By Frank on May 7, 2008
Report to council on the 4 most promising lines for Streetcar network expansion.
Posted in gregnickels, Skytrain
By Frank on May 7, 2008
I recently read a story (which may be apocryphal) about a landlord for an office building who was receiving complaints from his tenants that the elevators in the building were too slow. The landlord couldn’t afford to replace the elevators, but he wanted to keep his tenants happy.
His solution? Install mirrors in the lobby on every floor next to the elevators, so people could admire themselves while waiting for the elevators.
Complaints dropped to zero, even though the speed of the elevator had not changed.
The thought occurred to me while reading the streetcar report (thanks to oran in the STB comments for the link). The travel times are about the same as the equivalent bus routes (sub the #3 or #4 for the Central Line, for example). But the perception of time aboard a streetcar is very different. The starts and stops are smoother; the travel is more level; the vehicles themselves are wider and roomier.
People often dismiss those differences as less important or even trivial. But they’re clearly not. Many people prefere to sit in their cars in traffic, where they can control their environment — the radio station, the smell of the vehicle, the noise, etc. — rather than take the bus, even if the bus takes less time. This is perfectly rational. Obviously a streetcar, like a bus, puts you in an environment with other people, but if it can improve the experience in other ways (smoother, quieter, more spacious), it can also change your perception of time.
Posted in gregnickels
By Frank on May 5, 2008
Ann Butler has the scoop on the plan for 5 new streetcar lines that SDOT willl propose to Council tomorrow. It’s a bit different from the various plans we’ve bandied about here, but it shares some commonalities, including the route to Ballard via Westlake-Fremont-Leary.
None of the routes will mimic the Monorail’s Green Line from Ballard to West Seattle, for various reasons that Butler mentions. Funding is, of course, still up in the air.
I’m very curious how successful the Streetcar will be on crowded, narrow streets with lots of on-street parking, like 1st Avenue in Belltown, Eastlake Ave E, and Broadway. It’s a very different proposition than the relatively quiet Westlake Ave.
Posted in gregnickels
By serial catowner on April 12, 2008
If for no other reason, the current end of the Waterfront Streetcar will be remembered for the stunning pile of absurdities that have accumulated to do it in.
The beginning of this story is reported now as the need of the Sculpture Park for the land the carbarn stood on- when in fact, the arty types simply objected to the appearance of the carbarn. Let that soak in a minute- people who buy ‘modern art’ complaining about the appearance of the carbarn.
When this story broke, business types a few miles north offered space for the carbarn and money to extend the tracks, to the new labs and businesses near Interbay. This was turned down. Apparently the Waterfront Trolley “no longer fit into the city’s transportation plan”. That’s right, the same city that works overtime to attract cruise ships can’t see the role of a heritage trolley line running past the point where the passengers get off the cruise ships (not to mention the ferries).
So, what is the plan? That’s right- there isn’t any. They don’t know if the Viaduct will be rebuilt or replaced with a “surface option”, and they intend to “service the transportation grid around the viaduct”. Nickels said they would even be looking at streetcars as a way to carry the load during viaduct construction.
Gee, Mayor Nickels, you mean a streetcar like the one that used to be part of the transportation grid around the viaduct?
This is all doubletalk, and the reason they’re trying to snow us is that they’re ashamed of their real motives and their lack of ability to think or plan constructively for the future. Don’t expect a happy ending from this crowd- in spite of their cocktail party appreciation of art, they simply don’t get the big picture.
Posted in gregnickels, maps, newyork, Trail
By Frank on April 11, 2008
Looks like the plan to put a new maintenance barn in Pioneer Square has been scrapped, which makes sense, since any new solution would have to be mothballed during viaduct construction anyway.
Let’s all now focus our energy on some modern streetcars that can serve the western edge of the city more effectively. With the waterfront under construction, car-restricted 3rd Avenue seems like a logical N-S route for such a line.
Posted in gregnickels
By serial catowner on April 8, 2008
When a thousand streetcar systems bloomed, in our mind’s eye, upon the opening of the SLUS, I fed my inner skepticism- how, I wondered, would you feed substantial commuter traffic through a central street-running segment?
