Streetcar Operating Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Streetcar Operating Report Seattle Department of Transportation 2019 ANNUAL STREETCAR OPERATING REPORT September 2020 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................3 2. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................5 2.1. Ordinance 124946 ................................................................................5 2.2. South Lake Union Streetcar .................................................................5 2.3. First Hill Streetcar ...............................................................................7 2.4. Center City Connector .........................................................................7 3. FINANCIAL METRICS ...........................................................................................8 3.1. Operations & Maintenance costs .........................................................8 3.2. Revenue ................................................................................................8 3.3. Investment in Streetcar Operations ....................................................8 4. PERFORMANCE METRICS ..................................................................................12 4.1. Ridership ............................................................................................12 4.2. Reliability............................................................................................13 4.3. Productivity ........................................................................................14 4.4. Proposed Operations Improvements .................................................14 5. OPERATIONS HIGHLIGHTS ................................................................................17 5.1. Governance Structure and Budget Overview ....................................17 5.2. Safety & Security Update ...................................................................17 5.2.1. Changes to Streetcar Safety Management ........................................18 Table 1 - Projected Streetcar Balances and Investment Per Rider .............................................................9 Table 2 - First Hill Streetcar Financials ..................................................................................................... 11 Table 3 - South Lake Union Streetcar Financials ....................................................................................... 11 Table 4 - First Hill Streetcar Performance ................................................................................................. 15 Table 5 - South Lake Union Streetcar Performance .................................................................................. 15 Table 6 - Proposed Operations Improvements ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 1 - Seattle Streetcar System Map .....................................................................................................6 Figure 2 - Seattle Streetcar Ridership (NTD Reported) 2015-2019 ........................................................... 12 Figure 3 - On-Time Performance 2008-2019 ............................................................................................. 13 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report reflects 2019 performance and Fare revenue grew in 2019 on both lines financial metrics and does not capture the ORCA fare revenue, the primary source of fare significant changes in ridership and operating revenue for the Seattle Streetcar, grew in 2019 status resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. by approximately 18%, or $252,000 systemwide. Those changes will be described in the 2020 This was driven by increases on both the SLU Operations Report. and FHS lines. ORCA revenue increased by 10% ($62,000) on SLU and by 24% ($190,000) on FHS The Seattle Streetcar system consists of two in 2019. This increase in revenue appears to be separate, modern streetcar lines: the South Lake driven in large part by a commensurate increase Union Streetcar (SLU), which opened in 2007, in ORCA usage. ORCA taps on SLU and FHS and the First Hill Streetcar (FHS), which opened increased by 10% and 22%, respectively in 2019, in 2016. The system is owned and funded by the outpacing ridership gains. Increased ORCA usage City of Seattle, which partners with King County is likely due to many factors, which could include Metro to serve as the operator of the system on increased ORCA distribution through employers the City’s behalf. or transit agency programs. Highlights from 2019 include: City and County executed a new 5-year agreement for streetcar operations and Systemwide ridership continued to grow in 2019, maintenance driven by First Hill Streetcar A year of cooperative negotiation between the City In 2019, ridership on the Seattle Streetcar of Seattle and King County culminated in 2019 continued to grow, exceeding 2018 ridership by with the execution of a new Interlocal Agreement 11%, or 182,000 riders. As in previous years, (ILA) for the operations and maintenance of the this growth was driven by substantial ridership Seattle Streetcar. The new agreement replaces growth on the FHS line, which exceeded 2018 the expiring 2014 ILA and includes a number of ridership by 17%, or 193,000 riders. Ridership improvements to the City-County relationship, on the SLU line continued trends from previous including improved budgeting and invoicing years, remaining relatively flat, declining 2%, or procedures and more efficient maintenance 10,000 riders from 2018. by consolidating previously City-performed maintenance functions with King County. 