The lack of real-time info at stops and stations is pretty irritating, but perhaps local businesses and onebusaway can fill the gap:

70 Replies to “Sunday Open Thread: Chicago’s Bus Tracker”

  2. Neat. I had seen the bus tracker widgets (Mac) displayed in a condo bldg lobby but hadn’t realized there is now a full fledged kiosk solution.

    1. I wouldn’t mind if a group of businesses (downtown business association??) got together to hire someone to build a self-contained kiosk that can be mounted INSIDE storefront windows at bus stops. I would think a barebones system with WiFi or ethernet and a browser would do the job displaying that stop’s OBA. The participating business just has to mount it in the window, and hook up power and internet.

      Could something like this be built for less than $150? Then sold?

  3. –only *if* your stop is in Metro’s and OneBusAway’s database. Mine still is not. The stop exists in real space; but not in cyberspace it seems.

  4. Why put an expensive computer monitor at an unattended bus stop? Won’t it just get vandalized?

    How about a simple countdown clock like this one in Copenhagen:

    Bus in three minutes:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Bus_stop_Copenhagen.JPG
    Bus in one minute:
    http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1889/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1889-40209.jpg
    Bus arriving:
    http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1945/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1945-1136.jpg

    Or this one in Paris that uses LCD to give out a bit more information:
    http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/Tours/Paris/Guide/BusStop.jpg

  5. I recently moved to San Jose (I know) for work, and I’ve had the pleasure of riding VTA’s light rail. Being located on not one, but two light rail lines has proven itself to be convenient. I wanted to share a few things about VTA that I feel Sounder could benefit from:

    -Link recently started cutting down to 1 car service, but I recall a lot of resistance coming back in the form of having to take the cars out of service to Sodo in order to uncouple the cars and return back to service. VTA uncouples their cars en route at the two outlying stations nearest the yard. They simply make an automated announcement over the PA informing riders that the last car is being uncoupled and they must relocate to the first car. After the second car is uncoupled, the first car continues on its way while the second heads back to the base. I’m not sure if this is cost-effective or not… but it sure is convenient.

    -Stop request cords. The light rail makes it very clear that the trains wont automatically stop at every station… and your stop must be requested. This certainly makes up on any lost time for those stations with little ridership during off-peak times. I could really see Link benefiting from this.

    -Bike racks. I recall the placement of bike racks being somewhat of an issue on the Link cars. Since VTA and Link are running the same Kinkisharo cars (Links are newer and more streamlined), it would be easy to have the same layout as VTA. In every center vestibule of each car – instead of having 8 seats facing inward, one side has been removed for stand up bike racks. I honestly think it’s genius! Each car holds 4 bikes (but imagine if they removed all seats in the center) and that could be up to 8 on each car.

    Just some feedback – I’ll always love my days on link!

    1. Stop cords: In all my times on Link, the only times I’ve seen nobody get off at a station it was Sodo or Stadium (even my trip home on the 12:37am Wednesday night/Thursday morning trip). And even then you still might have to stop if someone wants to get on. So we’re stopping at 11 or more of our 13 stations–I don’t think a stop request feature would make sense.

      Seats: you can’t completely remove the seats there since the trucks are underneath and need some clearance. These Kinkisharo cars aren’t 100% low floor.

      1. VTA light rail (Or any light rail in California) functions much more like one of our streetcars, while our light rail functions much more like a metro. For that reason, I don’t think stop cords would work on link.

      2. I agree on the stop cords but I think the center section could be used to increase the bike storage per-car without losing that many seats. Phoenix cars are similar with a slightly longer center section and they have the bike storage over the trucks.

      3. VTA has some serious ridership deficiency issues. About the only portion that was planned like LINK is the original Downtown to Santa Teresa Line and perhaps some of the Alum Rock extension.

        The painfully slow and windy bit from Tasman to Mountain View is an abomination!

        It is exactly a poorly justified and poorly planned line like VTA’s light rail that gives rail transit a bad name in the USA.