But then I realized that if you feed four outer links through a central link, and each link runs on a 20-minute headway, in the central link you run on a 5-minute headway. This is getting close to the territory of walk-to-the-curb-and-board-a-car. This central “golden mile” will be prime territory for quick trips to browse a bookstore, buy a coffee, or grab a lunch.
Pictures from ye bygone era show this quite clearly- easily 15-20 streetcars to be seen in a three-block segment. Or check this map from modern Amsterdam (thanks to alexjonlin for the link) where the lines come together, especially at the Central Station, with many lines in some short segments.
Transit is partly about a diversity of modes, and partly about a density at nodes. If buses came at 3-minute intervals, instead of coming every 20 minutes in a flock, the Seattle free-fare zone would work.
Posted in bus routes, gregnickels, landmarks
By Frank on April 7, 2008
To take a step back from our recent discussion on streetcars, The Overhead Wire has a great post on when streetcars are and are not applicable.
I was never moved by the nostalgia, back-to-the-1920s argument for streetcars. Rather, I had been looking at them from the point of view of Intermediate Capacity Transit, specifically as a way of implementing the City’s 2001 ICT recommendations. Could an at-grade streetcar, I wondered, with dedicated right-of-way where possible, be a less-expensive and more realistic substitute for intracity transit? Faster than a bus, but cheaper and easier to build than a monorail or subway.
But TOW, in the post linked above, suggests looking at streetcars in a different way, with a focus on pedestrian-friendliness:
Streetcars are not meant to be rapid transit but rather pedestrian accelerators within districts and areas just outside of town.
…But also, the creation of a pedestrian environment and pedestrian accelerators increased the area folks are willing to walk. And the creation of more of these neighborhoods on a corridor by streetcars is important because this increased walking has been shown to reduce VMT.
…As I have said before, its not always about speed. Creating an environment for pedestrians means also a slower environment, a safer environment.
Streetcars, in other words, can be viewed as city-sized versions of the moving walkways found in airports. I hinted at this a while back when I wrote that streetcars open up the downtown frontier to development, but I was still focused on the idea of the streetcar as a longer-haul commuter option. I still think that can work (the ICT study suggets that streetcars with stops placed 1-mile apart can achieve speeds and ridership comparable with elevated), but it’s clearly not the only use for the technology.
Photo by Flickr user OZinOH used under a Creative Commons license.
Posted in gregnickels
By Frank on February 29, 2008
Nice post from daijamin at STB interviewing SDOT’s project manager for the streetcar, Ethan Melone. I’m particularly intrigued by the idea of running the line up Westlake, through Fremont and into Ballard via Leary.
My big concern with the streetcar, other than the obvious stuck-in-traffic issues, has been crossing the ship canal. It seems to me you’ve got two big problems there: (1) having to wait while the bridge goes up, and (2) getting stuck in the traffic jam that results from the bridge going up.
The Fremont Bridge alignment has a lot of advantages over Ballard Bridge (notably the fact that it would serve Fremont!). But two big disadvantages are the congested intersections on either side of the Fremont Bridge.
Now, obviously it would be cool if the streetcar tunneled under the canal, or rose over it at such height as to avoid a drawbridge (a la the Monorail). But both of those options strike me as expensive and unlikely.
So why not build two single-lane, streetcar-only drawbridges on either side of the Fremont Bridge? The streetcar would get its own right-of-way, and could queue right up to the bridge, avoiding the backup of cars, and also avoid the tangle of intersections on either side of the Bridge. Something like this:
Now, I realize I’ve drawn one of those lines right through the Adobe campus. And for all I know two single-lane drawbridges are more expensive than tunneling under the canal. But I doubt it.
Anyway, consider this just some Friday night fantasy-mapping for your consideration. Thoughts?
Posted in gregnickels
By Frank on February 5, 2008
The proposed streetcar feasability study that STB blogged about a couple of weeks back has passed the transportation committee. It’s somewhat different from the plan proposed by the Urban League back in December.
I like the city’s plan better, since it goes to Fremont and Ballard.
Posted in gregnickels
By serial catowner on January 18, 2008
Not every transit enthusiast can actually visit the neighborhoods of the new streetcar in Seattle. Fortunately, the company that built the streetcar, Inekon, has posted photos here .
Posted in ATMS, AVLS, gregnickels
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments