Photo by Zargoman
Routes 3 and 4 are the latest to get stop consolidation from Metro:
Currently, the corridor has 116 stops north of Denny Way and east of Fifth Avenue, with an average stop spacing of about 700 feet. Metro will be removing 27 of these stops, increasing the average spacing between stops to about 950 feet.
As a result of this change, approximately eight percent of riders will have to catch their bus at a different stop. When the project is completed, all riders should have a faster, more reliable trip.
You can submit a comment online by June 11th. The change is scheduled for June 26th. Metro doesn’t waste time executing these.
Wow, that’s an old photo of the 4100. That’s even before it got its new amber sign!
Is the 36 scheduled for stop consolidation? Sure would help.
It’s amazing what a little pressure from above, plus financial distress will do to motivate facilities planners into making tough choices.
I sat down with planners 10 years ago, urging them to consolidate stops to speed up transit and save costs, but got nothing but a cold shoulder.
They had the map on the screen that showed all the stops, all the ons/offs for each, the zoning, and GIS data, but preferred the “Old School” method of plodding along doing ‘one corridor at a time’ after much public process. Back then, Metro didn’t want to make anyone mad.
Oh what a decade will do for attitudes.
PS. Removing the stop at Harborview would really ‘speed thing up’. :)
Ain’t THAT the truth!
Not likely :) But the two stops that are only a block away in either direction could go
Is there any way of using this consolidation process to remove the strange couplets through residential neighborhoods? On Route 3, could they pull the wire from 21st Ave and keep Route 3 moving in both directions on Jefferson/23rd/Cherry? On Route 4, could they remove the 24th/26th Ave couplet in favor of a more direct routing?
Quick anecdote: I just moved from Vancouver BC into Madrona last week (what a lovely neighborhood!), and Route 3 makes its terminal turnaround on my tiny street. On my second day here I got a 7am knock on my door from an exasperated Metro driver unable to get his trolley through the narrow street due to a small truck parked too far from the curb. He was going door to door pleading with us to find the owner of the truck in question. (About 30 minutes later the bus made it through.) It sure made me glimpse both how helpful off-wire capabilities would be and also how Metro could benefit from an “arterials-only” policy. We sure have an abundance of routings through single-family neighborhoods; go ride Route 107 sometime and you’ll be asking yourself, “Who in the world designed this route?”
Those couplets provide a useful service. They allow the trolleys to reverse direction, by going around the block, instead of to the end of the line – very useful operationally if an accident or fire is blocking the street, and you want to shorten the route, or if a bus gets hopelessly behind schedule, and control wants to get them back in sync.
There has been some talk of re-routing the 3 and 4 down 9th to Yesler instead of James. This avoids the massive congestion between 3rd and 9th on James along with the contention with the traffic entering and leaving I-5.
Unfortunately it requires stringing new wires which costs money. At least until Metro gets ETBs with off-wire capability. Though with how steep the hill is you probably want the coaches on wire.
Possible project if Streets for All succeeds in getting $ out of Council.
Mike,
I bet you’re dealing with at least one of the same route planners who is refusing to listen to neighborhood suggestions for getting access to light rail while reducing bus service hours.
I know you can’t name names, but I can. Jack Latteman? He’s been there forever.
For awhile, I thought I was the only one noticing that getting Metro to do service improvements that saved money was like pulling teeth.
Metro is a huge agency. Service Dev. (Jack, one of the best in the business!) takes the lead on routes and frequency, and facilites takes the lead on bus shelters, stops, consolidation, etc. Of course they all work together as one big happy family, but stepping on other dept. toes is sort of frowned upon, and sometimes it takes a significant push from the top to get things done. I suspect that’s why all the stop consolidation these days, but have no way of knowing for sure.
I don’t mind stop consolidation, but I wish they would pay more attention to making the decreased stops nicer. As someone who spent a lot of time waiting for the bus in the driving November rains at 4:45am, I would have walked a few extra blocks if it meant a shelter.
And I know there’s a lot of squeamishness about advertising in the stops, but a stop lighted by a Gap ad is still a lighted stop. Makes it easier to read or find your pass in your bag if it’s dark.
I can’t believe Metro doesn’t have sponsored bus shelters. It’s mind blowing.
I really don’t know that they should get any more funding until they solve problems like this.
Speaking of advertising on bus shelters or at bus stops, can someone please give me some background on this? When and why did they decide not to allow it here? Our area seems to be the only city that doesn’t allow it, as far as I know.
I actually like going to San Francisco and seeing all the advertising on the shelters. I also understand that a few of the BRT shelters in LA were paid for by advertising. When is Metro going to realize that this is a revenue generater and not a blight?
It’s city zoning, not Metro policy, that prohibits advertising in the shelters. Most every city in King County bans it. So, if you want it to change, you need to start with your city council.
Quite true, the reason the SLU line gets away with advertising on the sponsored stops is as a City project the City granted the SLU line a waiver.
