The near final draft of the Seattle Transit Map featuring U Link and Metro’s new bus service taking effect on March 26 is ready for your review. Thank you to everyone who gave their feedback on the first set of drafts. Comments on this map are due March 6. The priority is to finish the map for print.
Download PDF (1.7 MB)
We are aiming to have printed copies of the map available for free beginning on U Link opening day (March 19). Details on where to get a map will be confirmed as we get close to the big day but I will have maps with me at the meet up. If you’re on Twitter, follow @SeaTransitMap for updates and peeks into the making of the map.
I see that one of my suggestions was accepted. Yay! I’m glad I took the time to write. Oran, you are more receptive to feedback and suggestions than most corporations or any government agency.
Kudos to you! Map looks great, by the way!
Why doesn’t Metro hire you to do their maps? Crazy how one person can do a better job than Metro’s entire team (if they even have one).
Great map!
One minor suggestion? Looking at the map, for someone unfamiliar with the street grid, it is not clear whether the night/weekend route of the 62 connects with the 75 or stops at a dead end just shy of it. Simply extending the green line of the 62 slightly to connect with the other green line of the 75 should clarify this point.
I discovered through OBA that the night/weekend route of the 62 is actually a loop.
Does anyone know if a bus ever ran on NW and N 65th st from Ballard to Greenlake? This corridor seems like it could use some service – perhaps extend the 62 to Northgate and allow this new 65th route be a full cross-town.
It would then seem like you could make the 45 more of a direct crosstown bus through NE Seattle and start to get an actual grid going.
It is kind of a glaring hole (one which would make my trips between SE green lake and nw 65th WAY more time-competitive with driving) but it might be a stretch given that 65th is both very narrow and very steep going up Phinney Ridge.
Yeah, I think it would be tricky for a bus to travel along there (it even has a weird little dog-leg at the top of the hill). I would hope it could be done with a forty footer, but it would result in a lot of tree trimming by bus as soon as they added that route. But if it could be pulled off, it would be great. Not only for the area west of Phinney Ridge (where the biggest hole is) but closer to Greenlake as well. It would hook up with the E-Line for a second, then continue on around, and add service to the 48. This would become increasingly popular once Link gets to Roosevelt. I would imagine that is the time they would consider it, even though it would be useful right now.
David Lawson’s expanded frequent network plan included a new route there, with some notes on the street:
Besides the street issue, I can understand why the 62 does what it does – Fremont is a big destination, and a significant majority of the 62’s ridership will probably be people simply traveling along the segment between Fremont and downtown.
That said, Green Lake to Ballard really is a big hole. Riding a bus between the two areas (actually two buses) is no faster than walking. The only car-free option that connects the two areas at a speed > 5 mph is a bicycle, and even that, only in the downhill direction.
Yes Ross, that’s my vision for its routing too. Perhaps a 40′ trolley would work best on the hill – or a Proterra, if that experiment sticks.
Thanks William for the link to David’s article.
Does Proterra make a 30 footer? It seems like that would be ideal. There can’t be that many people who would want to make the journey at any one time and it would be short enough that standing wouldn’t be terrible.
A 30 footer could handle the abrupt changes in angle at the cross streets better than a 40.
I think there was a route, part of a northwest Seattle circulator loop, but it was deleted for extremely low ridership. There have been unofficial suggestions for a NW 65th/NE 65th route route, but Metro’s current restructure went with the 45 and 62 instead. It will doubtless try to grow these routes over the next few years like it did with the 31/32, so they won’t be available to attach to NW 65th. I think Metro may have some sympathy for a route on NW 65th, but it’s not a priority given bigger needs.
Perhaps the 62 will be so successful along NE 65th that folks will start bugging them about a straight(ish) line to northern Ballard.
Yes, at one point they tested a route on 65th St. Route 86 ran for one year (Feb 1999 to Feb 2000) before they canceled it due to low ridership. It ran every 35 minutes on weekends only from 10 am to 6 pm, and it only between 27th Ave NW and Phinney Ave. So it’s no surprise that it had very low ridership; it didn’t go anywhere significant and didn’t run during rush hour.
I grew up on Sunset Hill just north of 65th and west of 32nd. The lack of East/West bus service in that area has frustrated me for my entire life. It seems like there are so many destinations along this corridor that could use the service: Golden Gardens, Shilshole Marina, Sunset Hill, Ballard High School, Phinney Ridge, Green Lake, Roosevelt, Ravenna Park etc. all the way to Magnuson Park.
Back when the Seattle PI had a column called “Getting There” about local transportation issues, I wrote them airing my frustrations about it and was featured in their June 16, 2008 issue. They responded saying that the road is too narrow and steep, especially east of 8th Ave NW. I wrote them back saying they didn’t consider all of the benefits, and Liz Gotterer, transit planner II (liz.gotterer@kingcounty.gov) wrote back with the following email:
“I am a service planner for North Seattle. I appreciate your persistence on this question of cross-town service using the 65th St. corridor. There is some value in some of your service ideas. However, I would like to clarify a couple of points, both regarding the design of transit service, the cost of operating service and the other constraints we address when attempting to implement new service.
“1. There are many factors that must be considered in transit service design. Determining on what streets routes should/could operate is just one of many that need to be taken. So, while it may seem simple to look at a map and draw a desire line on it, there many issues which would need to be addressed before determining if the line or lines you have drawn would be workable. For example, Metro is required to get permission from the City of Seattle (or other cities where we provide service) to operate on particular city streets. Certain streets are “transit-classified”, and others are not. Of those which are classified, some are classified for more daily trips than others. The City must make a determination regarding whether the pavement is structurally able to withstand the weight and regular wear that transit vehicles bring to them. They also take into account the neighborhood in question and whether they are open to having transit service operating on their street(s).
“2. Operating transit service is not cheap. It is cheaper than building streetcars, for sure. King County Metro Transit is not pursuing streetcars. If you’d like to discuss RapidRide, I can put you in touch with some of my co-workers who are assigned to RapidRide projects. I think RapidRide is actually probably a nice balance between service investment and capital investment in heavy-ridership corridors.
