A list of options for those who missed the last train (e.g. catching the A Line to TIBS, and transferring to the 124) would be cool. Sleeping at the airport or catching a cab to a hotel room you’ve already paid for downtown is bummer game.
Not having hourly service on the 124 overnight is bummer game. Losing late night service because Prop 1 fails is really bummer game.
“Enhanced pat down” – Oh Myyyyyy!
Oh, come on, Velo-notice that the passenger just walked by the advanced pat-down- another reason to get train service, which only annoys people by posting idiotic “security videos” at stations.
However bullet trains probably won’t stop at Havre Montana, where Border Patrol officers often do take people off trains with no border in sight. Score: zero for a free country, point to freedom’s enemies.
Also encountered a conductor who looked like Columbo about Columbo’s present age with a conductor hat bragging about his authority to identify terrorists by their ID and tickets- even farther from the border and with even less authority-on the Coast Starlight in Oregon.
Like any terrorist would think Amtrak was worth the powder to blow it to…Texas? However, recalling the Ford Pinto’s history, terrorists only need to claim credit if a rental car blows up in flames when it gets rear-ended on its way to the airport.
Also, why does late-night 124 service end at TIBS when the only real market at that hour is airport to downtown? Metro would have done better by just cutting the late-night 124 trips and operating the old 194 in its place.
There is a reasonable amount of night ridership along the 124. The solution isn’t to skip that ridership and run buses on the freeway, but to extend 124 trips to the airport after Link stops running. Unfortunately, that would require a whole extra bus (there is pretty much no slack in the schedule) and so is unlikely to happen.
Does it really? The A-line already runs the stretch. It’s just a matter of thru-routing it with the 124, at least for a couple of late-night trips.
That would have to go past the feds (either for use of the RapidRide equipment on 124 trips or for use of non-RapidRide equipment on A Line trips).
Because TIB is a transit center. :) It does become silly at night though, when there’s nothing else to transfer to and nobody will drive to it to take the 124 or A. The 194 did not run at night; it stopped at 9pm.
It would be nice if Link service continued for another hour Mon-Sat and another 2 hours on Sunday.
RRA->124 connections don’t seem very well-timed, especially on Sundays. I would agree that 124 ought to serve SeaTac once Link service is terminated. It’s unrealistic to expect an express like the 194 as the 124 serves plenty of intermediate traffic along its route
I assumed that virtually nobody was getting off or on the 124 except at its endpoints. If I’m wrong, I stand corrected.
When the 194 stopped running in the evening, people leaving the airport later would have to sit through the 124 stopping at almost every single stop along the way (except at the Boeing offices).
The 124 used to go all the way to the airport at night, didn’t it? I’m pretty sure it did, because I used it to get to the airport a few years ago (mid-2010?), and I don’t remember transferring at TIBS. I do remember walking directly into the Sea-Tac terminal from a public sidewalk, which I thought was kind of cool (I’ve also used STAS for non-airport trips… considering how much land we devote to airports around here it’s nice that they’re at least somewhat better integrated with their surroundings than, say, O’Hare).
(I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other whether the 124 should continue to the terminal at night — my recollection of that trip is that lots of people used that run to go lots of places beside the airport, and if there’s no room in the schedule there’s no room in the schedule.)
The 124 has terminated at TIB ever since the station opened AFAIK. The `174 was truncated and then replaced by the A. The 194 used to terminate at the south (west) end of the terminal. That was on the airport arrivals street, not a public street. You may have used one of the routes west of there on Air Cargo Road but I don’t know much about them.
Where is everyone one 124 at 2 in the morning going anyway? If they’re not coming home from a badly delayed flight, what are they doing?
The 124 has the usual set of late-night riders on a core route: workers with weird schedules, partiers, a few homeless. There are lots of weird schedules along its route in particular (given the industrial areas it serves), and it’s had well-used late-night service for decades.
Major sources of riders not at the endpoints are 144/Pac Hwy (which serves as a collection point for much of south Boulevard Park); 112/Pac Hwy (people come from Allentown, which has no service); Georgetown; the industrial areas along Airport Way both north and south of the train tracks; and Evergreen.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that I probably transferred to the 174 or something at TIBS that one night in 2010 and forgot it happened because stumbling from one bus to another at TIBS at 4AM is not the sort of momentous event I’d remember 4 years later (also a 3-seat bus trip to the airport at that hour is definitely what I’d have done at the time). As for late-night 124 passengers, my one trip supports David’s account. I recall many people boarding downtown wearing private security uniforms.
First there was the war on Christmas. Then there was the war on cars. Now, it seems, there’s a full-on war against single family zoned neighborhoods. Would one of you anti-single-family-neighborhood activists tell me what your group is about and why you hate single family homes and single family zoned neighborhoods? Some say it all goes back to public transit. Low density is the enemy of public transit. The higher the density, the higher the ridership. So where a normal person sees a nice, quiet, Leave it to Beaver neighborhood, density zealots see a type of zoning that is an obstacle to the thing they love most: transit.