        At least they got rid of their high-floor cars.

      4. VTA was what I was hoping Link would not be like. An all-surface system is not a transportation solution, even if it may be justified for feeder lines.

      5. The San Jose to Santa Teresa portion makes sense: it connects residential neighborhoods with downtown and provides transit along the main downtown street. The Tazman section brings San Jose workers to Santa Clara office parks, but it doesn’t go anywhere near the majority of Santa Clara residents who have to use Caltrain or buses. This shows what happens when transit is viewed mainly as a commuter service: much of its potential is cut off and wasted.

  7. OK. Would someone with requisite technical knowledge, preferably from Sound Transit, please explain in plain English why the current signage system can’t give passengers arrival times at LINK’s relatively limited number of stations, on a largely-reserved right-of-way? And if there is a reason, how much would it cost to solve the problem? My monthly senior pass costs $54. If it cost $60, would that let ST give me train time? Thank you.

    Mark Dublin

    2. Sound Transit seems to be inconsistent with their reasons for why they can’t do arrival times. And they can’t blame me for posting that video of the sign testing at SODO showing the sign’s capability to display them (data not included). People saw those big programmable signs in stations. People saw other systems around the world, including predominantly underground ones, have arrival times. The artist rendering of the system and graphics in ST’s own Signage Design Manual show arrival times. There is a universal expectation that there should be arrival times at stations.

      3. Portland’s TriMet has a REALLY cool system that shows EXACTLY when the next train is due, and what line it is, and there are FOUR light rail lines. And all the bus stops along 5th and 6th Ave have the SAME SYSTEM that shows the next bus arrivals, but it doesn’t just show the next bus, it shows the next one and THE ONE AFTER!

        If you ask me, I say that Sound Transit doesn’t want to pull its head out of its…Well, they don’t seem to want to ask TriMet how it’s done.

      4. I have a friend who is a lawyer, and does risk assessment for Sound Transit, and he said they just didn’t see the point in putting in Next Train arrival signs. AT LEAST not until there are multiple lines.

  8. It sure would be nice. Seattle is woefully behind on this. They just started using this system with display screens throughout campus at the University of Montana – Missoula for their transit system for god sakes.

  9. I must admit, after moving to Portland, real-time transit data available at shelters throughout the downtown bus mall (and key transit centers) as well as the ability to text TriMet a stop ID (usually labeled), helped.

    The business idea in the video is great. I frequently would feel nervous about grabbing a coffee or looking for something in Capitol Hill or other urban Seattle neighborhoods for fear that I’d miss my bus. I’d try to fill in the gap with One Bus Away data, but then I always had to know (or find) the stop ID.

    1. Get a smartphone?
      You don’t need to know the stop ID with a smartphone, it shows you a map, and you click on the bus stop nearest you (or wherever your bus is…)

  10. San Francisco has NextBus displays at shelters all over the city. I found them really useful since they don’t post the schedules anymore (they do have a system map with service summary at every shelter) and since many bus lines have frequent service I really didn’t have to wait that long.

    Here’s a video about it.

    1. Notice the ClearChannel logo below the arrival sign in the shelter. It’s likely MUNI can only afford to do this because made a deal with CC to give them the exclusive right to advertise on bus shelters (and probably trash cans, kiosks, etc). In exchange, CC has paid for new shelters and displays.

      Due to Seattle’s outdoor advertising ban, Metro can’t do anything like this. So instead of upgrading shelters with arrival signs, Metro is removing as many “underutilized” shelters as they can to keep down on maintenance costs.

      Folks who want things like this need to start complaining loudly to the City Council to get them to change the outdoor advertising ban. It’s a significant impediment to Seattle ever getting anything like this.

      1. Chicago went with JCDecaux for their bus shelters in exchange for advertising. And I have to say, its been a big win for the city so far. The bus shelters are of very good quality, durable, and JCDecaux promptly repairs and cleans them. Even in the really rough parts of town.