“For the sake of this discussion only, let’s say that a route that runs the length of 65th St. from 32nd N.W. to Sand Point Way(~7) miles takes 40 minutes to operate as a bus route in each direction. I would have to drive the route to confirm that, and I suspect that it would, in fact take 5-15 minutes longer than that because of passenger stops and because of the irregular topography of the route. If a route which takes 40 minutes operates every thirty minutes on weekdays only in both directions, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., it would take 4 vehicles to operate it. Four vehicles operating 16 hours a day for one year on weekdays only is 4064 service hours. Using a planning-level 2008 hourly marginal cost for bus operation of $85/hour, this service would cost ~$1,400,000/year. This cost is just a back-of-the envelope estimate for 30-minute frequency, for weekdays only, ASSUMING this route would take only 40 minutes in each direction to operate. Were this service to operate seven days a week, the service would cost close to $2 million/year. This is a very very rough estimate, and not a conservative one, as recent increases of fuel costs are not factored into the 2008 planning-level figure. These estimates are ONLY for the operating cost, and as I said above. does not factor in increased fuel costs. They does not include the capital cost of purchasing vehicles, of locating bus stops and shelters or any other facilities. Fares cover less than 25% of the cost of providing service.
“3. We have cross-town (east-west) service on N.W. Market./N 46th/N. 45th St. We also have cross-town service on N.W 85th/N. 85th/Greenlake Way/Ravenna Blvd./NE 65th St./15th Ave. N.E., etc. Both the Route 44 on the first corridor and the Route 48, on the second corridor are very frequent very high ridership routes. Many riders use them on their own. Others transfer to and from other north-south routes that intersect with them. The fact of not having a N.W. 65th/ N 65th St route does not impede the ability of riders who wish to travel east-west in North Seattle. Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide a direct trip from every origin in Seattle to every destination. Many riders know how to time their trips so as to make quick connections between routes and are not impeded in their travel plans by the prospect of a transfer.
“4. All new funding available for new transit service in North Seattle is already earmarked for specific route or corridor improvements. There is no new funding available for a brand-new route on a brand-new corridor such as the one you suggest. Metro planning staff have long wish lists of desired improvements for the system. Most are frequency and/or span improvements to existing routes, though a handful of others may be brand-new routes. We do not expect to see those improvements made any time soon. If given the opportunity to implement a brand-new route, I suspect I would not pursue one along the 65th St. corridor. There are too many physical barriers to successful operation, and there are too many other competing needs.
“I am sure that you have other thoughts about transit service. Let me know if I can help you in understanding other issues regarding how and why certain transit service is implemented and other service is not.”
Sorry, just noticed a couple typos in my comment (I wish I could edit it!). Route 86 ran to 24th Ave NW, not 27th. Also, Liz Gotterer was a transit planner III when she wrote me in 2008.
Thanks Dave, good insight.
Yes, I lived on 65th & 15th NW and we sometimes drove to it from Aurora. 65th jogs at Phinney and becomes very narrow and steep, and then it runs right into the Aurora highway southbound so we must have turned off at 63rd going northbound. So a bus would really have to turn at Phinney. But since it can’t go through the lake anyway, it would have to get down to 50th or up to north Greenlake anyway, so it doesn’t matter if it turns on this street or that street to get there.
The 62 is going to be popular from NE 65th and Sand Point to at least Greenlake, and I know a few people who plan to take it from Fremont to Sand Point. So it’s unlikely it would get rerouted to NW 65th. Only if it’s detached from the Fremont-downtown trunk, but then what would the latter attach to?
Like everything else… Northgate?
I lived in Fremont at that time and remember well this route from Fremont to Ballard. It was actually two routes, clockwise and counter-clockwise, Fremont to Ballard via 65th and Fremont to Ballard via Leary Way. I used the latter a lot since it was a great shortcut to get to Ballard instead og having to take the 5 up the hill and transfer to the 44. The 40 takes care of this now.
@SeaStrap It’d be cool to have a more frequent route from Northgate to Green Lake, but I think that time has pretty much passed. We’ve dropped to 30 minute service from the transit center by switching the 16 for the 26x. The service we’ve lost with the 16 will largely be replaced by a bus transfer from Roosevelt station when Northgate Link opens in 2021. Its not ideal for now, but it makes sense.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Ballard until recently and 65th might be useful as far as 8th, but past there it makes no sense to:
1) Climb to Phinney on that super narrow, steep road to the top of the ridge
2) Waste time and gas going around the south of the Lake
As others have noted, the 45 and 44 are excellent alternate routes for getting around the lake and there’s no reason to duplicate this service just for destinations along 65th. Green Lake is the kind of natural barrier that bus transfers are necessary to get around.
You’d be better off coming up with some express route that runs across 65th as far as 8th and then runs to either downtown or the nearest train station. I could see a route like that making sense after Ballard gets a train station…
It doesn’t have to go any further south than 57th. By saying this I’m not advocating for the route. It was tried once a flopped miserably.
I recall KCMetro using a largish van (perhaps 14 or so passengers) one summer at least 20 years ago to connect Green Lake and Golden Gardens via 65th, a “Parks Special” or some such for the summer only.
I think these days we’d rather encourage folks to do that by bicycle if we can. A small van might make more sense than a whole bus route though.
…or maybe even a taxi or a car share vehicle…
I really like the map as well. Great job! For one thing, it really highlights the lack of east-west connections in the north.
As a side note, did I miss the memo on the 16 being cancelled in the restructure?
The 16 and 26 have been reworked into the 62 and the newly-expanded 26X.
The hole would astound even Henry the Navigator on early 14th century maps. I don’t see a single route crossing E-W from one side to the other along I-5, north of Northgate.
