This is part 1 of a two-part series on the Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit project, which I view as a crucial part in Seattle's ever-growing transit jigsaw. This is a broad, general overview of the project. Part two will point out specific concerns with the route alignment and potential improvements.
In 2015, Seattle voters ratified the $938 million Move Seattle levy, funding new transportation improvements, neighborhood greenways, and bike lanes, among other projects. Included in Move Seattle is the plan for a Madison Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route, starting at First Avenue and Spring Street and ending at Madison Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. The plan is also getting funding help from the newly-ratified ST3 package.
This is a modification and truncation of older plans outlined in previous transportation packages, notably the 2012 Transit Master Plan. Given the crowding at almost all times of day on routes 10, 11, and 12, it’s a sensible upgrade to a rapidly growing section of Seattle which currently copes with slow and inefficient transit infrastructure. It is planned for completion by the end of 2019.
Much of the preliminary plan looks promising. After uncertainty in the early stages of the project, the latest open-house materials suggest that the rolling stock planned for the route is articulated trolleybuses, which are the perfect vehicle for this route, should streets be reconfigured appropriately for their size and lack of maneuverability.
Trolleybuses have a history of success in Seattle. Although they cost more, they last longer than their diesel or diesel-hybrid counterparts, emit zero greenhouse gases into an already traffic-suffocated city center, and most importantly, are best adapted to the steep hills and grades typical of the Madison Street corridor.
Streetcars are too heavy and simply won’t handle the grades of the corridor, and that’s ignoring their frightful lack of success in other parts of the city. Route 8’s diesels and diesel-hybrids already struggle enough on the one Madison Street hill they serve, and that’s ignoring their pathetic fuel efficiency. If Metro continues on its current trend, the trolleybuses will have independent electric engines, should the catenary fail or disconnect temporarily.
Perhaps the most promising aspect of current plans is the sheer number of dedicated bus lanes. This is crucial, because these lanes should improve reliability, reduce travel times, and minimize variability in service. All-door boarding is a small but important feature of the plans as well; while studies don't suggest a decrease in travel times as massive as some other small design elements, such as far-side bus stops, it's crucial to efficiency in the boarding and alighting process.
As with everything, the plan does not come without its flaws. In order to make this service effective, massive street redesign will be needed. Most noticeably, placing a terminus at Madison Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way is a questionable decision, given the angle and narrowness of the turn, as well as the size of nearby streets planned for use as layover zones.
Other issues of road size and turn radius also come into play in other sections of the route. An important step in ensuring that buses have enough space to comfortably make these turns is shortening the general-purpose lanes at intersections to ensure the buses have enough space to turn. Current plans do the opposite, making buses stop further from the crosswalk at intersections, decreasing the space they have to move from the leftmost to the rightmost lane.
Additionally, stretches without dedicated lanes in the current plans raise red flags as well. This is especially true of the northeast-bound section on Spring Street, where three consecutive blocks pass by without bus priority. At rush hour, this has the potential to become a major choke point. Areas like these mirror Route 8's struggles in escaping the throes of Denny Way at rush hour.
Many currently planned stop locations raise other concerns. In general, there are two errors that occur. One is a sheer lack of connectivity with important, existing routes, and the other is the placement of stops right before intersections. Both of these will harm customer experience by slowing down both service and connection times.
One of the biggest failures of the current plan is the lack of a connection to Colman Dock. Given the upcoming demolishing of the viaduct and the reconstruction of the surface road, this is understandable, but it's a massive missed opportunity for a crucial connection. The original 2012 Transit Master Plan outlined the Madison BRT project's southwestern terminus as being the Colman Dock, suggesting that at some point, there was a reversal in the plans. Whatever the case, this connection should not be ignored.
The project is still riddled with unknowns, as well. An important one is how routes 11 and 12 will adapt. Both mostly mirror the proposed route; however, they also have unique sections which currently see fifteen-minute frequencies throughout weekdays. There will be an outcry from affected communities should these sections' service be reduced.
Another important consideration concerns routes that share the road on Madison or Spring Street. For example, Route 60 follows the BRT section on Madison from 9th Avenue to Broadway, where two bus stops are planned for the median of the road. Will it be rerouted, will it get left-sided doors, or will it have redundant bus stops on Madison?
Seattle needs to get this route right. It is the biggest hope for a corridor that is currently underserved, fragmented and traffic-suffocated. It needs to show its car-dependent Capitol Hill residents that there finally is a better way.