RapidRide C is coming to West Seattle next year, and as with the first two lines Metro will schedule a service restructure to occur at the same time. County transportation advisor Chris Arkills told me that the process will begin this Fall.
I thought about putting together another service restructure proposal as I did for the Rainier Valley (twice) and Zach did for Capitol Hill, but it occurred to me that I don’t actually know anything about West Seattle. So instead, consider this the thread to make your case for how service should change. If there are good ideas I might synthesize them into a coherent proposal.
Not every comment has to be a fully accounted plan. However, here are some useful principles and other thoughts:
- New service is more likely to happen if you can identify old service that could be eliminated to resource it.
- The obvious place for savings it to rely on RapidRide C to get people downtown and not run all of those other buses on the West Seattle Bridge.
- If Rainier Valley buses are redirected to feed Link, the train at least provides a time advantage when far enough from downtown when the speed differential exceeds the transfer penalty. However, since all buses will travel the same speed on the West Seattle bridge, forcing a transfer to RR C is a pure time penalty for the rider, meaning the benefits of doing so should be large.
I have no idea what Metro is going to propose this fall, but it can’t hurt to let them know that there’s support in the community for bold change.
69 Replies to “Crowdsourced West Seattle Suggestions”
Well, there’s a definite shortage of east/west connectivity in West Seattle. In particular, the Delridge area is one of Seattle’s best-known “food deserts”, because there’s no easy way to get to the relatively nearby California Ave grocery stores (unless you have a car, that is!).
I would like to see a circulator route which connects North Delridge to the Junction. My thoughts are something like this: North on Delridge, left under the bridge, up Avalon to the junction (connecting with RapidRide here), down Sylvan following the 128 route, and back to Delridge. While it’s hard to imagine eliminating people’s one-seat rides downtown in favor of a circulator like this, I think a route like this would be very well used by the many transit-dependent Delridge residents.
As an example of this lack of connectivity, take a look at this google transit route from Delridge to the nearest grocery store http://goo.gl/fk54q
The options are a mile walk each way, a trip downtown, or a trip to White center!
I think you could get to the IGA in downtown in that amount of time – and on one bus too.
True, but that’s not really the point. The point is that Delridge residents without cars are effectively cut-off from a major business district which is less than a mile and a half away.
Yeah, Delridge residents closest grocer by transit is the QFC at Westwood village. In sheer distance, it’s twice as far away as QFC on Alaska, but is the only practical option for the carless.
There is also an Albertsons directly on the Route 120 in White Center.
Combine the 21 and 51 into one route?
Combine resources of the 22, 55 and 128 into more frequent service on 128 with all trips going to S Atlantic St?
Use resources from 39, 56 and 57 to bring back the 50 but have it go to Alki?
Have Water Taxi shuttles replace Route 37 and Gatewood (replacing 22)?
Have Route 125 go to Alaska Junction instead of downtown?
Too often, well meaning proposals offer up a ‘plan’, then proceed to justify it based on whatever facts to support it can be articulated.
As a pre-cursor to any proposals, it would be useful to have a common knowledge base to work from – say two maps.
The first shows total activity (ons/offs) of every bus zone in West Seattle.
The second shows screen lines of total throughput, along with high origin/destination pairings.
Routes, families of routes, types of service, frequency, shelters and payment systems can now be determined to meet actual needs.
Wait, isn’t this exactly what our Metro Service Planners do every day?
I’m not discounting good ideas, but it seems to me good route planning starts in the trenches, not from the podium.
When does it ever hurt to get an outside perspective? A fresh set of eyes, or a different mindset?
Yes, but sometimes planners do not know everything so they rely on community feedback. While the planners are “experts” at directing service, they are not experts at living in the community they are changing service in. Both perspectives are useful.
You’re both spot on. I just don’t know the neighborhood well enough to slap some ideas up on the internet.
I would be useful for the public to see the two maps I suggested though.