Are visas required by SDOT or Metro to make that tortuous trip, which is why none exist? Maybe it’s time for Columbus or Lewis and Clark to set out on expeditions to report back on this apparent wasteland of inactivity.
330, 347. They cross beyond the city limits. The 330 runs daytime from Lake City to Shoreline CC crossing at 155th. The 347 runs every 30-60 minutes from Shoreline to Richmond Beach crossing at 175th/185th. Alas, 125th/130th and 145th are still transit holes. Which means that Aurora is cut off from the 512, and Northgate has a long slow ride to it.
348. I always get the 347 and 348 confused.
it really highlights the lack of east-west connections in the north.
This is a curious comment to me. First of all, the North end of the map is stretched out due to the extreme density of routes. Furthermore, between the 40/75, 62, 44, and 45, there are four frequent largely east-west corridors, in addition to the less frequent 31/32.
Meanwhile in South Seattle there is exactly one east/west route, the infrequent 50. You would have to be very charitable to describe the 60 as East/West, and the Link/21 transfer isn’t atrocious.
Looking at the map, there isn’t one through route north of 92nd to at least Shoreline at 205th. That’s a stretch of 116 blocks (7 miles), so I think Steve’s statement pretty well speaks for itself (” it really highlights the lack of east-west connections in the north.)
Even the Mason-Dixon line was more porous than that.
Rumor has it there are even distinct dialects on either side of I-5.
Good point. There are more east-west runs in the north end then there are in the south end. But then there are more people and attractions (specifically the UW) in the north end. I would say that much of the city needs more of a grid — more east-west routes. Here is my assessment of the corridors (from north to south):
145th — Tough to justify right now. They would be money losers. The main value would be as connector routes, which means you want to run them frequently. But ridership still wouldn’t be huge, which means it would be a very inefficient. This would all change once Link is added (as mentioned in the other comment).
130th/125th — See 145th.
Northgate Way. We already have this, but it makes the Northgate TC detour. As mentioned in the other comment, I think this is unavoidable in the future. But the 40 could loop around (like the 16 does now) and provide a much faster east-west connection, even if it requires an extra transfer.
85th/80th. As with Northgate, the buses get sucked towards the Green Lake Park and Ride, and then onto NE 65th. But this is really not a detour, just a dogleg. You have to dogleg a bit anyway, since neither NE 80th or NE 85th go through. Since there is only one station in the area, the dogleg to NE 65th (which the 48 does) makes a lot of sense. So I could either see that just continuing on NE 65th all the way, or maybe even having a split (like the 345/346). West of the freeway, it looks just like the 48. But at the Roosevelt Station, it splits, with one bus headed out NE 65th, and another bus going up to NE 75th and out that way.
NW 65th — Challenging because of the hill and narrow street (as mentioned) but otherwise worthy even today (there are a bunch of fast connections at the Green Lake Park and Ride).
Everything between there and I-90 is covered about as well as you can cover it (unless you start digging holes). South of I-90 you start running into a lot of obstacles and industrial land. It really isn’t until you get a bit farther south that you have opportunities like …
Colombian Way — Covered by the 50
Orcas/Graham — This will make a lot of sense once the Graham Street station is added. Thinking about this from right to left, I could easily see a bus connecting Graham with Georgetown, then over the 1st Avenue South Bridge. This could connect up with the 128 (the 128 wouldn’t go south of there as it does now). I would keep the South Seattle College detour (when school is in session). This would provide a one seat ride for South Seattle College students as well as a good way to get to the south end of West Seattle from Rainier Valley.
Othello to Fauntleroy — Again, from east to west, this would start at Rainier and Othello (or even Seward Park) and then go to Georgetown, over the South Park bridge, like the 60. From there is would keep going to 35th, if not Fauntleroy.
Anyway, interesting to think about. The map Oran has made makes all of this a lot easier and lot more fun to contemplate.
Meanwhile in South Seattle there is exactly one east/west route, the infrequent 50.
Well in South Seattle there are a lot of topography issues causing there to be a lack of east-west roads in general. Between the Duwamish Waterway and the steep slopes of Delridge and Beacon Hill, route 50 is about the only possible east-west route.
In North Seattle, that is much less of a problem and there is a very interconnected grid of streets. An east/west route along 65th and 130th is more a matter of funding than topography.
Metro once proposed a Georgetown-West Seattle (no Rainier Valley) crosstown line [map, details] for the RapidRide C/D restructure but it never made it to the final plan.
Absolutely, there are only 3 ways out of RV and only 3 ways out of West Seattle. But only 4 of those 6 are actually used, and both the 50 and 60 do things that make it clear that the emphasis is not getting people between these two areas. They are also much less frequent.
On top of that, East/West movement within Rainier Valley and West Seattle is also atrocious. Oran’s map shows very thick N/S lines while North Seattle is a true frequent grid.
….so long as you aren’t too far north. After that you wind up on some pretty infrequent east-west routes.
both the 50 and 60 do things that make it clear that the emphasis is not getting people between these two areas.
I disagree. The 50 clearly looks like an east-west route meant to connect those two areas. It deviates from a straight shot between Columbia City and West Seattle by making a detour to the SoDo station (instead of using the Spokane Street Viaduct). That is a time consuming detour, but not as bad as going all the way from Northgate Way to 92nd. It pails in comparison to going from 130th to 92nd.
On top of that, East/West movement within Rainier Valley and West Seattle is also atrocious.
Agreed. When I was writing about the lack of east-west connections I almost broke into two sections. Partly because of the big gap between the two areas, but also because both areas need more east-west coverage. For West Seattle you have the 50 and 60 (which are decent) as well as the 128 and 22 (neither of which go far enough east-west). Some of that, again, is the limitation of geography. Getting from South Seattle College, for example, you can’t go west. You have to go up north to Genesee or south to Orchid (which is what the 128 does). But I would add one more line across Holden if possible. For Rainier Valley, it seems like it is even more deprived, given the relative density and demand. This is where the Graham Street station could really be helpful, in adding more east-west coverage to an area where it would likely be very successful.
