The Seattle Streetcar Thread

[Seattlelife]

How much time would one of these lines save versus taking the bus over the same route?

I'm not going to lie, I haven't been sold on the streetcars yet. Of course the system is only a mile long so far lol.

[PDXPaul]

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't save any time. They're in the same traffic buses would be. If we're just talking dollars and cents per rider, they aren't worth it. But I think they have character, and that's what you're buying at 40m a mile. But hopefully the increased property values from that character could defray some of the costs of building it.

[Seattlelife]

Yeah that's how I see it too. I really want to see Seattle move away from these toys and look at grade separated transit that will actually make a difference.

[SteveM]

I like the streetcar we've got. I like the smooth ride, the space to stand, the quiet and the lack of diesel fumes. And I like that it was simple and cheap enough that it got built quickly with property owners covering a lot of the cost.

Of course I'd rather it were grade-separated and faster and more frequent, but that's what we've got Sound Transit for. And who's to say we can't speed up the trolley a little (give it its own lane, signal pre-emption, etc.) as it gets more use?

[sequoias]

Nice expansion proposed....seems we're competing with Portland's streetcar system.

[guinessbeer55]

I think if this gets approved it will be better than Portland's. Portland, if Im correct only has a downton circulator...

I hope it gets passed.

[PDXPaul]

dp

[PDXPaul]

Maybe so but Seattle's still getting pwn'd in the light rail department!

[Black Box]

^Fer sure.

[Aaron W]

I like streetcars and I would like to see an expanded network in Seattle, but at the same time I'm wondering if spending money on such an expansion will limit funds for the East Link lightrail segment to Bellevue? If it was one or the other, I'd pick the East Link... though obviously both would be preferred.

[mhays]

Our first priority should be to get as many people on transit as possible. ST's mission is trunk routes, and Metro's is adding tons of new bus service but it's 80% suburban. I'd like Seattle to fund a big increase in bus service for inner-city routes.

Many routes are jammed at rush hour, and some are even a bit too full in "slower" times. Higher frequencies would alleviate that, while also attracting more riders. I'd like to see a lot of routes change from 15 to 10 minutes, from 30 to 20, etc. On major arterials where routes combine, this could mean service every few minutes at least to Downtown. Also, we could use a few new routes.

I have no idea how much this would cost. But it seems like Metro's ballot win of $50m per year might be in the right magnitude. That's a significant number given that it's Seattle-only, but it's still smaller than many other Seattle ballot measures on a per-year basis. The vote would win in a landslide. I suspect the City would need State permission to provide a service outside its charter, and might need an expansion of its taxing authority, but those seem doable at least to me.

If we increased service by 30%, would we see a 20% increase in ridership? Perhaps a noticeable decline in cars in key districts? Many more people going car-less? The $50 million per year is pocket change compared to the benefits.

I like the streetcars too. Rail certainly has benefits. The key is service every 5 minutes or so, unlike the starter line so far.

[Seattlelife]

You bring up good points mhays. I still think the main things missing in Seattle's bus and streetcar routes is a grade separated, easily accessible, non confusing transit network. We could add 500 busses and I still think Seattleites are not going to ride them. We need something significant if we really want to make a difference with the middle class. I don't think the upper classes are going to leave their cars for the most part.

Seattle's problem right now is that these transit networks are disjointed, confusing, and get stuck in the same traffic as cars. In order to increase ridership we need to change this.

You're ideas certainly will help but to change the attitude in Seattle regarding mass transit then this is what needs to happen imo.

I guess I just think the changes you suggest would just make it more convenient for current riders and perhaps increase occasional riders. I don't see it making a huge impact for non riders. Just my 2 cents.

[CityView Jim]

Well, here's someone who just got out of his car!

For years I drove to work as I live in the city and always worked in the suburbs. This week I started a job only a few miles away so I'm bussing!! Yeah!

I take the 26 or 28 from Dexter Ave N through downtown and get off at Jackson and 3rd (or 4th?). The bus has been jammed packed as I get on after all the Fremontians and Ballardiers are already comfortably seated. The 3-mile trip takes about 30 minutes in morning rush hour as we pretty much stop at every stop.

I hate to say, but I can almost walk a brisk 10-minute mile! That's assuming I hit all my lights. I'm not bellyaching, just adjusting to an urban commute.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Seattlelife

You bring up good points mhays. I still think the main things missing in Seattle's bus and streetcar routes is a grade separated, easily accessible, non confusing transit network. We could add 500 busses and I still think Seattleites are not going to ride them. We need something significant if we really want to make a difference with the middle class. I don't think the upper classes are going to leave their cars for the most part.

Seattle's problem right now is that these transit networks are disjointed, confusing, and get stuck in the same traffic as cars. In order to increase ridership we need to change this.

You're ideas certainly will help but to change the attitude in Seattle regarding mass transit then this is what needs to happen imo.