Why is everything a war with you, Sam? Can’t you see that demand for more in-city multi-family housing is simply the “invisible hand” working it’s magic? Are you really advocating for a continued socialized central planning system of forcing people to choose single family housing/car ownership/off street parking over multi-family developments in walkable bike-able areas? It’s not like Seattle’s developers are building high rise condos and filling them with tenants at gunpoint.
Velo, let me ask you a direct question. Do you believe the SF, or Single Family Zone should be outlawed?
No, but nor do I feel we should freeze current zoning boundaries in Amber.
I, on the other hand, being a libertarian, believe the laws making it a crime to construct multi-family homes in certain areas should be repealed. If you want to call that “outlawing single-family zoning,” be my guest – but that sounds to me as silly a phrase as “outlawing marijuana prohibition”; in both cases we wouldn’t be outlawing something but repealing laws.
Zoning consists entirely of outlawing things.
Do you believe in outlawing multi-family houses, Sam? If so, why do you support this big-government, social-engineering, War On Apartments, War on Boarding Houses, your-family-must-conform-to-our-views policy?
(If your answer is “I’m an authoritarian socialist and I believe in central planning to force people to live in my preferred fashion”, then you can join hands with Bailo and promote your socialist single-family-housing utopia, and I can respect that even if I disagree. But somehow I haven’t heard that view from you…)
Sam – think about what Single Family zoning does. It outlaws denser development. Reducing the areas that outlaw denser development is hardly a war on Single Family Housing. Rather than asking why there is a war on SFH – I’d ask why we have built such high ramparts and defensive positions against denser development.
What is with the war on density? Relax zoning codes, relax parking requirements, charge people for what they use, and let the city create itself.
And the “war” on SFH is just as fake and stupid as the alleged “war on Christmas” and “war on cars” were.
That said, the extremely high amount of SFH residential zoning in Seattle (nearly 70% of all the land area in the entire city) isn’t sustainable if you want affordable housing. As the city grows, there just isn’t enough room for every 2- to 4-person household to have a 5000-square-foot lot while keeping housing prices reasonable for people other than the very wealthiest. If we want to keep the city from turning into a playground for the super-rich, we need to gradually convert some of that SFH land to denser uses. And “denser uses” doesn’t have to mean 6-story shoebox towers — it can mean something as subtle as more MIL apartments or duplexes built on SFH footprints, or in-between zoning such as East Coast-style rowhouses.
The 70% SFH residential zoning number is a bit meaninglesss if it includes all the large parks in the city, as I saw on one map that was trying to emphasize how much of the city is SFH.
I’m sorry David, but Seattle will inevitably “turn into a playground for the rich.” It is one of the world’s most scenic locations for a city, and as AGW produces ever nicer springs, summers and falls here, people will flock to the lovely location. They’ll winter in Costa Rica.
Perhaps Seattle could elect Prince Rainier as Mayor to complete the transformation.
Just abolish the sales tax and replace it with an income tax. That’s worked pretty nicely here in keeping those pesky wealthy individuals away.
Sam, what do you think the natural distribution of single-family vs multifamily (and commercial) would be if the zoning restrictions were repealed and people could build whatever they wanted anywhere? (Except LULUs like polluting factories or waste dumps, which were the original purpose for zoning.)
“Single-family neighborhood” is an oxymoron if you think about it. Single-family home implies a self-contained isolated unit. Neighborhood implies a shared community. Only in 20th century America have the two concepts been combined on such a large scale, once personal motorized transportation was invented to traverse the large distances that result. Americans moving from farms to cities brought their freestanding farmhouses with them, instead of adapting to urban life.
You’re not old enough to remember horse-powered vehicle, Sam. But the reason nobody talks about the cruel and bloody War on Horses is that people still are in trauma about seeing their four-footed friends shipped off to the glue factories.
But one hoped for improvement that didn’t happen: certain comments to STB still leave the streets deeper in horse-droppings than in the eighteen seventies. True justice for the goose-stepping horse-murderers every time they step in it!
Since it’s an open thread, I’ll ask something completely off topic. There is a Metro driver who turns off the electronic announcements/signs on the bus when he’s driving. Has anyone else encountered this? When I asked him, the driver said that he prefers to make his own announcement. However, he does not announce all the major stops, and oral announcements don’t do much good for anyone with limited hearing. Is this really a decision left to the operator, or is he a rogue? I have left a couple of detailed complaints with Metro, but no resolution yet.
Brendon, your comment couldn’t be more on-topic! I don’t know if it’s up to the driver or not, but if he isn’t making all the announcements that the automated announcement system makes, then he’s breaking the rules, and you are right to complain.
The automated announcements are too loud and are disruptive to passengers who are trying to sleep. They also sound at minor stop like Yarrow Point freeway station, which nobody uses. I would rather see the audio just turned off. The visual signs, though, are great.
asdf, you have to be kidding me.
