higher speeds in the tunnel. Here are the key advantages of this proposal:

• Removes infrastructure constraints from the network: The current DSTT has a few limitations on speed and acceleration. One is the horizontal shift in the rails before and after the platforms. The others are the tight curves just south of Westlake and International District. With a new tunnel, Sound Transit can take advantage of the (rare) opportunity to remove those limitations by designing a large-radius curve between University St and Capitol Hill, while using better transitions before/after the stations. This will allow for higher travel speeds through Downtown Seattle. This also removes one of the infrastructure constraints that prevents Sound Transit from purchasing higher-capacity non-articulated vehicles, such as those on standard subway systems.
• Immediate travel time and capacity improvements for the entire regional light rail network: With infrastructure limitations removed and stops modified, higher travel speeds through Downtown Seattle will not just improve local travel time, but regional travel time. Both Central Link and East Link stand to gain a few minutes, along with reliability improvements. With higher stop spacing, punctuality and faster travel times, the capacity of the tunnel can also be increased to accommodate trains from additional lines. Converging multiple lines in one city center tunnel will provide a very high-frequency service through downtown
• More leverage for regional funding: The prospects of regional funding for a tunnel that will, at its beginning, only serve Seattle routes will be a tough sell. However, if it can be used by regional rail in the beginning (Central Link and East Link), and provide travel time/frequency improvements on opening day, there could be more leverage to ask for improvements.
• Separation of operations from day one: Dedicating the new tunnel to rail on opening day will prevent a repeat of DSTT. Joint-operations doesn’t work for a variety of reasons, but the basic concept is that rail operations are completely different from bus operations. Rail involves one large vehicle regulated by signals, occupying a section of the track at a time as it travels through the tunnel. Bus operations involve several vehicles, arriving and departing at various times. This has the potential to occupy multiple sections of track simultaneously, delaying service behind it. Providing a separation from day one will avoid this situation.
• DSTT can serve both buses and streetcars: DSTT rail infrastructure could be converted to serve streetcars. Joint operations for streetcars and buses would be more compatible than light rail and buses, as their operation philosophy is mostly similar (short vehicles that can operate in mixed traffic without dedicated signalling systems). Some modifications will have to be made. This includes extending the width of the platforms by about 3 inches to accommodate the narrower streetcars, but the floor height is roughly the same (355 mm for Link and 350 for Seattle’s streetcars). Streetcars will also have to be capable of running at 1500 V DC in the tunnel and 750 V DC on the surface, although dual-mode operations are not uncommon elsewhere in the world.

Of course, no proposal is without drawbacks:

• The most obvious drawback is that Central Link and East Link will skip Westlake Station, which is necessary to provide the large-radius curve between University and Capitol Hill. The good news is that the DSTT will still serve Westlake, and a future light rail extension to Ballard could reintroduce light rail service beneath the current Westlake platforms. Skipping the station also improves travel times for the regional-oriented Central and East Link lines.
• Construction impacts when service is transitioned to the new tunnel
• Bus and streetcar services in the DSTT depends on the fate of the Convention Place Station, and whether access to the DSTT will be preserved after its expansion. If not, a new access point will have to be built.

Comments? Ideas? Share your thoughts below!

I recently had a dreaded first-flight out/last-flight back business trip scheduled to San Diego. My alarm was set for 4am, my bag was packed and all I had to do was roll out of bed, take a shower and get to the airport by 5am. Because I live south of downtown it would have been possible for me to take either of the first 2 southbound Link trips and get to the airport in time for my flight. But I was concerned about the possibility of a late flight arriving back in Seattle after the last Link trip, so I chose to drive to the airport. At 430am traffic is very light and the drive to the airport took about the same amount of time it would have taken to walk to the Link station. Also, the $28 all-day parking fee is less than what a taxi would cost at 1am.

Although I chose to forego the public transit option in Seattle, I did plan to use public transit from the San Diego airport to downtown San Diego. Lindbergh Field is less than 2.5 miles from downtown so it’s pretty easy to get from the airport to downtown via public transit: Route 992 runs all day at mostly 15 minute headways, the trip takes about 12 minutes, the fare is $2.25 and the stops are right outside each airport terminal. San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) also sells an all-day pass for $5, but it is only available with a Compass Card (the MTS equivalent of ORCA, except that a Compass Card costs $2). The problem is that there aren’t any TVMs at any of the airport terminals that I could find that would issue a Compass Card. It is possible to buy a paper all-day pass on a bus, but it costs $7 and doesn’t provide an official, reusable plastic Compass Card. I know I will be making several more trips to San Diego and having a Compass Card will be handy, so I paid $2.25 for the trip to downtown and bought a Compass Card at a TVM in America Plaza with an all-day pass for an additional $7. Two day ($9) and three day ($12) passes are also available at the TVMs with a Compass Card.

