Seattle Transit Master Plan
Seattle City Council Transportation Committee Briefing
July 26, 2011
Seattle Department of Transportation
In Association with: URS Corporation SVR DKS Associates The Underhill Company
Presentation Overview
Framing analysis results
TMP goals and outcomes Plan elements and progress Corridor analysis findings Long-range high capacity transit network
Bus priority corridors approach High capacity candidate corridor analysis
Framing Analysis Results
Transit Master Plan Goals
Make it easier and more desirable for people to take transit Respond to the needs of vulnerable populations
Meet sustainability, growth management, and economic goals Create great places where modes connect
Advance implementation within constraints
Planning Outcomes
Inform policy makers of the value of major transit investments Position the City to seek capital grant funding (inform next phase of study) Set a long-term direction for local transit development
Eugene has chosen BRT as a primary mode
Portland has chosen rail as a focus of system development
Plan Elements and Progress
Goal setting Existing conditions and gaps Identify priority transit corridors (Top 15) Identify high capacity transit (HCT) corridors Define long-range HCT network
Completed P In Progress
Projects and implementation priority for bus corridors
Projects, mode, and phasing for HCT priority corridors
Service design and operations guidance Facility improvements Programs to develop ridership Performance monitoring
6
P
P P P P
Corridor Analysis Findings
Top 15 corridors serve as priority transit network
Speed and reliability Right-of-way priorities Pedestrian access Facilities
Each merits investment in 20-year plan horizon
Corridor Analysis Findings
Evaluation identified four HCT candidate corridors HCT corridors are a step toward long-range HCT network
Long-Range HCT Network
40-50 year view Designed to make transit a best option for most trips
High frequency Speed
Separation from traffic
Connect at great places or nodes
Bus Priority Corridors Approach
10
Phasing for Priority Bus Corridors
PRINCIPLES
Leverage existing and planned investments (transit, bicycle, and pedestrian)
Focus first on highest ridership corridor segments Consider land use readiness
Maximize value of investments
11
Bus Corridor Toolbox: What is Seattle Doing?
Bus boarding island
Bus bulb
12
Business access transit lanes
Bus-only signal
Bus Corridor Toolbox: What is Next?
Off-board fare payment
Raised bus boarding platform designated loading zones
Contraflow bus lane and double bike lanes
13
Innovative bus-bike treatments colored bike lanes through transit center
14
Bus priority and HCT metrics help to determine best potential mix of investments
15
Center City Bus Priorities
3rd Avenue transit spine improvements Yesler electrification
Denny electrification and bus corridor enhancements South Lake Union transit center
16
High Capacity Candidate Corridor Analysis
17
HCT Candidate Corridors
8: Roosevelt U-District SLU Downtown 11: Ballard Fremont SLU Downtown 6: Madison Capitol/First Hill Downtown Colman Dock CC1 & CC2: Downtown connectors 18
What is a Transit Mode?
Mode is distinguished by more than its vehicle
Right-of-way design and management Service characteristics (e.g., frequency, span of service, reliability) Stations
Vehicles
Fare collection Infrastructure Technology
19
Components of a Mode
Right of Way Service Characteristics Station/Stop Spacing
Vehicles
Infrastructure/Technology
Fare Collection
20
20
Selecting a Preferred Mode
Customers most value speed and reliability With high level of ROW prioritization, bus and rail can both deliver speed and reliability
21
Selecting a Preferred Mode
Differentiating Measures
Performance
Ridership GhG emissions reduction
Value
Cost per new rider gained (capital and operating) Ability to leverage economic development (capacity)
Quality
Comfort and ride quality Contribution to placemaking
22
Rail capacity merited, but not feasible No net new operating cost Opportunity to leverage trolley bus replacement for e-BRT
23
Rail has potential to deliver ~20% more riders than BRT in 2030 Corridor has more net new riders than any other Rail has lowest operating cost per net new rider
24
BRT capital cost is ~33% of rail capital cost Value (e.g., cost per increment of new ridership) is more telling than total cost Operating costs are born locally; capital can receive significant federal match
25
Rail capacity merited in peak and midday
Peak demand suggests need for extended streetcar vehicles
26
Siemens Combino Supra
Alston Citadis
Westlake provides opportunity for fully dedicated running way
27
Mode Decision Factors
PERFORMANCE
Ridership
TABLE WITH METRICS
Rail
BRT
Enhanced Bus
GhG Emissions Reduction
VALUE
Operating cost per net new rider Total annualized cost per new rider (capital and operating) Ability to leverage economic development
QUALITY
Comfort and ride quality
Placemaking benefit
28
Rail is preferred mode for Downtown connector options CC1 and CC2 should not be viewed as exclusive options; they serve different markets Connecting SLU and First Hill Streetcars can be part of the Center City network
29
COMBINED MAP
Next Steps
30
Upcoming Council Discussions
September 13: Executive Summary, modal recommendations, design standards
September 27: Draft TMP complete, community outreach plan
31