        The ads on them are generally tasteful and are behind glass and backlit. Each shelter also has overhead lighting. Some shelters downtown have moving displays or even video screens.

        http://www.jcdecaux.com/en/Newsroom/Archives/2001/JCDecaux-wins-City-of-Chicago-street-furniture-contract-strengthening-us-position

        http://bit.ly/hucDQd –Bus Shelter Image

      2. I never understood why the advertising ban was put into place. Vancouver BC has advertising, and if nothing else, it makes their bus stops more colorful than the drab, dead brown of Metro bus stops.

      3. @Cinesea: I think the ban was passed in large part to prevent our streets being overrun by billboards. Old photos of the city show an alarming (to me) number of billboards on streets that many wouldn’t really consider terribly commercial. I think the City decided while that might be okay for some roads like Aurora, we don’t really want it for roads like Madison being covered in billboards. Unfortunately, I think the City’s ban swung the pendulum too far back the other way.

        Relatedly, while I was looking around for other photos showing excessive billboarding, I stumbled upon this one of an old parking meter advertisement. Yet another way the City could be pulling in revenue instead of slashing services…

      4. I support the advertising ban and really hate the idea of more advertising on city streets. Portland has the increased signage without the advertising – there’s no reason we need to sell out to Clear Channel or JCDecaux or Titan or any of the other corporate entities folks seem to feel so good about.

        I also can’t think of places Downtown in particular where there isn’t already a covered stop or an adjacent building overhang – maybe on a few steep hills.

        Some of you folks sound like shills for the advertising companies.

      5. Sure, an advertising ban is great in theory, however it ignores a low harm revenue stream for installing and maintaining passenger amenities.

        Metro has already had to cut way down on shelter and stop maintenance due to tight budgets and has even been removing shelters an trash bins because they don’t have the money to maintain them.

        The issue isn’t downtown so much as the rest of the city where you don’t always have an awning to wait under.

        Imagine if every well-used stop had a nice well-lit and maintained shelter with benches, trash bins, and real-time arrival signs? Imagine if most of the rest of the stops had a trash can, a bench, and a light. All at no cost to Metro, Sound Transit, or local government. The company with the contract takes on all of the risk and cost of installing and maintaining the benches, lighting, trash bins, shelters, and real-time information signs. Sure they get to plaster everything with ads in exchange, but I’m willing to put up with some additional visual pollution in exchange.

      6. Where are they removing shelters? I see them at most major stops around the City and the places that don’t have shelters are primarily along residential streets that would be a poor fit for shelters IMO (especially with advertising). Further, most shelters are well maintained with the trash regularly removed.

        This whole advertising push seems like a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.

      7. @Kevin: According to TriMet, over 40% of their benches have advertising (728 out of 1,775), as do 10% of their shelters (143 out of 1,076). In contrast, metro has over 2,500 more bus stops and over 900 more shelters and absolutely no ad revenue from either. TriMet may not have had to increase ads to pay for their arrival displays, but their existing ad revenue certainly helped free up some funds for it.

        And of course there are plenty of shelters Downtown. But most everyone who waits at a downtown bus shelter in the afternoon started their morning commute waiting at a neighborhood stop without a shelter. If you want to attract people to transit, you have to make both ends of the commute appealing. You’re not going to win many folks over to transit by asking them to start their day by standing in the rain.

        I feel I should also mention that Metro has ceased expansion of its Adopt-a-Stop program because it’s too expensive to operate. That’s right, Metro can’t afford to pay people to clean the bus stops, and they can’t even afford to have volunteers do it. So expect to see fewer trash cans—but almost certainly just as much trash—at Metro stops in the future. But, hey, at least you won’t have to look at an advertisement.

      8. Oops – sorry for the dup post (below).

        @Andreas – You make it sound like Metro has completely stopped trash pickup and cleaning of its existing shelters which isn’t the case. Many neighborhood stops have shelters – especially around major intersections – and in the places they don’t have them there’s usually a pretty good reason (residential street, steep slope, low usage stop). Most of the routes that I use frequently have shelters spaced fairly close (within a few blocks) and so folks either go to the closest shelter or use an umbrella while they’re waiting. Frankly I can’t think of any non-shelter stop near me that I think would make sense to have converted to a sheltered stop.