My expectation when I left home at 430am was a long day of work ahead in San Diego; but, thanks to my associates, there was actually very little work that I had to deal with once I arrived in town. In fact, by lunchtime, I was done with my work day and I had over 8 hours to kill before my return flight. So I decided to do a little San Diego sightseeing courtesy of MTS and my Compass Card. My first planned expedition was to take a grand circle trip of the area via the Green and Orange Lines of the San Diego Trolleys. Just to clarify, what San Diego calls a trolley is what Seattle calls light rail and there are no electric powered, rubber tired transit coaches in San Diego. Unfortunately, the Green Line offers very little scenery and serves mostly shopping malls, a football stadium and stations located next to freeways. So I abandoned my grand circle plan at San Diego State University station and walked around the nearby business district hoping to find something equivalent to the U District in Seattle. No luck with that either, so I returned to the SDSU TC and looked for a bus to somewhere else. The 215 Rapid seemed to be the best bet. The 215 Rapid looked like a BRT route to downtown San Diego via Balboa Park. In reality, the 215 Rapid is a watered down version of Metro’s RapidRide service: the 215 makes fewer stops and the stations are distinct, bigger and better than a regular MTS bus stop, but no off-board payment is available and the buses aren’t noticeably different from other MTS coaches. The 215 also travels a route that is pretty equivalent to Aurora Avenue between SDSU and Balboa Park. So I abandoned the 215 at Balboa Park.

Getting off at Balboa Park was an excellent idea. I spent a couple of hours enjoying the sunshine and I ventured into the Model Railroad Museum for a tour. I know model railroading isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time, but if you have any interest in model trains, you must take trip/pilgrimage to the Balboa Park Museum. I won’t go into a long review of the museum, but it’s a 5 star experience for anyone who might be interested in model railroading.

After I left Balboa Park I didn’t have a definite plan for the next few hours, but I was hungry so I decided to hunt for another bus and hopefully take it somewhere interesting (other than downtown). The first bus stop I encountered didn’t have any schedule or precise destination information, but it did have a stop number and signage that said “text stop number 12757 to 46687” for schedule information. Within seconds the stop schedule information was texted back to my phone. And that was pretty much how I spent the rest of my day until I caught the 992 back to the airport.

Overall, riding transit in San Diego is pretty easy and economical. Most routes are on 15 minutes or better headways. Every bus I rode was well maintained and clean. The drivers were friendly and the network is relatively easy to figure out for a visitor. Fares are $2.25 for regular buses and trolleys, $2.50 for express routes and $5.00 for peak hour long distance trippers. On the bus stop signs the fare for each route is clearly displayed and every bus has a dash board sign with the appropriate fare. The Compass Card has eliminated the need for paper transfers. The trolleys are proof-of-payment and there is very heavy enforcement during rush hour. Every platform had 2-4 uniformed FEOs checking just about every passenger which seemed quite heavy-handed and likely not very cost effective.

If you are planning a trip to San Diego, I highly recommend buying a Compass Card and forgetting about the rental car.

I have a new proposal for the 11 E Madison bus based on the BRT idea of running every other bus to past 23rd Ave East. How about running the 11 as is alternating with the 12? The 11 would run from Madison Park to the Pike/Pine corridor downtown and the 12 would do a coast to coast run on Madison.

I would even go further suggesting that the 12 if not both 11 and 12 become trolley buses. The current 12 uses trolley buses on the downtown hills. I realize that some man not like trolley buses on east end of Madison and this may not be possible without additional funding!

Given the frequency that Metro is talking about with Prop One funding the 11 and 12 would at least run every 30 minutes and possibly more during peak hours which is being funded by Seattle’s Bridge the Gap.

This proposal gives access to the downtown business area and to Light Rail with a two plus block walk on Broadway. This would also give us the 10 and 11 to handle traffic to the Community College.

This idea does not preclude the BRT replacing the new 12 in the future. So what do you think of this idea and do you have any ideas on how to solve the Denny problem on the 8.