Oran’s map shows very thick N/S lines while North Seattle is a true frequent grid.
No, it isn’t a grid. Again, how do you get from Bitter Lake to Lake City? You go down to 92nd. Sorry, that is ridiculous. These aren’t obscure locations, or routes with empty corn fields along the way. Lake City has higher population density than any place in West Seattle or Rainier Valley. Bitter Lake is comparable with the high density areas of both of the other areas. Along the way you travel though a similar area (Pinehurst). In other words, the ridership per mile, or per minute, is much higher. Meanwhile, it connects to several major, frequent haulers, like the 5 and E. It makes perfect sense as a way to get from Lake City to a lot of destination in northwest Seattle, shaving a huge amount of time versus going via 92nd, even when a transfer is part of the deal. Even if you started at Bitter Lake and wanted to go to the Northgate TC, you would probably be better off taking a bus like this. You would just transfer in Pinehurst and take the 41 (which would involve less back tracking).
I would say that the entire region lacks a functioning grid, outside the old city limits. West Seattle itself is bad, but West Seattle to Rainier Valley is worse than that. Rainier Valley itself is really lacking, given the potential, but the north end is where a successful grid is being short changed the most. it would be pretty simple and easy up there (fewer geographic challenges) but it just isn’t a priority. This should change when Link adds stations at 130 and 145th.
There’s a frequent grid from the Ship Canal to Northgate Way and west of 15th Ave NE. That’s not all of north Seattle but it’s the most populous part, and it’s significantly benefitial to residents even if it’s not as comprehensive as a Chicago/San Francisco/Vancouver grid. Northeast Seattle has a less complete grid up to 125th. North of there is no east-west service except short segments, so no grid. A grid starts to return in Shoreline at 155th and 185th/175th, but the routes are infrequent/daytime only and the 348 is not usually ridden that way (but instead just north or north-and-west).
It’s worth looking at the nature of the grid after the restructure, based on the ideal of a route every 10 blocks. South of the Northgate/125th boundary, the north-south network is complete: 24th NW, 15th, 8th (representing 5th), Phinney (representing the 18-block gap), Aurora (aka 10th N), Meridian/Latona (23-block gap split between the 62, 45, and 26), Roosevelt, 15th NE, 25th, 35th, Sand Point Way. SPW angles wide but that area is so low density the discrepency can be ignored.
The east-west network west of 15th NE: 35th/40th, 45th, (not 65th), 85th, (not 95th), 105th. East of 15th has 45th, (not 55th), 65th, (not 85th), (not 95th), (not 105th), (not 115th), 125th. 55th is a hole but has always been low ridership. 75th is another hole that has never had bus service AFAIK. 95th and 105th are too low-density and are blocked at Lake City Way.
All east-west travel gets sucked into the gravitational pull of the Northgate Transit Center (the old 16 orbited around it before spiraling into it). That really is a problem. It wouldn’t be that big of a deal if Northgate was a major destination (like the UW) but it isn’t. To make matters worse, the Northgate Transit Center is really in an inconvenient location. It would be one thing if all the buses went along Northgate Way, but to zig-zag south of there and then back north is really crazy. From Lake City to Bitter Lake requires going all the way down to 92nd, more than doubling the distance (and likely tripling the time, not counting the transfer). Connections to anywhere on Aurora or Greenwood aren’t much better. The 40 will get you there, but it too takes a while, as it goes down and and around (via 92nd).
The situation isn’t likely to get better for a while. In five years, Link will end at the Northgate TC. Then it will be another couple years (at best) before the station is added at NE 130th. So folks at Lake City will have to take the extremely time consuming detour if they are headed anywhere in the northwest part of the city. My guess is folks on Northgate Way (e. g. Northgate Way and Roosevelt) will have to put up with the detour for a very long time. Unless, of course, the 40 gets shifted over to use 5th. That would then require a transfer, but a fairly easy one (while providing more service along 5th).
Anyway, for those to the north a bit (Lake City and Bitter Lake) it is one of the many reasons why adding the station at NE 130th makes sense. It isn’t just a matter of shaving off 5 to 10 minutes for a trip to UW, Capitol Hill or downtown, it is to enable a transit network that will save 15 to 20 minutes on a trip from northeast Seattle to northwest Seattle.
Probably for good reason, as how many people from NE Seattle can speak NW Seattle :)
I think 130th/125th could be implemented now. I’ve been on some really full 345 minibuses lately in North Seattle, and that is a really terrible excuse for an urban route.
But you’re right about the problematic location and magnetism of NTC. At least we could get some bus lanes considering everything has to go there.
I still have my NW Seattle passport and I use it many weekends coming from NE Seattle. :)
The 130th/125th east west route is a classic chicken and egg problem. Metro doesn’t think the rideship is there unless there’s Link, and ST is foot dragging on Link because, in a nutshell, there is no Metro route to demonstrate any ridership.
But eventually we do get chickens and eggs so somebody has to make the first move and evolve. Why not demo it? There’s no brutal hill and dive like on Phinney/65th. Its a straight shot that links to other straight shots like the 5, E, 522
The Northgate Transit Centre is in an awful location. It should have been built north of the mall where the Target and Best Buy stores are. As it is, every route that serves it has to deviate to get there.
Wow, this really drives home the staggering amount of service circulating between U District and UW Station now after the restructure. Great work mapping it.
It’ll be interesting to see how things get restructured again once U District station opens, such that Link itself will cover that span.
Metro explicitly saturated the gap with buses to minimize the inconvenience, and said there will be a bus up to every three minutes peak, and something like 5-10 minutes off-hours. That was doubtless to make deleting the 71/72/73X more politically acceptable.
What an awesome map! So much information.
I wish the U District inset could be a bit bigger.
Great work!
Definitely bigger U-District inset. You could even make it the cover art!