        I think Metro already has too much advertising (I’d get rid of bus wraps in a second). Having public entities become increasingly dependent on corporate money is an ugly trend in my opinion.

      9. @Kevin: Here‘s one location where a shelter was removed. Not enough ridership to justify the cost of maintaining it.

        Oh, and this tidbit from the March 2006 King County Council’s Transit Advisory Committee meeting is telling:

        Metro has a backlog of 475 stops eligible for shelters but without them. Each year, the King County Council authorizes funding for 50 or 60 new shelters, 100 ADA improvements and 100 stand-alone benches. However, approximately 20 shetlers are removed each year because of such factors as low passenger boardings, high rates of vandalism or at the request of law enforcement. So Metro actually adds an approximate net of 30 to 40 new shelters each year.

        A backlog of 475 stops! And with the recession, I can only imagine those numbers have gotten worse. I honestly don’t know how you can say this is a problem that doesn’t exist.

      10. I believe I found the same 2006 document you did. The eligibility criteria is 50 boardings/day in the City and 25 boardings/day in the burbs. That’s pretty low in my opinion. The stop that I use almost daily has well over 50 boardings/day but would be inappropriate for a shelter because it’s on a residential street and there are sheltered stops two blocks in either direction (by the major arterials). I can only imagine how many of the other “eligible” stops have similar situations.

        So, yes, I’m comfortable with Metro’s progress on this with current funding and don’t want to hand the whole system over to a ad company. We both know that a private company would be all about selling ads Downtown and at major nodes, all of which are currently provided with shelters (or adjacent building overhangs).

      11. Kevin,
        Your concerns about over-commercialization are great when discussing theory in a coffeehouse somewhere. In the real world of tight budgets and people using transit not so much.

        The fact is Metro has cut its maintenance budget for shelters and stops. Metro has very little money to upgrade stop amenities and no budget for things like real-time information displays.

        Sure not every stop will be attractive for selling advertising, however it is possible to get the company with the ad contract to upgrade and maintain all stops and not just the ones with ads on them.

        Offsetting a majority of the cost of stop installation and maintenance with ad revenue may not close all of Metro’s budget gap, but it still represents a fair number of service hours that won’t have to be cut.

    2. Seattle needs to get rid of the outdoor advertising ban, at least as it applies to bus shelters, trash cans, benches, info kiosks, etc.

      Even with the ban in Seattle perhaps Metro could bid out the shelters/stops in the rest of the system? Perhaps some nice stops outside the city of Seattle with real-time arrival info might push the Seattle City Council to act.

      1. Why doesn’t everyone jot a quick note to the 9 city Seattle council members to stop dilly-dallying on overturning the outdoor advertising ban and just do it? I just did and it’s not difficult and won’t take but a moment of your time.

        I’ll even provide their email addresses to help you:

        jean.godden@seattle.gov, sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov, mike.obrien@seattle.gov, nick.licata@seattle.gov, richard.conlin@seattle.gov, tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov, bruce.harrell@seattle.gov, tim.burgess@seattle.gov

      2. Anyone know what percentage of shelters are outside of Seattle, and/or if any other nearby cities have similar advertising bans?

        I suspect that most stops outside of the City are just poles or benches, and the few that do have shelters that could sport advertising are probably split between so many different municipalities that navigating all the different regulations might make not worthwhile. Whereas if Seattle were to change its rules, Metro would only have to negotiate with one municipality in order to put ads on the vast majority of its shelteres.

  11. By the way!!
    CTA Last week came out with Train Tracker, FINALLY!!
    And over the last year they have been placing Electronic signs in some of the Major Non-Loop Rail Stations. (Belmont, Cermak, Some brown line stops indicating the next train and what line it is on)
    And these screens (in the video) are not widely used, I have never seen them except the one at CTA HQ. Mostly they are in Wicker Park only is how I understand it, but I have an iPhone so I can get the bus tracker data when/wherever.

