Comments on: Route 28 Stop Consolidation

By: Anandakos

Anandakos — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:19:10 +0000

Casey,

Well said. Probably 12 to 15 percent of the stops north of 85th are visited in a non-peak hour run. The streets are pretty minimal, and the route winds back and forth between 3rd NW and 8th NW. Of course the neighborhood is very sparse so I’m sure people accept the fairly low level of service, but not much will be saved on any given run at the risk of alienating the community.

Stops should be eliminated in the central city where people have to walk shorter distances to the surviving ones.

By: Casey

Casey — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:26:08 +0000

Yes I know what you mean about the snow route, but the reason is:
1: 3rd Ave NW is not a great street for buses in the snow.
2: You are only 3 blocks from the 5 on Greenwood. Unless you are on 8th, but when it snows, people need to except to walk farther to the bus. Running the bus north of the QFC just risks getting more buses stuck.

By: VeloBusDriver

VeloBusDriver — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:36:36 +0000

Any idea how we can best comment on stops to be removed? I’ve got a laundry list of stops that I’ve *never* seen a customer at. Better yet, I’ve got a list of pairs of stops where I *always* have to stop at two stops in a row that are within a block of each other.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:01:55 +0000

Please read the above comments by the bus driver, Casey: “Stops between downtown and 85th make sense, but north of 85th, the route really isn’t that busy. I say keep most of those stops north of 85th, because each trip won’t be stopping at every one of these stop anyway. Plus, most of the area north of 85th has no sidewalks and this is not the area that slows down the bus.”
The bus stops north of Holman Road are already 2 blocks apart, so removing every other one makes a much longer walk in an area with NO sidewalks. The bus is driving along that route anyway, so there is no harm in keeping those stops open. There is almost no savings in removing those stops, and it is a great inconvenience to the riders in that area.
As for the snow route, in February, Metro actually cut the snow route and now no longer runs north of Holman Road. This cut service to a large community.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:14:54 +0000

Yeah, for low-ridership routes it makes sense to put stops every block. It reduces their walk, and since most stops aren’t utilized it doesn’t slow down the bus that much.

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:04:45 +0000

It seems to be a change in philosophy. These routes were created decades ago, and it must have been the fashion then to put stops every block or two. Maybe it made more sense when the region’s population was half the size, multistory buildings were not as common, and ridership was less (before the commute reduction initiatives with subsidized passes).

Some stops have also been moved from “near side” (before the intersection) to far side, which seems to be another change of philosophy.

By: John

John — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:00:15 +0000

Is Metro adding tons of new stops on any of their routes? I haven’t seen new stops added on any of the routes I’ve been riding for the last 10 years – all I’ve seen are stops taken away. In other words, I don’t think a system-wide review is necessary at nearly the frequency you’re proposing.

By: John

John — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:58:46 +0000

The 3 does the loop there where it goes around to the layover on 34th, and then loops around again to start the run toward downtown. I’m not sure you’d save any significant time taking one or the other stops out though – honestly though I’m a fan of what they’re doing with the 28, it still feels like we could save even more time with low floors and single-door entry/exit!

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:50:06 +0000

I’m kind of surprised by some of these changes. As a driver I agree the 28 has too many stops.

SB Greenwood/145th is okay, because if you want to transfer to the 5 or 345 you can transfer at 143rd. But what if someone want to catch the 28 WB on 145th from a 5 or 345…..you should get rid of stops at transfer points.

Also both stops NB on Linden will be gone. What happens after 9pm when the coach layover next to Kid Valley rather than the regular terminal. Usually after 9pm the first stops would be Linden F/S of 143rd. Now the first stop will be on 145th WB F/S of Linden.

I like that they are getting rid of stops, but there might too may on this list. Stops between downtown and 85th make sense, but north of 85th, the route really isn’t that busy. I say keep most of those stops north of 85th, because each trip won’t be stopping at every one of these stop anyway. Plus, most of the area north of 85th has no sidewalks and this is not the area that slows down the bus.

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:35:36 +0000

Yes. These stop reductions are for the route 28, but routes using these stops will also be affected. Such as the 26 and 46. Although, I know the 5, 345 will continue to serve SB Greenwood and N 145th & the 304 will most likely still serve WB N 145th and Greenwood (its too close to the intersection for the 28 to serve and then merge to the middle lane)

By: Mike Orr

Mike Orr — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:12:53 +0000

Anyone notice the new bus bulbs on Pine Street? They look pretty slick, the bike racks are an amusing bicycle shape, and one of them has these cube rocks for sitting on. I can’t tell how much they’ve improved the bus speeds, but the ones in the U-district were an immense help.

By: archie

archie — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:07:15 +0000

I have to disagree with that 2-lane minimum. It’s the single lane streets where bus bulbs are most desirable and beneficial since those are oftentimes where buses have the hardest time re-entering traffic.

By: ericn

ericn — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:38:42 +0000

There was a Metro employee on the 16 today handing out surveys regarding whether or not riders were satisfied with the stop consolidation on that route last year. Hopefully the results should be out soon.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:48:42 +0000

I’ve never noticed a problem with the Wallingford bus bulbs. It seems better that car passengers wait for bus riders than vice-versa.

By: Chad N

Chad N — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:18:45 +0000

Will these stop clousures apply to the 26 in the portion of the route where 26/28 travel together?

By: skeets

skeets — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:51:17 +0000

on route 10, 15th ave e at john street the stops are about 1/2 block apart…

By: skeets

skeets — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:47:20 +0000

bus bulbs have their place as long as there are two lanes of travel. it’s a disaster in wallingford where there are single lanes of travel – buses need to be competative with ars but it should not be gained by slowing down general traffic.

By: skeets

skeets — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:43:41 +0000

it does seem odd to eliminate a zone with a shelter just to achieve 1/4 mile distance; why don’t they go for an average along the route instead?

By: Elbar

Elbar — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:07:55 +0000

I hope that the bus drivers will be notified well in advance when bus stops are eliminated. A number of stops on the 66/67 route in the Roosevelt district were eliminated as of the last shakeup, but the drivers told me they had not been informed of this. Although notices were posted a long time in advance for passengers using these bus stops, such notices could not be seen by the drivers.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:30:20 +0000

A three-block walk is about three minutes…would a four-minute overall savings make it worthwhile? That’s probably closer to reality than 10 minutes. I say “yes”! considering all those who would not have any added walk time.