2019 ANNUAL STREETCAR OPERATING REPORT | 3 SDOT Streetcar Operations staff prepared to SDOT continued work on spot improvement implement new federal safety requirements projects to improve safety and reliability 2019 saw new changes to federal requirements SDOT’s transit spot improvements program governing rail safety oversight. These changes advanced work on several spot improvements require SDOT to assume new responsibilities in to increase safety for bicyclists around streetcar managing and planning streetcar safety; most tracks and to reduce congestion and streetcar notably, developing a Public Transportation travel time and increase reliability. Notable Agency Safety Plan (PTASP). The new PTASP projects included delineation of the streetcar-only will work in conjunction with a similar plan lane on northbound Terry Avenue between Thomas from King County Metro and will be based on a and Mercer Streets, as well as signage, street Safety Management System (SMS) philosophy in markings, and relocationof a bus zone along Yesler accordance with the new federal requirements. Way between Broadway and 14th Ave. Under the new requirements, SDOT was required to certify that it has adopted a PTASP by July 20, 2020. SDOT met this requirement in July 2020. 4 | SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. ORDINANCE 124946 The Seattle Streetcar system consists of two Ordinance 124946 requires the Seattle separate, modern streetcar lines: the South Lake Department of Transportation (SDOT) to submit a Union Streetcar (SLU) and the First Hill Streetcar report to the Chair of City Council’s Sustainability (FHS). A project to expand and unify the system and Transportation Committee (now City Council’s by connecting these two separate lines along Transportation and Utilities Committee) at least First Avenue and Stewart Street, the Center City bi-annually on the operations of all operating Connector, is currently paused. streetcar lines. This requirement has been in place since December 2015. Figure 1 shows the South Lake Union and First Hill Streetcar segment alignments along with the Ordinance 124946 states: Center City Connector. “The report shall include both performance metrics 2.2. SOUTH LAKE UNION STREETCAR and financial metrics; and will include data for the past The South Lake Union (SLU) Streetcar was 5 years, estimates for the current year, and projections approved by the City Council in 2005 in for the next 5 years. Performance metrics shall include response to efforts to develop the South Lake ridership, farebox recovery ratio, productivity (riders Union neighborhood into a biotechnology and per revenue hour), fare evasion, and reliability. Financial biomedical research hub. The $56.4 million line metrics shall include costs, including operating was funded nearly 50% by property owners along payments to King County, SDOT direct costs and the alignment, via a capital Local Improvement contingency, and major maintenance expenditures; District, and the remainder by federal, state, and revenues, including farebox recovery, sponsorships and local funds. donations, grants and intergovernmental revenues; and actual use of funds from the Consolidated (Residual) The SLU line is 1.3 miles long and operates Cash Pool*1 for interim financing. Financial reporting through mixed traffic. The line is served by a fleet shall identify variances from financial projections of four Inekon vehicles operating in mixed right included in the Adopted Budget. The report shall of way and powered exclusively by an overhead include a narrative to describe any significant or contact system (OCS). SLU operates an average operational policy changes and explain any significant 10- to 15-minute service frequency most hours of variation from budgeted projections. SDOT may the day it operates, seven days a week. adjust the performance and financial metrics with the written
Recommended publications
  • Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to Be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents
    DOWNTOWN ACCESS STRATEGY PHASE 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 II. Review of Existing Plans, Projects, and Programs ......................................... 2 III. Potential Construction Concerns and Opportunities .................................. 3 A. Existing Construction Planning Tools 3 B. SDOT’s Construction Hub Coordination Program 4 C. Construction Mitigation Strategies Used by Other Cities 7 D. Potential Construction Conflicts and Opportunities 10 IV. Future Transportation Network Opportunities ......................................... 12 A. North Downtown 12 B. Denny Triangle / Westlake Hub 14 C. Pioneer Square / Chinatown-ID 15 D. Downtown Core and Waterfront 16 V. Future Phases of Downtown Access Strategy ............................................. 18 A. Framework for Phase 2 (2014 through 2016) 18 B. Framework for Phase 3 (Beyond 2016) 19 - i - September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years I. INTRODUCTION Many important and long planned transportation and development projects are scheduled for con- struction in Downtown Seattle in the coming years. While these investments are essential to support economic development and job growth and to enhance Downtown’s stature as the region’s premier location to live, work, shop and play, in the short-term they present complicated challenges for con- venient and reliable access to and through Downtown. The Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) and its partners, Historic South Downtown (HSD) and the Seat- tle Department of Transportation (SDOT), seek to ensure that Downtown Seattle survives and prospers during the extraordinarily high level of construction activity that will occur in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study LPA Report