    And Train tracker seems to be accurate so far based on my daily use of the train system, as well, It has made me decide to take the rail system over the bus system once or twice as I can see that I won’t get off a bus, and wait 10 minutes (negating the benefit of attempting to take rail). Helped me be only 15 minutes late vs. probably being 30 minutes late if I had stayed on the bus.

    It also makes me run more, because I can time connections within seconds and make them, getting rid of transfer times (which is extremely nice)

    1. And I have to say I’m in a bit of shock on coming back to Seattle and missing the often frequent bus times and connections the CTA offers and having to “suffer” the 30 minute headways on most routes in Seattle. So, my trick now is either timing my Link connection from downtown using tools on my phone to meet my bus within the 10 minute window or I get off at Beacon Hill Station and hang out at the cool little coffee shop nearby and chill until time to head for my connection.

  12. Idea(s) for Service Changes:

    Routes 71, 72 and 73 Expresses

    New Intermediate Express Stops

    Idea 1: Northbound Weekday morning trips travelling via the regular Northbound lanes of I-5 and NE 45th St could serve the stop Southbound on Roosevelt Way NE just South of NE 43rd St. This could potentially be the non-Express Lane equivalent of the NE 40th/42nd St stops.

    Idea 2: In theory, Eastlake Express busses could make four intermediate stops between the U-District and Downtown in each direction without any significant delays. Buses could serve the stops on Eastlake Ave E at Harvard Ave E, E Garfield St and Mercer St; and on Stewart (inbound) or Howell Streets(outbound) at Yale Avenue. I have personally studied this possibility myself, and I can tell you that, because each intermediate stop takes only 15-30 seconds off a bus’ schedule, timings of the Campus Parkway-Convention Place segment would only increase by about 1-2 minutes max.

    1. Idea 1: According to Metro’s scheduing data, route 73 does stop there. On the Northbound I-5 mainline trips I’ve been on, the operators never stopped there even if the cord was pulled prior to the stop. I’m not sure how many of those were 73s. FWIW, 73 is not listed on the stop flag or schedule posted at that stop.

      Idea 2: There’s already plenty of service to those stops mid-day when you include routes 66 and 70. In fact, Metro wanted to speed up that corridor, not slow it down by stopping more. If you made the express buses stop there, you’d likely have more service than demand, not to mention rider confusion. You’d have to know which express routings stopped there–the morning express lanes service doesn’t but the afternoon Eastlake service does. Not sure what the point is of having these stops served extra for only half the day.

      1. I see. Athough my calculations did estimate the trips would be only 1-2 minutes longer, apparently those two minutes make a big difference!

  13. Does anyone here have any FIRST HAND knowledge of the area around Othello Station in general and New Holly in particular? We’re looking a possibly moving there, and my wife would be there a year by herself why I’m deployed. We spent a couple nights walking around and couldn’t figure out why everyone thought we were crazy looking in the area. Does the dangerous only come out really late (we were never out walking past midnight) or is this just a case of the PNW not knowing what poverty/diversity/dangerous really looks like?

    1. I live one stop above at Columbia City.

      There’s no right answer on whether it’s safe enough or not for you. People have been shot there over the past few years, but it certainly isn’t like a proper East coast slum. Personally, I don’t have any issue walking around at night, particularly in the immediate station area.

      If you find it too uncomfortable, Columbia City and pts north are further up the gentrification ladder and might work for you.

      1. I looked at crime maps for the area around where I’m living. Othello is the stop closest to me. I can’t speak for New Holly but there is activity in the area it is by far NOT the area with the most crime reported in the city. Quite frankly compared to Chicago and many other cities, Rainier Valley is down right bucolic. Yes, stuff happens from time to time but the numbers don’t bear out any sort of atmosphere where fear should prevail. What it is though is the most diverse neighborhood (98118) you can find in this city, and indeed in many states.