It would be useful but we can’t force Metro to put up these maps. So we can either speculate with our best guesses, or do nothing. Speculating gives us something to do until Link reaches Lynnwood and Redmond.
That means that the Metro planners always get it right – because they have two maps. There’s a flaw in that thinking though, they can only tell what you want based on what you already are using. They have no data for people not currently using the bus but would if there were changes.
Actually, maybe Metro would be interested in putting some of that information out for RR C, D, E, Capitol Hill, Rainier Valley, and the north Link area. Maybe not all those regions, but maybe one or two at a time. Both to let people “play the route-building game”, and to feed back comments that would show where their (Metro’s) interests and community interests overlap. It’s the kind of thing a computer company would do but maybe not an agency like Metro. Still, if there were somebody in the planning department who pushed for it, it might happen.
Good idea Mr. Orr. Back in 2001, when I drove the 150 (retired now) I thought it odd that there were 3 stops within 5 blocks of each other, just south of Kent. I suggested they cut it down to one (the one being used), it happened and nobody complained.
With that little success in hand, I went into HQ, with the idea of consolidating all the bus zones in King Co, based on on/off and spacing criteria. The facility planner (they do the bus zones, and service does the routes – [?turf war, anyone]brought up a wonderful map of every bus zone, how many ons/offs, by route. An amazing map, which showed my RT150 example was not isolated in the system.
I suggested one or two people sit down and ‘scrub’ the system for inefficiencies like that, was told nice things about how Metro is always looking for ways to save a buck, and told to not worry my pretty little head about it.
“They” (whoever they were) preferred to look at bus zone consolidation on a route by route basis, after a thorough community feedback process, whenever routes are changed. Maybe one or two per year.
Well, a long story short, it took an audit and massive budget shortfall to get Metro to go on a stop diet, so here we are, 10 years latter.
My point in this little rant is that Metro has the tools, but many times the institutional barriers to change are made out of bricks.
That’s why I suggested trying to get the raw data out there for the public to make informed suggestions.
I hope Martin goes for it, and Metro is listening in.
Will we get to play D Line next week?
Point of curiosity: Why wasn’t the C/D Line just given one name?
Maybe it was just so that the county could claim they gave Seattle two lines at once?
C and D look to be entirely different. D is in Ballard. C and F I could see combined. My question is how far north of TIB does it make sense to backtrack and pick up Link for trips to DT Seattle?
The C/D is just one long line coupled downtown, but with a different name for each half, as is the tradition in American route numbering.
The C and F Lines end a few miles apart. The C/D line is already really long. It would be more likely to be able to extend the F Line northward from Burien TC, taking over at least a portion of the 120. But I also thought the 120 would be a good line to couple with the E.
Extending the F Line to Westwood would wipe out most of the point of the 128 and most of the point of 560west.
I think Brent is assuming that the C and D lines will be through-routed, like Ballard and West Seattle lines often are.
Having two letters gives them the flexibility to through-route or not. They’re two different markets. The A is not through-routed with the 124, even at night. And they’ll be starting as RapidRide in two different years. Through-routing makes routes less reliable because a delay on one side of the route gets magnified on the other side. So I doubt Metro will through-route the C, D, or E, not with how much they’re trying to make them frequent and reliable.
The C and D Line(s) will both be launched in 2012.
Rapid Ride C should come online about the time Metro can start utilizing the “Connection Protection” feature on the new radio system. I don’t know how well this feature would fit into Rapid Ride with its headway based schedule, but it could be a way to sell loss of the coveted “one seat ride” from downtown.
With the “Connection Protection” feature, specific RR C Trips could be turned into virtual 21, 22, 37, or any other route. The RR C trip would arrive at a designated transfer point where the operator of the connecting route can use the CP feature to know when the connecting service is due. It’ll be pretty slick if it works properly.