    The Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) R e port Executive Summary August 2014 in association with: URS Shiels Obletz Johnsen CH2MHill Natalie Quick Consulting John Parker Consulting BERK Consulting VIA Architecture Alta Planning + Design DKS Associates I | LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REPORT ― EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LTK Cover image from SDOT Seattle Center City Connector Transit Study Executive Summary Volume I: LPA Report 1. Project Overview 2. Purpose and Need 3. Evaluation Framework 4. Evaluation of Alternatives 5. Summary of Tier 1 Screening and Tier 2 Evaluation Results and Public Input 6. Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative 7. Next Steps Volume I Appendix A: Project Purpose and Need Volume II: Detailed Evaluation Report 1. Project Overview 2. Evaluation Framework and Public Outreach 3. Initial Screening of Alternatives (Purpose and Need) 4. Summary of Tier 1 Alternatives and Evaluation Results 5. East-West Connection Assessment 6. Description of Tier 2 Alternatives 7. Tier 2 Evaluation Results 8. Tier 2 Public Outreach Summary 9. Tier 2 Recommendation Volume II Technical Appendices (Methodology and Detailed Results) Appendix A: Ridership Projections Appendix B: Additional Ridership Markets: Visitors and Special Events Appendix C: Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology and Estimates Appendix D: Loading Analysis Appendix E: Capital Cost Methodology and Estimates Appendix F: Utility Impacts Assessment Appendix G: Traffic Analysis Appendix H Evaluation
    [Show full text]
  • UNECE Tram and Metro Statistics Metadata Introduction File Structure
    UNECE Tram and Metro Statistics Metadata Introduction This file gives detailed country notes on the UNECE tram and metro statistics dataset. These metadata describe how countries have compiled tram and metro statistics, what the data cover, and where possible how passenger numbers and passenger-km have been determined. Whether data are based on ticket sales, on-board sensors or another method may well affect the comparability of passenger numbers across systems and countries, hence it being documented here. Most of the data are at the system level, allowing comparisons across cities and systems. However, not every country could provide this, sometimes due to confidentiality reasons. In these cases, sometimes either a regional figure (e.g. the Provinces of Canada, which mix tram and metro figures with bus and ferry numbers) or a national figure (e.g. Czechia trams, which excludes the Prague tram system) have been given to maximise the utility of the dataset. File Structure The disseminated file is structured into seven different columns, as follows: Countrycode: These are United Nations standard country codes for statistical use, based on M49. The codes together with the country names, region and other information are given here https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/overview/ (and can be downloaded as a CSV directly here https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/overview/#). City: This column gives the name of the city or region where the metro or tram system operates. In many cases, this is sufficient to identify the system. In some cases, non-roman character names have been converted to roman characters for convenience.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcar Plan Posters
    WELCOME Welcome! The purpose of this open house is to present draft recommendations from the Bicycle Master Plan and the Streetcar System Plan to the public. City sta! and citizen volunteers are here to present the material and to answer questions. The room is divided into three sections: one for the Bicycle Master Plan, one for the Streetcar System Plan, and one called “Integration Station,” where we tie the two concepts together. Refreshments and child care services are also available. The bicycle and streetcar networks will play a key role in Portland’s future. Together, they will reduce reliance on the automobile for daily tasks, they will reinforce urban land use patterns, and they will help the City achieve its goals to combat climate change. This is the beginning of a transportation transformation. WHY PLAN? PORTLAND HAS A HISTORY OF SUCCESSFUL LONG-RANGE PLANNING In 1904, landscape architect John C. Olmsted produced a report for the City Among the parks that resulted from the Olmsted Plan are Holladay Park, Irving Parks Board. The plan served as a blueprint for development of the highly Park, Mt. Tabor (shown above), Overlook Park, Rocky Butte, Sellwood Park, valued park system we enjoy today. Washington Park, and several others. Interstate MAX Opened 2004 Airport MAX Hillsboro MAX Opened 2001 Opened 1998 Portland Streetcar Opened 2001 MAX to Gresham Opened 1986 Clackamas MAX Opens fall 2009 Westside Express Service Opened Feb. 2009 In 1989, three years after the "rst MAX line opened from downtown to Gresham, 20 years later the regional rail system is well on its way to being constructed as planners laid out a vision for a regional rail system.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Meeting Presentation 130826.Pptx
    Proposed Long-Term Streetcar Network Study Overview/Purpose § Examine the feasibility of streetcar service in Saint Paul § Determine where it would work best § Determine where to start 2 What is Streetcar Service? Consists of many elements: Vehicles Stops Right-of-Way Short Stop Spacing Fare Payment New Development Streetcar Vehicles • Modern, vintage, or replica of vintage streetcar • Usually single vehicle Modern Streetcar, Toronto Modern Streetcar, Portland Modern Streetcar, Seattle Modern Streetcar, Tacoma Vintage Streetcar, Memphis Historic Replica Streetcar, New Orleans Streetcars in the Street • Usually operate in mixed-traffic • But can also operate in exclusive rights-of-way Portland Streetcar Seattle Streetcar Tucson Streetcar (Planned) San Francisco F-Line Portland Streetcar Kansas City Streetcar (Planned) Streetcar Route Length & Stop Spacing • Short lengths; focus on shorter more local trips • Frequent stops; approximately every two blocks 2.8 miles 2.1miles Portland Streetcar Kansas City Streetcar (Planned) Streetcar Stops Smaller scale/less elaborate than LRT stations Portland Streetcar Stop Seattle Streetcar Stop Toronto Streetcar Stop Future Westgate Light Rail Station, St. Paul Economic Development Patterns Streetcar Light Rail • Linear economic development • Nodal economic development South Lake Union Streetcar, Seattle The Lyric near the future Raymond Ave Station, St. Paul Construction Impacts Streetcar Light Rail • Lower impact • Greater impact • Faster construction • Longer construction First Hill Streetcar construction,