I just want to say how much I like your map. I kept looking and looking at the previous version to see if I could find anything I would change, and couldn’t. Kudos to those who came up with improvements, but either way it really is a fantastic map. It is very easy to read, while being just true enough to scale (and proportion) to make sense. I really like reading the app version on a PC. I much prefer the scroll/zoom options on the app versus those on the online PDF (although obviously i would want to print from the PDF). I now use the app version to look at all things transit (for Seattle). It has replaced Google Maps (with the transit layer), which is really saying something. Even though Google Maps has more detail, I find that you added enough features and attractions to your background map to make that level of detail unnecessary. All the high schools, all the libraries, all the major parks (and some of the minor ones) — it really is a great stand alone map — that plus easy to read transit lines make this really something special. Well done.
+1000000
I really enjoy Oran’s work and this map is on the whole as legible and easy to read as a project of this complexity can be. (My only quibble, and it’s minor, is that the RapidRide routes really jump out, at least as much as the Link line. Since the Link line will be by far the highest ridership “route,” and one where people might be expected to look for where it is and how to transfer to it, I think it should really “pop.” Also, the Convention Place station dilemma is a little confusing at first glance, as if you don’t know better you might think the train stops there. It’s actually a bit clearer on the city-scale map; on the downtown map it’s hard to tell (imagine you have no clue, then look at it).
These are minor, minor things and I really think that for the huge amount of work put in this is a wonderful resource. I found myself picking random locations and trying to see how I might choose to travel between them. Well done!
The RapidRide standout may be to make the map adoptable by Metro, because the grants underlying RapidRide A-E require a prominent distinction for them.
That would be nice to know if so; I would assume the distinction is over other bus service and not high-capacity rail. If it is uber alles, so be it; it seems a little counter-intuitive if so but it wouldn’t be the first time bureaucratic fiat was that.
The imbalance may be equalized when all the Move Seattle RapidRides are implemented. One peeve of some Ballardites is that the D has map prominence and real-time signs, while the 40 goes to “real Ballard” and avoids the Uptown time sink and the DP Memorial Traffic Light, and earlier it had bad evening frequency. But when it gets promoted to RapidRide, then real Ballard will have a prominent line on the map too.
Thanks Ross. It really moves me that you find it a better transit map than Google’s. If I added a toggle that lets you switch between Google and my map, you could have the best of both! After the print version is done, I will have more time to spend on developing the app version. Though after a busy several months I’d like to take a break!
On the Link and RapidRide lines, I kept the official RapidRide color and picked a brighter red for Link. I call it “Rainier Cherry Red”. All the rail lines have a solid inner line to symbolize the rails. RapidRide and the express segments of other bus routes have a dotted inner line. RapidRide uses square dots and stations to be different from Link and other buses which use round dots and station circles. This is also to aid people with color-blindness in telling them apart by using the inner line.
Both RapidRide and Link lines are the same width. Although RapidRide is justifiably prominent on my map, it is not overwhelmingly dominant like on Metro’s map where it is many times thicker than all the other bus lines.
>> If I added a toggle that lets you switch between Google and my map, you could have the best of both!
Yeah, that would be cool. There are some things on the Google Map that your map will never have (like restaurants, etc.). Toggling would be nice, but I wonder if some of the other nice features of a Google Map would be higher priority. One would be links to the schedules or better yet, One Bus Away (for that location). A drop down (press and hold) option for One Bus Away at that (rough) location would be pretty cool. I suppose that could go along with the Google Map (press and hold, then pick between other apps, like Google Maps, OBA, etc.)*. Other than that, I think a scale would be handy. I find myself using the “measure distance” and “destination to destination” feature of Google Maps a fair amount. That might just be part of the legend. I realize that the scale isn’t perfect, but just a rough scale would be nice, especially for folks not familiar with the city. None of these are essential, but they would be nice to have.
As far as the colors and line thickness and the like, I think it works really well. I’m getting to the age where I need reading glasses, but don’t quite need computer glasses, and it all is very easy for me to read. That is the advantage of having largely a “clean slate”. You list streets that have no transit, but the streets don’t dominate, the bus routes do. As you zoom in, it is simply easier to read. Google Maps gives you more detail, but the text isn’t bigger. I’ve played around a lot with Google Maps, making my own maps for route suggestions or things of that nature (I made a couple quick maps for a Pronto discussion) but none of them are as easy to read as your maps. The fact that it has spurred several discussions on this blog about bus routes in general (not the way you are presenting them) is a very good sign.
* I have no idea how to do that, but app developers may be able to do that fairly easily. I would think you could basically treat your app like a grid, so then it is simply a matter of translating that grid to a latitude/longitude grid. That might end up being a lot less work than linking to the schedules (which could be pretty tedious, depending on how you made your app). That sort of thing sounds much more of a developer thing, rather than a design thing, which means that someone might just do that for you without you needing to worry about it.
Yay!
One tiny error on the regional map on back, though: The 234/235 should also go to South Kirkland. Also, it might look better if you could line up “Amtrak to Portland” better, like your other Amtrak labels (though I realize the spacing’s harder around Lakewood.)
This’s a monumental task; you’ve done it wonderfully!
Great map Oran!
I’m saddened to see the 8 return to it’s 5 minute detour of Jackson/23rd/Yesler. I was hoping that the reroute/straightening of the route due to construction on 23rd would have proven itself to both riders and Metro, and would become the new norm. With the splitting of the 8 it would seem like a great time to make that change permanent.
Link will provide a faster connection from Mt Baker to Capitol Hill, so the number of people riding the 8 that far may diminish. When I’ve counted riders on the northbound 8 a couple of times, most of them were already on at Mt Baker and remained on when I got off at Summit. So they will probably switch to Link when Capitol Hill Station opens.
Yes, I would guess that people who are currently riding from south of Mt Baker will likely transfer to Link, as they have to get off the bus at MBS anyway with the new route split. I occasionally ride the 8 from Mt Baker to the CD (near cherry st), and the detour to 23rd and back always feels like such a waste for the amount of people who get on/off there.