Back in the ‘good ole days’ we used to call the coordinator for passengers trying to make a tight connection. Most of the regulars knew we would do this – heck, I even announced it from time to time. Getting through to the coordinator was usually pretty quick.
Then, the channels got congested, and that little procedure bit the dust.
I hope the CP feature will replace that.
Ah, a new meaning for CRC – Coordinator Reduced Calling
The system looks well designed to dramatically reduce calls to the coordinator. There are “Text” messages we can send which are pre-defined messages like “running 15 minutes late” or “Overloaded”… Stuff like that. And yes, they are emphasizing that we are only to send these messages at a stop.
The coordinators can also send us text messages that include a typed message. As the trainer said, “They have a keyboard. You don’t”. The usual “It’ll never work” crowd seems strangely silent about this new system which leads me to hope that it will actually improve things. :)
We still call for connections, BTW, but frequently we can’t get through.
CT drivers refuse not only to call but even wait if another bus is pulling up. I had a bus pull over because it was ahead of schedule and as I was running up to the bus it drove away, you know because being on time is more important than having people ride the bus.
So you want “Rapid”Ride to stop and wait for connecting service? Uh oh.
No, the other way around. Going to Downtown is no big deal – catch the first 21, 22, or other route that connects to RR C and then grab the first RR C bus that comes along. Given the frequency, no big deal. It’s coming home that’s a bit sketchy. If you figure out how to link the connecting routes going the other way to a specific RR C Trip, most of the connecting passengers will be coming from downtown. I’d never suggest making RR wait for any bus unless it was a *very* short wait and headways were in the 15 minute range. Make sense?
With the “terminus” of the Line C at Westwood Village, Westwood Village will become a major transfer point, including between the Line C and the 120 that should have gotten the RapidRide treatment first, if ridership had been the primary consideration.
All routes that use White Center as their terminus should be adjusted to serve Westwood Village. This includes the 23, 60, and 125. The 22 could be truncated to terminate at Westwood Village. At least until another direct line is created between Westwood Village and the airport, the 560 should be altered to terminate at Westwood Village and provide the same service level as the rest of the 560.
As an alternative to keeping the 560 to Westwood Village, perhaps the 120 could be extended to the airport, serving the 180 corridor. Then, the 560 could be truncated to terminate at the airport/station. Same with the 180.
Part of the changes I’d like to suggest can’t really be done until the new South Park Bridge opens. South Park should have gotten more service on the 132 during the closure period, in exchange for giving up the 131 for the time being. But that’s not going to happen, and by the time we have the bridge, Metro will have done the West Seattle route revision and won’t want to revisit the routes for at least another generation. ‘(
Oh, and the routes will be even more askew when the Argo Bridge (Airport Way) closes for a year or so.
So, keep in mind that this suggestion is for summer of 2013, at the earliest:
Revise the 132 to be a peak-only bidirectional commuter route. Frankly, there is little residential on the 132 north of Cloverdale, and it is all within the 60 walkshed. Increase service on the 60, including earlier in the morning to get students to Sealth and Denny and later on weekend nights, when it serves as the best route to be fed by post-game Link. Axe the front-door stop at the VA, and replace it with a dial-a-ride type shuttle around the VA complex.
Straighten out all the routes that serve Olsen-Meyer Park&Ride to have on-street stops in front of Arrowhead Gardens, instead of doing the 5-10-minute loop-de-loop through the park&ride. This straightening should happen sooner rather than later, as Arrowhead residents are marooned on weekends.
But back to West Seattle proper…
Keep in mind that a lot of extra service hours in the California Ave corrridor were provided by the monorail car tab, so that bonus money will eventually run out.
Cuts are going to happen, especially to the empty circulators. Think grid. Think better connectivity to South Seattle Community College. (I’d love to have the 60 go there, but it is a little bit of a detour.) Think about the heavy ridership on Delridge and its poor connections (buses and politically).
I’d like to see the 120 get the RapidRide (or better) treatment within a few years.