Please contact Tom Rasmussen — (206) 684-8808 and tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov — about this. He’s Chair of Seattle City Council’s Transportation Committee, and some folks have been trying to get the Council to look into crafting a transit agency exception to the city’s sign code.
Those bus shelters may be more expensive than you might expect. South Park is getting a new one, and my recollection is that it costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Shelter placement tends to follow high usage, so you might have to put up with standing in the rain until there are enough of you standing in the rain at the same place.
Maybe Metro could buy a bunch of patio umbrellas from IKEA, for cheap, and stick ‘em down the bus sign poles. Maybe paint them to look like palm trees, or something.
Maybe umbrella manufacturers could sponsor the bus poles, as in, “If you had a Bella, you wouldn’t be getting soaked right now.” They could design the stickers to turn colors, making the taunt invisible, when the sticker is dry.
make a request on the metro website, i did when i was a student at bellevue high, the bellevue bound bus stop at the bottom of the BHS hill did not have a shelter but after the request one was put it, not sure if it was the result of my request but it doesnt hurt
Ben–as others have said this is totally Seattle’s call. The council has been afraid to allow shelter advertising because they are afraid the billboard companies will use it as a wedge to reopen the city’s weak sign code. Metro would love the revenue and the city could use it to pay for extra bus service. Seattle needs to make this happen, ads can be tasteful and help pay for service and amenities.
Do any other transit systems in this area have sponsored bus shelters?
The SLUT has each stop sponsored by a nearby business.
Its southernmost station is even named “Pacific Place Station.”
Even though it is nowhere near the Pacific Plaza Hotel:
http://www.seattle-downtown.com/hotels/pacificplaza-hotel.html
It’s across the street from the Pacific Place Mall.
It’s 1 1/2 blocks from Pacific Place. It’s closer to Westlake Mall and should have been called “Westlake Station” to show it’s the intermodal transfer point to other Westlake Station services.
Then maybe Westlake Mall should have paid for the sponsorship. :)
Unfortunately there are 3 other stations that don’t have sponsors, including the one between Amazon buildings. Maybe Barnes & Noble could sponsor that one with a big Nook ad.
I thought that most of bus shelters in the CD were sponsored by Sparks Malt Liquor. I see their advertisements laying all over the place when I drive by.
Hopefully we will make good use of the shelters left behind at stops closed on the route 8 – they are the nice ones with solar lighting.
I’m all for this, but I realize this also means my stop is now gone. I’ll just cry myself to sleep tonight.
If even one citizen says no to removing a stop, it has a good chance of staying. That’s how risk-averse Metro is. Remember that simple straightening of the 22 that didn’t happen because 2 citizens complained about having to walk farther?
Only the elected officials can change that culture. Mr. Executive, please direct Metro to be bold, not conservative. Conservatism is costing Metro (and taxpayers) too much money.
Thanks Brent for the reminder. We elect these folks to lead and decide, not to quiver in fear of one negative letter or comment at a public meeting.
By no means am I complaining that my stop is gone, though in the NB direction, it’s going to do little to keep buses on schedule. The main problem here from downtown is the 5th ave corridor when it needs to pass through Seattle Center. Until that traffic mess gets fixed (and people learn how to not block the box, not make rights on red when they clearly don’t have the ROW, etc), stop consolidation in QA will do little to improve service.
Regardless, if people can’t walk an extra block to their bus stop, then I have no faith in humanity. (exempt: those disabled)
Props once again to metro for doing this. Let’s keeps seeing more of these.
I wish they would remove some of the stops on the 74 route. It’s supposed to be an Express! 45 minutes to downtown from Sand Point is just silly. If I lived in Issaquah, I could get to work quicker.
Lou123,
When North Link opens, would you rather have the 74 go to Husky Stadium Station or Brooklyn Station?
The “express” part is just between the U-District and downtown, though the 30/74 could use some stop consolidation along 55th especially. Rerouting the 74 to Husky Stadium would be interesting, but it provides the only service along 20th Ave NE as well so Brooklyn Station would be the logical destination eventually.
It would probably make more sense to route the 75 to Husky Stadium.
I hope as part of the planning for North Link there is a complete re-think and redesign of the bus network North of the Ship Canal and East of 99.
Furthermore with Capitol Hill Station, UW Station, Central Link, and the First Hill Streetcar service on Capitol Hill, First Hill, and in the CD should be looked at.
Noticed the “Rider Alert” signs on the way home today. Very interesting. I wonder how much time this will save…
My stops are safe, amazingly (I rarely see anyone else at them).
Some people might have a long walk up the hill on Taylor/5th North though, since Metro is cutting some of the busiest stops in that corridor and keeping some of the least used. Galer has that huge apartment complex to the east, but the stop there is a goner.
Nice to see the Westbound stop before the stop at Boston going away. No more “oops, I pulled the cord too early” people.