I’ve ridden to the airport from Madison Park, and without the detour I think picking up Link at Mount Baker is a viable option (the 11 going to the Cap Hill station would have been better, grrr). Even taking the 8 to the new Cap Hill station is probably not a lot different, time-wise, than going to Mount Baker without the detour, with much lower risk of traffic delays getting to the station down MLK.
That detour is a five-block walk with minimal grade, and for whatever 23rd and Jackson used to be, today it is not worth making the bus and everybody on it take three turns and 5+ minutes to get through there. The 48 provides direct, frequent service to that area and is crossed by many other routes providing an easy transfer. The detour really only serves a handful of people in single family homes along MLK north of Rainier, and Madison Park. I’m not sure there is a lot of demand for point-to-point travel between Madison Park and 23rd/Yesler and for those who are making that trip, it’s a pretty short walk (1/4 mile and 5 minutes). The detour is a vestige of the past that should have been removed when there was a perfect excuse to do so.
The detour is actually more justifiable now because there are more businesses concentrated at 23rd & Madison, and now with that Vulcan development it’s going to be even more happening. I only ride that part of the 8 occasionally so I don’t have much opinion about the detour. It looks arbitrary but on the other hand t doesn’t take much time, and MLK has an extreme lack of non-residential destinations, unlike comparable streets in San Francisco and Vancouver where a pure grid alignment doesn’t leave you in the middle of nowhere.
There is other, better bus service to that neighborhood. It’s a five-block walk from MLK for those who really really really want to take the 8 to that specific location (basically people living in the single-family homes on MLK and Madison Valley so a very limited number; anybody S of Walker and W of Madison Valley would take the 48 anyway). It is the antithesis of legible service and leads back to the “one seat ride to everywhere!!!” mantra that is death to a coherent and well-functioning transit system. It is the opposite of a grid in a neighborhood that actually already has a transit grid. The bus uses MLK because it’s a direct line on an arterial from Madison Valley to Mount Baker station and Rainier, not because it’s a single family neighborhood. Buses in other cities travel through single-family neighborhoods because they are on the way somewhere.
Realizing anecdote is not the plural of data, when I’ve ridden that bus few to no passengers alight or board there, yet 20-50 people get five+ minutes added to every trip for no real reason. How many transit hours does that add up to over the course of the year? Maybe use some of those to beef up the 14 and 27 a bit if there is really that much E-W demand there.
Add to the list of people who think the detour is silly. I really think it is a classic example of Metro ignoring speed. There is always a trade-off between coverage and speed, but as far as Metro is concerned, when in doubt they choose coverage. Even, as in this case, when it is covered quite well by different bus routes.
If these were simply two parallel bus routes (the 8 and 48) I might feel differently. There is value in having them connect (so you can easily transfer from one to the other). But in this case, they cross twice. This is a third connection point, roughly half between the other two, at a rather arbitrary location. There are apartments, shops and a library there, but that’s it — this doesn’t deviate from the straight shot to serve a high school, let alone a college. Meanwhile, there are buses on the cross streets (Jackson and Yesler). I just don’t see the value of this deviation.
As for Link, it will be interesting to see the numbers. Metro is doing all it can to try and pump Link’s ridership numbers, whether ST appreciates it or not. The detour makes the 8 less appealing. Shortening the 8 means forcing a transfer. So for folks starting at Mount Baker (or farther south) headed to Capitol Hill, Link is suddenly more appealing. It will be interesting to see the Link numbers. I could see slightly higher numbers for all the Rainier Valley stations, but especially Mount Baker (since a transfer of some sort is required now).
Then again, the Mount Baker station still sucks. I’m sure a lot of people will just get off the 38 and get right on the 8 (I assume they share the same bus stop). This would make sense if you are in between Link stations (e. g. Orcas Street). Those who are used to transferring at Mount Baker to another bus (e. g. 7 to 8) will continue to do so. I really don’t see huge numbers of people transferring to Link until the Mount Baker station situation improves greatly (or add they add a few more obstacles to regular bus routes, like couple extra detours for the 8).
“The bus uses MLK because it’s a direct line on an arterial from Madison Valley to Mount Baker station and Rainier”
It uses MLK to get more service east of 23rd because the eastern CD had so little transit without it.
My comment should have read “Add me to the list of people who think the detour is silly.”
The most monumental achievement of all is how Oran synthesized the incredible complexity into one brain, and two sheets of virtual paper.
The UW #bus2link inset strikes me as especially useful. For the sake of decluttering, I would whack the section that tries to depict the individual downtown stops (which SDOT and Metro constantly move anyway). Congratulations!
The map looks great, except for the downtown stop diagrams, which are abhorrent. I’m going to see if there’s any better way to group the colorings to allow the diagrams to make more sense.
Yeah, that is one thing I’m taking back to the drawing board (again).
If I were you, I’d strip out roughly 90% of the information in that inset, including any attempt to include the street grid, and just focus on the stops on 3rd Avenue and which buses serve them. There’s not enough space there to communicate much more than that.
I am struggling with this. I might as well give up and use a table. I just hate making people scan dozens of tables just to figure out how to get around downtown.
The rationale behind splitting it into separate maps is to manage complexity. There’s no way around it.
Another big hole in the bus network that this map makes readily apparent is the lack of buses traveling the 45th St. viaduct. Stevens Way is long, slow, detour in all but the worst traffic. I understand why this hole exists today (because plugging the hole and connecting people to the UW station are mutually exclusive). I hope in 2021, when the U-district station, at last, opens, that this hole can be rectified.
The 30 used to run on the viaduct from Fremont to Laurelhurst, but it was deleted due to congestion on the viaduct and low ridership (people would wait for the 43 which was a trolleybus and more frequent). A viaduct route might make more sense now, and I’m excited to see how well RapidRide 44 will perform. But viaduct/Montlake congestion may resurface.