I’d also like to see the 125 rerouted on the south end to serve Holden and Westwood Village and on the north end to connect to West Seattle High, the Triangle, and maybe other points in the California corridor. Make the 125 a horseshoe route so that more West Seattleites can get to SSCC by bus.
Oh, and we can’t forget about Vashon. Axe the North American portion of the 116, 118, and 119. They’ve got the foot ferry and the RapidRide. How many duplicate options do they really need?
According to the most recent metro document, routes 116X, 118X and 119X are to be axed as part of the 17% service cut. The route 118 and 119 remain (I assume that means the intra Vashon Island Shuttles)?
I wonder how much money could be saved if the 118 were the only fixed route on Vashon, and a couple paratransit vans handled dial-a-ride service for any trips off the spine, be they Access passengers or regular passengers.
Also, so that Vashon gets *something* out of the restructure, why not restore 118 Sunday service, and Access service? Vashon has lots of tourists and time-sharers on Sunday, who are forced to take their cars across. And denying Sunday Access service to just that portion of the county doesn’t strike me as fair.
I’d like to see an “X” made up of RR C and the 128, with the 128 extended to Alki and made frequent (15 min, at least from White Center north). That would connect most of West Seattle together and would make it not so hard to get to Alki.
Delridge and 16th are really cut off, but the main reason is the hills which we can’t do anything about. So we can make east-west service “better” there but it’ll probably never be good. It would make most sense to put a supermarket on Delridge. I believe the 120 is on Metro’s radar for the second wave of RapidRide routes if that should ever happen. But that unfortunately won’t help connect Delridge to the Junction or Alki.
It’s too bad the C doesn’t extend to White Center which is the main transfer point in the area. That would make more sense than extending all the other routes to meet the C in Westwood Village.
I think it does make sense to extend or reroute the other routes to Westwood Village because it adds an important amenity to these routes: a grocery store. Westwood Village is also a more pleasant place for a layover than White Center.
Also, there’s no way the 120 could have been RapidRide’d before the C. You can’t just put RapidRide in a corner of West Seattle and bypass the center and most of the transfer points: it would look like you’re hardly serving West Seattle at all.
120 goes all the way to White Center, is one of the most-ridden lines in the county, and has atrocious service nights and weekends. I agree with Mike: if anything, Rapid Ride C is “bypassing” that market.
Biggest market =/= majority market.
How about this:
Move the 128 to serve Alaska and Genessee to Delridge, then follow the 125’s routing to 16th and delete the 125. Among other benefits, the 128’s SSCC service becomes less of a detour, and Delridge gets improved east-west connectivity to the Junction.
You do need to find replacement service on Morgan St and Sylvan Way, though.
I don’t quite understand your proposal. Do you mean to follow the entire 125 routing from White Center to Genesee & Delridge, then southwest on Genesee-Avalon-Fauntleroy to Alaska Jct, then the regular route?
I was actually thinking the opposite, that the 128 should take the most direct and densest route from White Center to Alaska Jct. That would tie West Seattle together northeast to southeast, to complement RR C which goes northeast to southwest. I thought the 128 did that already, but I didn’t realize it had a short segment on 16th which seems inefficient and unproductive. So I would tie together Alaska Jct – Westwood Village – White Center in the most direct way, so that if you’re at any one of them you could go to another. (And extend it to Alki, which is one of the main destinations in West Seattle.) Perhaps move the 128 going from White Center to Roxbury-Barton-25th-Thistle-California-AK Jct (subsuming the 22 and adding evening service). That would leave out a part of the 22 on 26th/24th/Trenton part of the 22; I don’t know enough about West Seattle to say whether lower 35th or 25th are more important, but somebody else can figure that out.
Then the 125 could be modified to go strictly from White Center to AK Jct along your routing. Possibly extend it on either end to any underserved areas. That would force a transfer from downtown to SSCC, but it would give some service on 16th without overserving it and underserving the WC-Westwood Village-AK Jct connection.