    [Show full text]
  • The Path to Partnership: How Cities and Transit Systems Can Stop
    The Path to Partnership: How Cities and Transit Systems Can Stop Worrying and Join Forces Introduction In order to keep and attract riders, transit must be frequent, fast, and reliable. Maintaining frequent, fast, and reliable service in the congested conditions of most American cities requires prioritizing street level transit above automobile traffic, through measures like bus lanes, queue jumps, and signal priority. Relative to large capital projects, bus priority measures provide immediate improvements in travel time and reliability at a small fraction of the cost, and can be accomplished overnight with the right combination of paint, light duty street installations, and enforcement. The projects profiled in this study, including a bus lane in Everett, MA, New York City’s Select Bus Service, and Seattle’s Rapid Ride have seen travel time savings of 10-30%. While on-street transit improvements can be done quickly and cheaply, they aren’t necessarily easy to accomplish. Getting them done usually requires two things: · Political will and leadership from mayors, transit system managers and board members, and other leaders who must be willing to defend potentially controversial street and service changes like removing on-street parking spaces for a bus lane, or eliminating bus stops that are too close together. · Structuring transit agencies and city street agencies to more quickly and effectively deliver on-street transit projects. This may mean forging new relationships and decision-making processes, gathering new data, hiring for different skills, and figuring out new ways to prioritize projects. 2 Transit street projects can be tough to get done when there’s no history of doing them.
    [Show full text]
  • CPC's RESPONSE to COURT's ORDER to SHOW CAUSE (No. 2:12-Cv-01282-JLR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 531 Filed 02/20/19 Page 1 of 46 1 THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR 10 11 Plaintiff, COMMUNITY POLICE COMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO 12 v. COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 CITY OF SEATTLE, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CPC’S RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER Perkins Coie LLP TO SHOW CAUSE 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (No. 2:12-cv-01282-JLR) Phone: 206.359.8000 143373394.2 Fax: 206.359.9000 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 531 Filed 02/20/19 Page 2 of 46 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 4 II. ISSUES PRESENTED....................................................................................................... 3 5 III. ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 5 A. The Court’s understanding of the Shepherd incident is accurate, 6 and the events preceding the use of force provide additional cause 7 for concern. ............................................................................................................ 5 8 1. How Officer Shepherd’s case was reviewed on appeal ............................. 8 2. The appeals process under the Accountability Ordinance 9 would have differed in important ways and under the CBAs will be even less consistent with the Consent Decree’s goal 10 of public trust and confidence .................................................................... 9 11 B. The SPOG and SPMA CBAs are barriers to sustained reform. ........................... 14 12 1. The SPOG CBA purports to supersede or nullify any other City law or policy that, implicitly or explicitly, conflicts 13 with its terms ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of SEATTLE Center City Connector Streetcar
    CITY OF SEATTLE Improvement of: Center City Connector Streetcar, Advance Utility Package Phase 2 (FTA) FA#: ___ PW#: 2017-066 Funded by: Federal Transit Administration, Seattle Public Utilities Bids Open : December 13, 2017 Advertisement for Bids City of Seattle Center City Connector Streetcar, Advance Utility Package Phase 2 (FTA) Bid Opening Date: December 13, 2017 at 2:00 pm PW #: 2017-066 THIS PROJECT IS FEDERALLY FUNDED This Contract, as noted herein, is funded, in part, by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. This project is subject to the requirements set forth by the FTA Master Agreement. The remaining work is funded by local funding source and is not subject to the requirements set forth by FTA Master Agreement. PROJECT LOCATION: Downtown Seattle on 1st Avenue from Stewart Street to Madison Street, and Stewart Street from Westlake Avenue to 1st Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of utility improvements including water, sewer, drainage, and electrical power distribution. Water improvements include the removal of existing cast iron water main and appurtenances and replacement with a new ductile iron water main, including valves, hydrants and water services. This work is identified under bid schedule SPU Water. Sewer improvements consist of maintenance hole riser reconstruction, sewer lateral spot repairs, and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) lining in the sewer mainline on 1st Avenue from Seneca Street to Spring Street. This work has been identified under bid schedule SPU Sewer. SDOT Improvements include drainage improvements such as replacement of inlets, pipe, and catch basins at intersections and mid-block throughout the project corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • A Different Kind of Gentrification: Seattle and Its Relationship with Industrial Land