Interesting. So, is there much car traffic inside the campus? If so, then I think this is where things could easily improve. It is my understanding that for the most part, these roads are free to use. This is where things could change very easily. Get rid of the parking (replace it with buildings) then restrict use of the roads to official vehicles (and buses) only. The detour only takes a couple minutes longer, and does provide a way to get into the campus. 45th has plenty of people, but as you get onto the viaduct, you can’t access a bus there (e. g. folks in this apartment wouldn’t be able to access the bus — https://goo.gl/maps/7VceNWDr2Up). So the detour really isn’t that bad — it might be a bit slower for those going from one end to the other, but it would pick up (and drop off) a lot more people along the way. If cutting through campus could be made fast, then I could see it making a lot of sense.
The way I see it, rerouting the 44 over the viaduct has three downsides that would have to be addressed:
1) The expense of building a few blocks of additional trolley wire
2) If traffic is congested on the viaduct, that means bad bus bunching for anyone going from the UW to Wallingford or Ballard. For better or worse, the current routing at least ensures that route 44 buses can leave the U-district at something close to on time.
3) People headed from Wallingford to the UW Med Center would gripe at having to either walk a few blocks or transfer.
In the past, when directness and speed has gone up against issues similar to the above, directness and speed always lost. Consider, for instance, how zero buses travel along southbound Montlake – because traffic is sometimes bad, everyone who rides the bus is stuck taking the slow detour, even at times when traffic isn’t so bad.
>>The way I see it, rerouting the 44 over the viaduct has three downsides that would have to be addressed:
1) The expense of building a few blocks of additional trolley wire
2) If traffic is congested on the viaduct, that means bad bus bunching for anyone going from the UW to Wallingford or Ballard. For better or worse, the current routing at least ensures that route 44 buses can leave the U-district at something close to on time.
3) People headed from Wallingford to the UW Med Center would gripe at having to either walk a few blocks or transfer.
In the past, when directness and speed has gone up against issues similar to the above, directness and speed always lost. Consider, for instance, how zero buses travel along southbound Montlake – because traffic is sometimes bad, everyone who rides the bus is stuck taking the slow detour, even at times when traffic isn’t so bad.<<
The easy solution to that is to leave the 44 as it is, and add another route that runs straight across 45th. It could even be a limited stop route (say an average of 1/2 mile between stops).
Why should someone who lives near 45th street in Wallingford and wants to go shopping at U-Village Shopping Center be forced to take a long, pointless detour through the UW campus, AND be forced to transfer to a different route (at least I think they're forced to transfer to a different route).
Running straight across 45th to U-Village and Children's is how a proper grid-system would be designed, and how it would work in another other major city. Not this long, pointless detour through a huge University campus forced upon people who have no business at the University.
Just to be clear, I would not send a bus all the way down to the south end of campus. I would go from Ballard to 17th NE, then south to Stevens and then northeast on Pend Orielle. This is a two minute detour. This is a trade-off, but one that is worth it, I would imagine. Keep in mind, there just aren’t that many people along 45th, east of 25th. There are plenty of people between 25th and 17th, but it is damn near impossible to add a bus stop (and even if you did, there is no pedestrian access to the viaduct for much of the way). Children’s and U-Village are decent destinations, but very small compared to the UW campus.
The main value of using 45th is to make a better grid. Now someone who lives at 55th and 25th can take a bus south, then a faster, more direct bus west to Ballard. Unless, of course, there is a traffic. If you can solve that problem, then I would be all for it — but without a traffic fix, I think the advantages to skirting through campus (likely higher ridership) outweigh the disadvantages (slower connecting service during low traffic times).
I could see trying to split the difference. You really don’t need a bus stop between Burgermaster (where one exists now) and 17th. It would be nice to have towards the other end of the mall (on 27th) where it looks like one existed in the past — but I don’t think that is essential. So now, you have a couple choices. One is to run the bus through the campus during peak hours. Just mark the bus with ‘X’ when it skips the campus (which would be most of the day). Another is to not have any stops in campus, but just let the driver decide which way to go. Personally I would prefer the first. I think ridership at those stops would be very high. It is one thing to be told that your bus won’t be stopping inside the campus, it is another thing to watch your bus head right by where you want to go, but not be able to get off there.
@RossB:
U-Village could be a huge transit destination if it had better transit service. Plus they’re expanding and adding more retail space as we speak.
” is there much car traffic inside the campus?”
“I would go from Ballard to 17th NE, then south to Stevens and then northeast on Pend Orielle.”
I guess I’d better respond to this, since I now go involuntarily through campus semi-regularly on the 75/31/32. It’s OK before 7:30am and after 7pm. During the day it bogs down with cars, people getting on/off buses, people crossing the street, and cars. During the bridge construction it was a major crawl but fortunately that has lifted. Going through campus is intrinsically slower than the viaduct because it’s a longer curving distance, and then you add the congestion on top of it. The viaduct on a bad day would be faster than campus any day, except when Montlake backs up for an hour but I guess that would affect both ways equally. Interestingly with Link, taking the 75 or 372 from Rainier Vista will miss half the campus crawl, which is better than nothing. Although of course you’ll make up for it with a 5-minute walk to the station, as opposed to a direct transfer at Campus Parkway.
Great work! And especially thank you for the changes to the legend. I find this version much easier to understand.
Thanks for the great map. The box at Yarrow Pt. Station says all 520 routes except 424. The 271 is also a 520 route that doesn’t stop here.
The 271 has left 520 by this point. Note the inset above Hunts Point.
Talking about that insert… Why not label the 555/556 as “Bellevue/Issaquah,” since they go to both places, and Bellevue is by far the most major destination?
(Also, the 541 just goes to Overlake, not “Redmond/Overlake.” But that’s a more minor quibble, since it’s technically in the Redmond city limits.)
It’s a great map! A few minor thoughts:
Your note for the 522 “nonstop to downtown” kind of looks like it applies to the 67 or 73.