I’d rather the 128 wasn’t redundant with RR C.
If RRC and (supposedly)22 terminate at Westwood Village, then what bus will provide service between Westwood and White Center? I think there’s no harm in extending RRC to White Center.
Also–Route 21 trips that originate from Westwood Village should serve the stops southbound on 26th Ave SW at SW Cambridge St, and westbound on SW Roxbury St at 27th and 30th Avenues SW.
The 120 is, and will continue to, connect Westwood and White Center.
Also, the 60 is likely going to be extended to Westwood.
The 120 seems to stop 3 blocks away from Westwood Village (Delridge to 25th), and 10 blocks from a transfer to the C (Delridge to 26th). So it seems to be a very loose connection.
As a resident of West Seattle and a Metro employee that actually rides the bus a fair amount, this is what I would like to see happen in West Seattle:
New Rt 20 – Operate between California Av SW & SW Atlantic St in Admiral and 14 Av SW & SW 98 St in White Center. Via Rt 55 routing to Fauntleroy Wy SW & SW Alaska St, L on Fauntleroy Wy SW, R on SW Avalon Wy, R on 35 Av SW, L on SW Barton St, C on SW Barton Pl via Rt 54 Local to White Center. Same in reverse. Transfers to Downtown at 35 Av SW & SW Avalon Wy to Rapid Ride C or new Rt 50 (see below) for 1st Av S in SODO.
21 Local – Cancelled. Replace by Rt 20 and Rt 21 Express and Rt 50.
21 Express – Same as existing route. Peak hour only.
22 – Operate between California Av SW & SW Atlantic St in Admiral and Westwood Village Monday thru Friday days only. Complements Rt 20 between Admiral and Alaska Jct. Via Rt 55 routing to Alaska Jct, then complements the 128 to Morgan Jct. Continues on California Av SW, R on SW Thistle St, R on Delridge Wy SW, R on SW Barton Pl, R on 25 Av SW to SW Henderson St. To Admiral, C on 25 Av SW, R on SW Trenton St, L on Delridge Wy SW, R on SW Thistle St and pretty much the same route in reverse. Transfer to Rapid Ride C at Alaska Jct or new Rt 50 (see below) for 1st Av S in SODO.
23 – Same as now.
37 – Revised to its old routing between Admiral District and Alaska Jct via Rt 51.
New Rt 50 – As proposed before. Replaces Rts 21 and 22 on 1st Av S.
51 – Cancelled. Replaced peak hour by Rt 37 and Rt 57.
53 – Cancelled. Partially replaced by Rts 37, 773 and 775.
54 Local – Delete. Use Rapid Ride C and Rt 125 between Westwood Village and White Center.
54 Express – Same as now.
55 – Delete. Replaced by Rts 20 and 22 between Admiral and Alaska Jct and Rapid Ride C.
56 Local – Same as now.
56 Express – Same as now.
57 – Same as now.
60 – Extend to Westwood Village. Operate in the reverse direction of Rapid Ride C on SW Barton St and SW Roxbury St.
85 – Delete. Add night owl service to Rapid Ride C and Rt 120.
116 Express – Delete. Use Rapid Ride C or Rt 54 Express.
118 Express – Delete West Seattle to Downtown Seattle section. Use Rapid Ride C or Rt 54 Express.
119 Express – Delete West Seattle to Downtown Seattle section. Use Rapid Ride C or Rt 54 Express.
120 – Add more Night Owl service.
125 – Via Westwood Village instead of White Center.
128 – End all trips at Alaska Jct. Rts 20 and 22 cover route between Alaska Jct and Admiral Jct.
560 – End all trips at Westwood Village instead of Alaska Jct.
773 – Operate year round.
775 – Operate year round.
I’m sure there are better uses of resources, but just a few ideas I had…
Will say more when fireworks aren’t consadtrvlamoooooooly disrupting my train ofonjkkjllknjnn thought, but your 50 seems kinda milk-run-y if it’s serving 1st Ave S.