As Seattle’s transit advocates, we often like to brainstorm about transit infrastructure because it generates discussions. It helps define what the region wants, and these discussions often drive politics. Light rail connections, BRT, and a second downtown tunnel are just some highlights of an ever-growing wish-list.

However, our focus on modes and infrastructure also leads us to overlook the actual objectives of these transit investments. We ask ourselves whether we want light rail and BRT, but rarely do we emphasize, “How quick and reliable should the system to be?” or “What is this system trying to accomplish?”

As a result, transit advocates are often surprised by operational deficiencies late in the process, leading to reactions like this:

We have supported RapidRide and BRT from the beginning but Metro and the Council have let “BRT creep” and politics take over, not what is best for riders. When RapidRide C and D lines open on October 1st we’ll have a glorified shiny new bus that is slower than existing service. – STB

Part of the reason is because specific objectives are not clearly defined before transit is built. There were never defined travel times or reliability requirements from the beginning. We simply said “Build BRT” and assumed that everything would work out. As a result, decision makers have leeway to push for more infill stations to satisfy a few constituents, because why not? There was no legal requirement for what the actual travel time between A and B should have been. It’s easy to backtrack and modify service objectives that were never well-defined in the first place.

On the other hand, if we had defined our objectives as, “The BRT system shall travel between Aurora Village and Downtown Seattle in 35 minutes, at 90% punctuality within 10 minutes of the scheduled time”, and made them project requirements from the beginning, the results may have been different.

I can’t speak for all engineers and planners, but I would suspect that most (myself included) would not only prefer clear objectives to accomplish, but also more defense against backtracking due to political pressure. If decision makers want to satisfy a few constituents with an infill station, clearly-defined project requirements would provide more leverage to say, “Adding this infill station would breach the project conditions, unless there was more funding for a bus-only lane.”

I’ve been using BRT examples, but this applies to rail as well. If we had defined that we wanted a regional rail network with a 40-minute connection between Everett and Seattle, we could say that the currently proposed half hour travel time between Lynnwood and Everett is far too slow. However, we specified little more than the fact that we wanted a train. In the end, we got light rail, which takes 7 minutes to travel 1.3 miles through Downtown Seattle and is proposed to spend an hour between Westlake and Everett (28 minutes to Lynnwood and 30 more to Everett).

This pattern needs to change, and we can start by modifying our planning process: Define specific and realistic service objectives, reach a consensus with agencies, and make the objectives part of the project requirements.

Including specific preconditions into the discussion process, enforcing them and defending them against negative political interests will make the outcomes of our transit investments more predictable. After all, transit should be built to achieve mobility goals, not just for the sake of building it. Let’s take a look at how we can add these objectives to our discussions.

A few examples for defining objectives

Service objectives should be defined before the infrastructure. These should be specific, measurable and realistic, rather than general descriptions such as “improve reliability”.

Here are examples of what specific objectives could look like (with fictitious numbers):

• Travel times (e.g. West Seattle to Ballard within 30 minutes)
• Reliability (e.g. 95% punctuality between West Seattle and Ballard, where a vehicle is on-time when it arrives within 5 minutes of scheduled time)
• Frequency (e.g. Provide the capability to run trains at 90-second frequencies)

By specifying these objectives in our discussions, we can begin a dialogue with agencies to determine whether they are realistic. Once a consensus has been reached and the objectives determined, there should be a method to enforce these objectives, giving agencies more leverage to ask for funding or defend against political interests. Service objectives would then determine the infrastructure, such as whether surface options would even be worth considering.

We would then hopefully be presented with several alternatives that, more or less, satisfy our objectives, rather than receiving a smorgasbord of varying options with questionable operational effectiveness and then collectively wailing. In the end, we may also save ourselves from wondering what the infrastructure is actually capable of.

Moving forward with our discussions

Setting clear quantifiable objectives in cooperation with our agencies will help them better determine what people really want from transit investments. Providing means to enforce these objectives will give agencies more leverage to push back against political influence. With potentially billions in transit investments around the corner and discussions about to begin, we need to refine how we plan transit. After all, why vote for and throw money at projects without fully knowing what they’re trying to accomplish?

As we move forward, discuss and define the travel times that regional rail or urban rail should provide, not whether we should build light rail. Discuss and define the reliability that BRT should provide, not whether we should have bus lanes. The infrastructure (and funding) should be decided only after it is known what will be accomplished. By setting service objectives earlier in the process with agencies and turning those objectives into requirements (this is worth its own discussion), we may actually get the system that we expected to get.