Does the 78 really just end randomly in Laurelhurst without looping around? (that’s as much a comment to Metro)
For whatever reason, the 62 line confuses me as to if it’s a loop or a weekend diversion.
522 note: I’ll find a way to make that less confusing.
78 terminal: It ends in the bus loop on the back entrance of Children’s. I could make it a bit clearer if I bent the line off 45th up closer to the hospital.
62 weekend terminal: upon closer inspection on OBA, it turns out it is a clockwise loop with the 62 to Sand Point traveling one-way up 50th Ave and 70th St to Sand Point Way, then returning Downtown from there via Sand Point and 65th.
My understanding is the 74 will no longer go into NOAA (there are only two layover spaces which already overflow, and the 62 will fill them with its 4 trips/hour), and the 7/49 will not be through-routed at all.
Thanks very much for this map. This will be a great resource for tourists. Time to start selling advertising space on it and make it a profitable venture for yourself.
I might change the wording a bit in the “Payment and Transfers” section. There should be something saying that the monorail only accepts cash and not ORCA. The chart below might not be enough.
Well done! The first few times I used this map I actually thought it was an official map because it is so well done. A great service for the community
I’m especially impressed that we’re distributing paper copies right during the reorg. That will significantly benefit riders, and also give us more widespread feedback on the map from regular riders who don’t follow transit blogs. That might also lead to more people asking Metro for this kind of map.
You can thank SDOT and Sound Transit for funding paper copies and Transit Riders Union for advocating a printed map.
The 8 isn’t doing that Yesler/Jackson hop over to 23rd right now at least: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/schedules/008/map.html
It is a confusing situation. I understood it to be a long-term reroute during construction on 23rd Ave. Metro’s U Link Connections map shows the deviation restored while on OneBusAway the 8 just stays on MLK, before and after Mar 26. I need to get Metro to clarify the final, permanent routing.
Yeah, the Adopted Changes page (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/programs-projects/link-connections/adopted-changes.html#by-route) shows the hop over to 23rd on the description for the new 8 (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/programs-projects/link-connections/pdf/008-info.pdf).
Only issue I noticed is that I can’t see the 542 connection at UW station, only the 541.
Good map!
I think the 28 is about to move to 29th and then down aurora this month, no?
Thank you for all the work – it looks great
Sorry – I meant 39th (not 29th)
Yes, Cnoise is correct that Route 28 will run all trips via N 39th and Bridge Way to Aurora. I think you’ve got that routing on the map already. A few revisions are in order, however:
1) The sections on Leary or N39th don’t need to be shown as making limited or no stops. The 28 will be the ONLY bus on 39th, so it’s not skipping any stops. On Leary, the 28 will make the same stops as the 40 (I’m pretty sure – b/c that’s where you’d transfer from a 28 if you want to get to the heart of Fremont) .
2) Similarly, route 26 west of Wallingford Av will be the only bus on that path, so it’s not missing any stops.
3) The new routes 26 and 28 both will travel their respective paths the same way all day 7 days, and for all trips will be labeled by Metro as express, ie 26X and 28X. Metro does this for routes 15, 17 and 18 as well, even though each is the only version of its route. The rationale (not universally shared) is that express means a route skips stops on its path where other routes do stop. In the case of the 26x & 28X, they’ll be skipping some Aurora stops where the 5 and E will stop.
Otherwise, thanks for your clear and comprehensive work!
I will fix the express lines where no stops are being skipped. I think I missed the Ravenna Av part of 372 as well.
As for the X labels, because of Metro’s inconsistent usage (I’ve seen EX, E, and X used) I have decided that on my map I’m only using it for routes with a local equivalent of the same number. So 5X and 21X but not 15X or 355X. The line style will show people where it runs express.
Slight revision to my comment #3 above: It’s true that the new route 28(X) will run the same way all day 7 days south of NW 97th St & 8th Av NW. But north of there it will run only M-F peaks – just as you’re showing it.
Have you tried a different color and/or line weight for the peak routes? I’m finding the thin brown labels really hard to read. Maybe it’s my screen. I realize space is at a premium and admire how much you’ve been able to show so clearly. I know places like I-5 south of NE 65th st must be really hard with that parade of peak routes, or the boxes for SR520 routes. Would a brighter color work yet still maintain the hierarchy of route types? Thanks for any ideas and whatever you’ve already tried.
Very useful map.
I wish route numbers would just do away with the X-extensions. For example, why is the new 26 renamed 26X? And, not to forget the one X-route that will really be missed by staff and patients at the UW Roosevelt clinic, Fred Hutch, and the many workers in the growing South Lake Union neighborhood: the full-time 66X, to be replaced by a peak-hour only route.
Because it bypasses stops. The 66X is always X for the same reason; to warn riders that it doesn’t make every stop on its streets. Conversely the 41, 101, 150, and 255 are not X even though they go on the freeway: they supposedly make all the stops in their path.
Tiniest nit: the little >> symbols on the owl map show the 84 traveling northbound on 23rd and southbound on 21st between Jefferson and Cherry, but that’s the reverse of metro’s map, and also of the path the 3 takes through there.
Very very cool map.
I wish the Metro announcement could learn to pronounce Pond-a-ray Road instead of Pend-or-y-el Road.
Mike – Most of the North Base buses have been corrected to pronounce Pond-d-ray now.
Didn’t realize until seeing this map that the 62 was taking Dexter and that the 26 & 28 were moving to Aurora.
Looks like they expect the 62 to be a fairly major route judging by the headways. Good to see it function largely as a crosstown line on its northern portion of the route.
[ot, ah]
What has been less than clear for me is whether it’s worth trying to get to ULink between 19 March and 26 March. Although ULink will be running, the Metro Bus Routes won’t have switched yet. For example I would switch from riding Route 64 to the Route 65 bus which feeds into ULink starting 26 March. But before then I guess it would involve jumping off and walking some distance to ULink station since Route 65 currently goes to University Transit west of campus.
What’s the recommendation? Just wait until 26 March?