        There are no guarantees in life but I would bet your family would be pretty safe and happy in this zip-code.

    3. I haven’t lived around Othello, but I’ve been in the area at night on a number of occasions. I did live at 22nd & Marion for a while though. In general I feel the Othello/New Holly area is probably safer than 23rd & Union or 23rd & Cherry at night. That said what nonsense there was never spilled over to our block and I didn’t feel in danger walking along 23rd late at night. The worse we ever had to deal with was someone broke into my housemate’s car and stole her car stereo.

      is this just a case of the PNW not knowing what poverty/diversity/dangerous really looks like?

      I think most of what you hear is this. If you have dealt with big cities elsewhere in the US you’ll probably find most of Seattle to be pretty safe.

      My one piece of advice would be to find a place on a well-kept block. The other is to make an effort to get to know your neighbors.

      1. Seattle had a 55 year low of only 19 murders last year. Crime is also staying quite low from it’s 2008 record low. Seattle is something like the 4th safest large city in the US. Regardless of these facts, you must always stay alert and be aware of your surroundings where ever you go whether it be in the Rainier Valley or Magnolia.

        I live in Mount Baker and have seen this neighborhood rapidly change from 1996 to today and the transformation is amazing. Light rail will help this transformation continue and you don’t need to look much further to Portland or Vancouver for this.

    5. I think that your sense of personal safety is more likely to be affected by the general dearth of pedestrian activity, rather than by any explicit real or perceived threat.

    6. It’s an undeserved reputation left over from the bad old days of the 80’s. Many neighborhoods in the MLK/Rainier corridor were no-man’s land back then, and the reputation has stuck, despite decades of revitalization. Even though the areas have been cleaned up since the mid-90’s, a lot of old timers instinctively flinch at the mention of these neighborhoods.

      Currently, crime statistics show that the worst neighborhoods are the “first suburbs” – the neighborhoods just outside Seattle city limits. Thanks to ongoing aggressive community outreach and focused crime prevention programs (currently being slashed from the city budget, lol), there’s few bad neighborhoods left within city limits.

      You also have to take into account Seattle’s sliding-scale of bad neighborhoods. What gets called a “bad neighborhood” in Seattle would be called a quiet community in any other urban center of the country. We have impressively low rates of violent crime – most of what we do have can be attributed to teenage gangs or mental illness.

    8. Lack Thereof has it right. Rainier Valley was just decaying in the 70s and early 80s, especially MLK which didn’t have as many businesses as Rainier. Gangs from California established local chapters and drive-by shootings became common. In the late 80s crack appeared and started another wave of violence bit it peaked in 1992 and crime has been going down ever since. But it was never a quarter as bad as LA or Oakland or New York.

      Holly Park (the public housing project that NewHolly replaced) was not really the center of violence like Cabrini Green. The violence was spread out over the valley and Central District, with the highest concentrations around Rainier Beach, 23rd & Cherry, and 23rd & Union.

      Most people who live in Rainier Valley but can afford to live elsewhere are there because they want to be, and many families have lived there for decades. They like the multicultural mix and working-class atmosphere. In the 50s, it was the only part of Seattle where being an interracial couple was acceptable, and it has kept that attitude ever since.

      After the Vietnam War, Vietnamese refugees began building up businesses from Jackson Street to Othello. It wasn’t really visible until the 90s when it became obvious that not everything was on Rainier anymore. Some artsy urban pioneers also moved into Columbia City during that time and restored the historic district, similar to how they had transformed Capitol Hill in the 60s. Othello is kind of the next wave of gentrification, and presumably Rainier Beach and Hillman City after that.

      As for personal safety, it does make a difference if you’re a woman living alone, but it also depends on the personality of the person. If she’d feel comfortable in San Francisco she’d probably be OK here. Getting involved in neighborhood associations helps.

  15. Too many comments about transit advertising above to reply to one comment so I will start a new thread.

    Is it only Seattle that has a ban on advertising? If that is the case, what is stopping Metro from advertising in the rest of its service area? Shelters in the rest of King County with advertising may not make up from being able to do it in Seattle but it would still be extra income, no?