A few items to keep in mind when restructuring West Seattle routes:
1 The cuts proposal that came out with the $20 tab campaign includes quite few routes in West Seattle. Even if the car tab is enacted, these routes are on the bottom of Metro’s list, probably for performing poorly on the new RTTF performance criteria. Bottom line: West Seattle will probably have fewer service hours to play with in any restructure.
2 Existing e-w and intra-West Seattle routes perform very poorly on ridership, despite “everyone’s wish” that there was more e-w service. Short routes require high frequency to attract riders, and Metro has been unable to provide that with 40-foot buses. Minibuses, such as those in use on the Water Taxi, should be expanded across the peninsula for intra-west Seattle service.
3. I Don’t see many opportunities to rearrange service due to RR C. It’s basically just improved frequency on the 54, except Westwood Village-white Center connectivity is lost due to truncation of RR C. The 22 also makes this connection, but Metro is threatening to cut it back to peak hours only. So now service hours must be added to some other route to fill this gap. Perhaps extend the 60?
4. One idea I have is to beef up the 128 to 15-minute frequencies, by eliminating the 55 and 125. Frequent 128s on California would residents to travel south to RR C or north to the 56. The section of California outside the walkshed of these two routes is pretty short. More frequent service would make easier connections between the junctions, SSCC and White Center.
Wouldn’t cancelling the 125 eliminate all bus service on 16th and SCCC? There’s a hill between there and Delridge, so the 120 doesn’t really serve it.
The 128 serves SCCC, but as a long loop-de-loop. It doesn’t really do anything for residents north of the college.
Ack! That would be SSCC, not SCCC.
My mistake, I thought the 128 ran on California, not 16th. Still, the part of 16th north of SSCC would not have any bus service.
I used to live near the W. Seattle Junction and always dreamed of having a 3rd water taxi shuttle. The water taxi was/is a magical mode of transit, but the trip took about an hour because the shuttle ride took forever.
While sitting on the shuttle inching along up Avalon way, I would think to myself…
how pleasant it would be if there was a third shuttle.
Upon arrival of the Water Taxi, shuttles 1 and two would head south on Alki Ave SW and Harbor Ave SW respectively. They would both cut up the peninsula at and cross paths somewhere at Alaskan Junction, completing the one another’s route in reverse.
The third route would go down California Ave SW for as long as it ensure it could turn around and make it back to the dock in time for the next boat.
Because you’ve taken California SW out of the equation for the first two routes, the new third route could extend further south than it currently does, making the water taxi more accessible to a greater number of people and making the trip to the Junction and Admiral District way faster.
I don’t live in West Seattle now, but I’m considering buying a home in the walkshed of the 120 – which seems to be the most affordable place in the city with frequent transit service.
One thing that would be on my wishlist, for sure, would be better connections to RRA or Central Link at the south end of the routes.
It’s a bit off-putting to think I’ll either have to backtrack downtown, or make a 2 seat ride just to get to RRA.
Burien TC is overrated as a route terminus. It’ll be fine as a park&ride, but most of the routes that stop there should either be extended or rerouted. TIBS and the airport should get more consideration as route termini.
Having the 120 end at Burien blows a beautiful opportunity to give many West Seattleites a 1- or 2-seat ride to the airport.
Having the 132 go there at all, when it comes within a mile of TIBS and then takes a sharp west turn to take a longer path to Burien is utterly frustrating to me as a South Parker.
The 139 is a low-ridership circulator, and the local version of the 123. It could extend to take over the Riverton portion of the 132 and give riders there an option for a quicker trip downtown via the TIBS Link connection.
Having the 560 go to Burien, duplicating the 180, and then ending, doesn’t make sense unless the two were perfectly offset to create 15-minute headway. Surprisingly, they almost are, on paper, going west. Going east, it’s a 10/20 alternation. Having a single route between the airport and Burien would yield better and more dependable headway for the apartment dwellers and various work sites in between. Just do it with the 120, I say.
