Transit Master Plan

8/6/2019 Transit Master Plan

1/31

Seattle Transit Master Plan

Seattle City Council Transportation Committee BriefingJuly 26, 2011

Seattle

Department ofTransportation

In Association with:URS Corporation

SVRDKS Associates

The Underhill Company


2/31

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

2


3/31

3

Framing Analysis Results


4/31

Transit Master Plan Goals

Make it easier and more

desirable for people to taketransit

Respond to the needs ofvulnerable populations

Meet sustainability, growthmanagement, and economicgoals

Create great places where

modes connect

Advance implementationwithin constraints

4


5/31

Planning Outcomes

Inform policy makers of the value of major transit investments

Position the City to seek capital grant funding (inform nextphase of study)

Set a long-term direction for local transit development

Eugene has chosen BRT as aprimary mode

Portland has chosen rail as a focus ofsystem development

5


6/31

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

Projects and implementation priority for bus corridors P

Projects, mode, and phasing for HCT priority corridors P

Service design and operations guidance P

Facility improvements P

Programs to develop ridership P

Performance monitoring P

CompletedP In Progress

6


7/31

Corridor AnalysisFindings

Top 15 corridors serve aspriority transit network

Speed and reliability

Right-of-way priorities

Pedestrian access

Facilities

Each merits investment in

20-year plan horizon

7


8/31

Corridor AnalysisFindings

Evaluation identifiedfour HCT candidatecorridors

HCT corridors are astep toward long-rangeHCT network

8


9/31

Long-Range HCTNetwork

40-50 year view

Designed to make transita best option for most

trips High frequency

Speed

Separation from traffic

Connect at great places ornodes

9


10/3110

Bus Priority CorridorsApproach


11/31

Phasing for PriorityBus Corridors

PRINCIPLES

Leverage existing andplanned investments(transit, bicycle, andpedestrian)

Focus first on highestridership corridorsegments

Consider land usereadiness

Maximize value ofinvestments

11


12/31

Bus Corridor Toolbox: What is Seattle Doing?

Bus bulb

Bus-only signal

Bus boarding island

Business access transit lanes12


13/31

Bus Corridor Toolbox: What is Next?

Contraflow bus lane and double bike lanes Innovative bus-bike treatments

colored bike lanes through transit center

Raised bus boarding platform

designated loading zonesOff-board fare payment

13


14/3114


15/31

Bus priority andHCT metrics helpto determine bestpotential mix of

investments

15


16/31

Center City BusPriorities

3rd Avenue transitspine improvements

Yesler electrification

Denny electrificationand bus corridorenhancements

South Lake Union

transit center

16


17/3117

High Capacity CandidateCorridor Analysis


18/31

HCT CandidateCorridors

8: RooseveltU-District SLUDowntown

11: Ballard

Fremont SLUDowntown

6: MadisonCapitol/First Hill

DowntownColman Dock

CC1 & CC2:Downtown

connectors18


19/31

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


20/31

Components of a Mode

20

Right of Way Service Characteristics Station/Stop Spacing

Vehicles Infrastructure/Technology Fare Collection

20


21/31

Selecting a Preferred Mode

Customers most value speed and

reliability

With high level of ROW prioritization,bus and rail can both deliver speedand reliability

21


22/31

Selecting a Preferred Mode

Performance Ridership GhG emissions reduction

Value Cost per new rider gained(capital and operating)

Ability to leverage economicdevelopment (capacity)

Quality Comfort and ride quality Contribution to placemaking

22

Differentiating Measures


23/31

Rail capacity merited,but not feasible

No net new operatingcost

Opportunity to

leverage trolley busreplacement fore-BRT

23


24/31

Rail has potential to

deliver ~20% moreriders than BRT in 2030

Corridor has more netnew riders than any

other

Rail has lowestoperating cost per netnew rider

24


25/31

BRT capital cost is ~33%

of rail capital cost

Value (e.g., cost perincrement of newridership) is more tellingthan total cost

Operating costs are bornlocally; capital can

receive significant federalmatch

25


26/31

Rail capacity merited in peak and midday

Peak demand suggests need for extended streetcar vehicles

Siemens Combino Supra Alston Citadis26


27/31

Westlake provides opportunity for fully dedicated running way

27


28/31

TABLE WITH METRICSMode Decision Factors Rail BRT EnhancedBus

PERFORMANCE

Ridership

GhG Emissions Reduction

VALUE

Operating cost per net new rider

Total annualized cost per new rider(capital and operating)

Ability to leverage economicdevelopment

QUALITY

Comfort and ride quality

Placemaking benefit

28


29/31

Rail is preferred

mode forDowntown

connector options

CC1 and CC2

should not beviewed as exclusiveoptions; they servedifferent markets

Connecting SLUand First HillStreetcars can bepart of the Center

City network

COMBINED MAP

29


30/31

30

Next Steps

U i C il


31/31

Upcoming CouncilDiscussions

September 13:Executive Summary,modal recommendations,design standards

September 27:Draft TMP complete,community outreach plan

Documents

Transit Master Plan