  16. @Andreas – You make it sound like Metro has completely stopped trash pickup and cleaning of its existing shelters which isn’t the case. Many neighborhood stops have shelters – especially around major intersections – and in the places they don’t have them there’s usually a pretty good reason (residential street, steep slope, low usage stop). Most of the routes that I use frequently have shelters spaced fairly close (within a few blocks) and so folks either go to the closest shelter or use an umbrella while they’re waiting. Frankly I can’t think of any non-shelter stop near me that I think would make sense to have converted to a sheltered stop.

    I think Metro already has too much advertising (I’d get rid of bus wraps in a second). Having public entities become increasingly dependent on corporate money is an ugly trend in my opinion.

  17. Publicola just posted a news item that is rather interesting regarding the DBT. It seems that the project engineers have run afoul of the Federal GSA with regards to the historic Federal Building and the Feds have cut off access to the building until their repeated concerns about the effects of the project on this building are addressed. While the Schadenfreude is exquisite, the comments on the article are even more entertaining. Full of people quick to blame the Mayor or anti-tunnel people for this mishap.

  18. Looking for a explanation for this. I caught a bus on 45th St in Wallingford, headed to Northgate. The driver instructed me, and subsequently had to instruct most every subsequent boarder, to pay on exit. I thought this was only for when you enter a bus inside the RFA? I rarely take transit in Wallingford so am I missing something?

    1. It would be helpful if you gave the route number you were on. It’s not just when you enter in the RFA, but any time you enter a bus that started its trip in the RFA during the hours the RFA is in effect that you need to pay on exit. It’s damned confusing; they just need to get rid of the RFA.

      1. Yes you’re right about it being 16. I didn’t know bit about the bus originating in the rfa.

        What happens if you tap before the driver catches you? Do you tap again on exit?

  19. I returned from my trip to Queens yesterday.

    I cheated on the first leg of the journey. I was planning to walk 4 blocks to get the Q10 on Lefferts Blvd. which runs direct to Kennedy and makes stops at the terminals. However, my mother and two sisters seeing the chilly rain kept shoving twenties into my hand saying “take a cab!”, so I used a car service (hey, taxis are transit…in this case, a “livery cab”).

    When I arrived in Sea-Tac, I tried to retrace my steps back to the 180. The signage back to LINK is pretty good…lots of big overhead signs in Helvetica that trace the route. The route is a bit long, and in my case, you have to know about the existence of the 180 to know that it stops at the LINK station, since the signs don’t indicate exactly what the “transit” is used for.

    For example, the signs don’t actually say “Transit to Kent Station and points Southbound”…or even, “Train and Bus to Seattle”. Remember this is the Seattle-Tacoma airport but there seems to be some denialism on the Tacoma part.

    So, assuming I would find the way to the 180 to Kent Station I walked over the International Blvd pedestrian bridge to the LINK station. I wasn’t sure if it was just across the street or in one of the Bays of the transit center and the signage didn’t make it especially clear. Also, the order of information seemed to be (1) LINK (2) RapidRide (3) the 180. I finally noticed a station across the street and hoped it was the return ride for the 180 and it was although again, RapidRide had its own billboard/kiosk that dwarfed any information for the 180.

    The 180 took me quickly to Kent Station where I soon (at 4:30 pm) caught the 168 that took me up 256th on Kent East Hill, right next to my apartment complex.

    Overall on the Seattle side, the key “link” for me is the 180. I find this bus a hidden gem for travelers from South King County since it runs frequently (every 30 minutes) from Kent Station.

    I think they may want to emphasize it more and have signage that says “To Kent Station and Tacoma” or “To Sounder to South” in addition to all the LINK signage.

    Also, since there is a bus stop up at the north end of the terminals, they might want to clearly distinguish what each is for, by destination(s) as well just having a simple Bus icon.

Comments are closed.