I guess I just think the changes you suggest would just make it more convenient for current riders and perhaps increase occasional riders. I don't see it making a huge impact for non riders. Just my 2 cents.

I completely disagree.

Many potential bus riders are put off by infrequent service and jammed routes. Further, Metro's studies show that adding service tends to mean a big increase in riders.

Also, our transit mode share for work commutes was #2 in the Western US by city or metro in 2006 according to census.gov -- well above Portland and LA. Buses are working.

I personally know numerous six-figure earners who commute by bus. There's no stigma at all for the Downtown white collar set, where many companies (like mine) are well above 50% transit ridership.

Buses aren't sexy, but they have some huge advantages over rail, though I support both. Only buses can spiderweb out into every neighborhood, meaning no separate trip to the station. Most Downtown workers can simply walk at both ends, particularly if they live within Seattle.

[SteveM]

Originally Posted by mhays

I personally know numerous six-figure earners who commute by bus. There's no stigma at all for the Downtown white collar set, where many companies (like mine) are well above 50% transit ridership.

Buses aren't sexy, but they have some huge advantages over rail, though I support both. Only buses can spiderweb out into every neighborhood, meaning no separate trip to the station. Most Downtown workers can simply walk at both ends, particularly if they live within Seattle.

I'm (sort of) with mhays here. My company recently moved downtown and went from about 2 or 3 frequent bus riders to well over 75% daily bus riders. It's a software company; we're well-enough paid that most people could afford the downtown parking cost, but it seems that most people prefer the convenience/cheapness/environmentalism of the bus once they've been given good bus options. At our previous location on Eastlake, the bus connections sucked if you didn't happen to live near the 66 or 70 routes and parking was free (if sketchy) -- it's not surprising that most people drove.

That said, it's a mistake to build a transit system as if all travel is commuting only -- many people go somewhere besides home before or after work. For ad hoc travel, buses aren't great -- the infrequency, complexity and unreliability of a bus-only system is daunting. The proposed streetcar network, by contrast, should have frequent service and a simple enough layout to be useful for novices (including mhays's beloved tourists).

Also, while you can argue about root causes, streetcars do seem to go along with denser development around the routes than bus lines, even frequent bus lines, seem to. Obviously, as a member of this board, I'm in favor of denser development...

[Seasun]

Last night I took the 72 from Convention Place to the U District. I think it's time to increase frequencies from every 10 minutes to more like 8 minutes for the 71/72/73 routes. My bus was packed to the gills. Last time I did this route a few weeks ago I chose to wait for the next bus but last night I needed to get going. Last night just before 5pm three route 41 buses to the Northgate P&R came through that were not packed. Kind of annoying.

[CityView Jim]

OK, I was wrong.

This morning I took the bus to my new work location (I start Monday!). It took 20 minutes + a 5 minute walk.

To test my theory, I walked home and it took 45 minutes at a brisk pace. Guess I'm not as fast as I thought! The bus is definitely worth it! So far, I'm liking it.

[mokocoko]

Originally Posted by mhays

I completely disagree.

Many potential bus riders are put off by infrequent service and jammed routes. Further, Metro's studies show that adding service tends to mean a big increase in riders.

Also, our transit mode share for work commutes was #2 in the Western US by city or metro in 2006 according to census.gov -- well above Portland and LA. Buses are working.

I personally know numerous six-figure earners who commute by bus. There's no stigma at all for the Downtown white collar set, where many companies (like mine) are well above 50% transit ridership.

Buses aren't sexy, but they have some huge advantages over rail, though I support both. Only buses can spiderweb out into every neighborhood, meaning no separate trip to the station. Most Downtown workers can simply walk at both ends, particularly if they live within Seattle.

Buses are hugely expensive and have very low capacity. It costs the same (after factoring in fare receipts and advertising revenue) to operate a streetcar as a bus, and a streetcar will get more riders and can carry more than twice as many people as an articulated bus. For the $50 million you quote each year seattle could build a mile or two of streetcar lines.

Definitely you need buses to bring people to rail, but for main routes or trunk routes, the kind that would come every five minutes, buses cost a tremendous amount more to operate, attract fewer riders and attract much much less transit-oriented development. Buses will never get people to switch to transit lifestyles in the way that proper rail would, even streetcars.

[mhays]

Buses have a vastly lower first cost. The cheapness is only about operations. That's why $50 million per year would result in a much higher service increase than rail could accomplish for that sort of money.

(A mile or two. That's funny! I'm talking about improving dozens of routes all over town.)

[CrazyAboutCities]

I'm up for Seattle streetcar system! I am very excited about Central Line Streetcar because it is right next to my place. Hope City of Seattle officials will find ways to fund it and make it happen soon. We can't afford to waste another 10 to 30 years of fights but I have a good feeling that they will make it happen sooner than we expect. Hopefully to have them roll on the streets by 2011.