Consider that the 560 gets more flyers to the airport. That experiment has run its course and fizzled. The 120 gets more workers to the airport. Since Delridge got shafted on the RapidRide choice, giving it the direct ride to the airport would be a nice consolation.
The major problem with TIB is the lack of layover space. RR A and 124 (both using artic coaches Mo-Sa, 124 uses 40 ft on Sundays), and the peak only 129 take up all the space to layover at TIB. I drive RR A in the afternoons, and with the 10 minute peak frequency, sometimes we have to layover on the roadway, since there is only 3 layover spots (the one near Bay 2 under LINK is used by 129, since it is a short layover space).
How do you layover in the roadway? Doesn’t that prevent other buses from getting in?
So we get rid of some of that surface parking to add layover space. I’d like to see BTC and TIBS consolidated into one hub. Having 2 transit hubs within a couple miles of each other that hardly share any connections is counterproductive.
There’s going to be another surface lot being built at the new terminus south of the airport, and once that’s open we’ll be able to repurpose some of that land at TIBS.
Maybe the 140 would be better *not* pulling into the station, and just have on-street stops. That would certainly be more Rapid. Most people from Burien trying to get downtown use the 121/122/123, or the 120 off-peak. For the airport, they use the 180 or 560. Southcenter riders going downtown use the 150. I’m not sure if anyone uses the 156 Zorro route though.
The 129 is going away. It was an interesting experiment in how far riders were willing to backtrack for a Link connection. It was largely within the 128’s walkshed anyway.
As for the repurposing, I’m glad there is no money left to waste the station the way 200th is being wasted by surrounding it with parking garages.
The other advantage of Burien TC is its proximity to Saar’s, Fred Meyer, Albertson’s, and Trader Joe’s. TIBS’ parking lot is TOD with a supermarket on the first level waiting to happen.
If I recall from the process in 2009, Metro intended to have the 140 stay on 154th/Southcenter Blvd, but the City of Tukwila said no.
TIB is a bad place to transfer because there’s nothing there except acres of asphalt. I still can’t believe they built a transit center in the middle of nowhere. Burien is unfortunately too far west, but at least it’s a destination as well as a transfer point.
The 129 is the house my friend’s house is on. There’s no grocery store or anything within walking distance, just the SeaTac community center. It’s a 1.5 mile walk to TIB and a 1 mile walk to the A. An east-west route from Burien to TIB would be most useful, although I realize it’s a low-priority location for an all-day bus.
One more reason to have routes like the 120 and 180 terminate at the airport is that it makes it easier for those routes to serve both the station and the south terminal stop.
What’s this route 50 that a couple people have alluded to. I vaguely remember it but not enough to remember where it went. Was it the one that went from West Seattle to Columbia City?
Yes, although in the late 90’s it was drastically modified (I think it was peak-only before the route was deleted in 2000). There was a recent proposal for a new route 50 (not sure of the exact routing) that’s been mentioned a few times in the West Seattle Blog, but it eventually was dropped.
Being on Long Island this week, I’m starting to think that Puget Sound is really over-transited. Too much…much too much….
Having spent a while living in Long Island, it is ridiculously under-transited. Public transit just isn’t an option for enormous swaths of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. With the removal of Long Island Bus from the Metropolitan Transit Agency, it’s only going to get worse.
What’s your ideal level of transit?
Mine is the level necessary to get around reasonably without cars. Ideally I’d like 5-minute service every half mile apart in urban neighborhoods, and in south King County RapidRide A level service on the 120, 150, 140, 169, 180, 181, and a Rainier Beach-MLK-Renton route.
Since nobody has brought up West Seattle light rail, can I assume the proposal went nowhere in the formation of the transit master plan?
We’re a ways away from that by any measure.
Comments are closed.