    A Different Kind of Gentrification: Seattle and its Relationship with Industrial Land David Tomporowski A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Planning University of Washington 2019 Committee: Edward McCormack Christine Bae Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Urban Design and Planning College of Built Environments ©Copyright 2019 David Tomporowski University of Washington Abstract A Different Kind of Gentrification: Seattle and its Relationship with Industrial Land David Tomporowski Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Edward McCormack Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering / Department of Urban Design and Planning Industry in Seattle often talks about how they are facing their own kind of gentrification. Rising property values, encroaching pressure for different land uses, and choking transportation all loom as reasons for industrial businesses to relocate out of the city. This research explores this phenomenon of industrial gentrification through a case study of Seattle’s most prominent industrial area: the SODO (“South Of Downtown”) neighborhood. My primary research question asks what the perception and reality of the state of industrial land designation and industrial land use gentrification in Seattle is. Secondary research questions involve asking how industrial land designation and industrial land use can be defined in Seattle, what percentage of land is zoned industrial in the SODO neighborhood, and what percentage of the land use is considered industrial in the SODO neighborhood. Finally, subsequent effects on freight transportation and goods movement will be considered. By surveying actual industrial land use compared to i industrially-zoned land, one can conclude whether industry’s complaints are accurate and whether attempts to protect industrial land uses are working.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Streetcar First Hill Line
    SEATTLE STREETCAR FIRST HILL LINE Operations & Maintenance Plan v 03 February 2012 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................2 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE.......................................................................................................3 2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................4 3. SERVICE PLAN..................................................................................................................9 4. OPERATIONS.................................................................................................................13 5. MAINTENANCE..............................................................................................................15 6. STAFFING & BUDGET....................................................................................................23 7. SAFETY .........................................................................................................................25 8. COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING………………………………………………………………………….….26 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The First Hill Streetcar links First Hill employment centers to the regional transit system via connections on Capitol Hill and in the International District. The First Hill Streetcar also connects diverse and vibrant neighborhoods on Capitol Hill, First Hill, the Central Area, the Chinatown/International District, and Pioneer Square while serving medical
    [Show full text]
  • SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report July 2019 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................4 1.1. South Lake Union Streetcar.....................................................................4 1.2. First Hill Streetcar ...................................................................................6 1.3. Center City Connector .............................................................................6 2. OPERATIONS HIGHLIGHTS ..................................................................................7 2.1. Governance Structure and Budget Overview ..........................................7 2.2. Status of Negotiations on New Streetcar ILA..........................................8 2.3. Safety & Security Update .........................................................................9 3. FINANCIAL METRICS .........................................................................................10 3.1. South Lake Union Streetcar...................................................................10 3.2. First Hill Streetcar .................................................................................13 3.3. Investment in Streetcar Operations ......................................................15 4. PERFORMANCE METRICS ..................................................................................17 4.1. Ridership ................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation System Safety Report
    2020 RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY REPORT JULY 2021 2020 Rail Fixed Guideway Public Transportation System Safety Report WSDOT STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT PROGRAM 2020 RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY REPORT CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1 Rail fixed guideway public transportation systems in Washington .......................................................3 Sound Transit ..................................................................................................................................................3 City of Seattle .................................................................................................................................................5 2020 State Safety Oversight Program updates .........................................................................................7 Accidents, incidents, and corrective action plans ......................................................................................7 Acronyms and abbreviations .......................................................................................................................11 Websites featured ...........................................................................................................................................12 2020 RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY REPORT WSDOT’s State Safety INTRODUCTION Oversight
    [Show full text]