“Passengers who are trying to sleep” are not Metro’s concern.
Don’t go dissing Yarrow Point. I use it quite often when I’m bike commuting back to Seattle and don’t feel like taking the long way over I-90.
Here’s a secret: sometimes Evergreen Point gets overrun with bike commuters going back to Seattle. It’s not uncommon for buses’ bike racks will be full by the time they arrive at Evergreen Point, so you have to join the line of people waiting for a bus to appear that has open bike spots. However if you hop on at Yarrow Point you can effectively skip the line of people waiting with bikes at Evergreen Point. Sneaky and effective.
I’ve occasionally used Yarrow Point too, for that same reason, but it’s hardly a reason to justify a stop, let alone the gold-plated one being built. To give you an idea how little use that stop gets, at least half of the stop requests for it turn out to be people getting off at 40th St. pulling the cord too early.
I love the yarrow point announcement. It wakes me up from my slumber so that I am ready to get off at Montlake. It takes a bit to clean up the drool and eye crispies.
We can turn off audio announcements inside or outside the bus and the PA also overrides them. In the past Metro has asked us to turn off external announcements on early morning trips where those announcements may irritate residents around bus stops. (In those cases we need to revert to the old system of looking for passengers who may need help identifying their route and calling out to them – It’s pretty straightforward).
I’ve never heard of a policy against turning off electronic announcements and doing them manually. I’ve run across many operators who prefer to do so and usually announce more than the standard electronic announcements – typically with some added flair than can be enjoyable or irritating, depending on where you reside on the grumpy spectrum. I know of no easy way to turn off the visual signs inside the bus while retaining the external signage. Once we punch in the Route/Run on the DDU, the signage is mostly out of our control. The signs will change to the appropriate routes/stops, even if we forget to advance the trip on the DDU.
Not announcing stops is an ADA violation and Metro takes that seriously. That said, since the vast majority of drivers use the automated system, enforcement has been non-existent lately (at least from what I’ve seen). A general comment to Metro will likely result in a generalized policy / bulletin reminding us to make all announcements if we choose to do them manually. It would be a shame if Metro applied a heavy hand and forced us to always use the automated system. (Adding some sort of prompt on the DDU screen might help if we choose do do our own announcements)
Velo, is it possible to manually control the external signage with the new system? I would have found it very irritating if I had no control over my external signage for two reasons… first, occasionally Metro’s signage instructions resulted in a lot of confusion which could be alleviated by using a different sign code (such as “255 SEATTLE” rather than “255 SEATTLE/KIRKLAND TC” at S Kirkland P&R), and, second, I liked to blank my signs while sitting at terminals with the parking lights on for safety at night.
Once I’m outside of the CBD (downtown, for the un-initiated), I do like to turn off the automated announcements and make them myself. That said, I am announcing damn near every stop with what I hope is the right amount of self-deprecation and humour.
I’ve had one or two reports from passengers that the interior signs are not functioning, but haven’t done enough research to confirm whether that is associated with me turning off the inside announcements. If it *is* turning off the signs, that is something that needs to be fixed.
If the internal signs aren’t working it’s usually because of a system glitch which affects multiple buses In The system or because of a particular driver turning it off. As long as the announcements are made that’s cool and I don’t complain. However turning off the display usually also disables the gps reporting and frustrates those trying to use one bus away. So drivers please continue your stop announcements if you’ve been doing that but also leave the system on so OBA can continue to function.
Thanks for the info from operators! I’ve only encountered broken announcement systems a handful of times since they started operating; however, when this particular operator is driving, the audio announcements and electronic signs are off, every single time! I guess I will just keep reporting until behavior changes. Can a non-ADA customer make an official ADA complaint?
There is no such thing as an “ADA customer”.
It can take a few weeks for the driver to be notified per the responses I’ve gotten depending on the seriousness. I’ve made the report once and within two weeks it was rectified.
I mean “ADA customer” as in grounds for suit, which sometimes is the only thing that gets agencies to pay attention, regrettably.
And for the record I’m just a passenger but I do know that with metro if the announcements are off that also means that the gps isn’t working and that OBA isn’t reporting for that run.
We can still change the external signage the way we used to, although OBS will override it each time it switches the signs. I’m not aware of any ability to lock out OBS from making changes to the signs. I’ve switched signs on rare occasions but find I really don’t need to mess with it any more.
At the very least, audible announcements should be toned down to a softer volume, for example the volume level on Community Transit bus announcements is fine. I can mostly mitigate this by choosing a seat not next to the speakers, but this is something I shouldn’t have to do.
Still though, I fail to see why an audio stop indicator is really even necessary. Anyone who isn’t blind can just read the sign. Anyone who is can ask a nearby passenger or the bus driver when to get off. And for anyone riding the same route regularly, even that probably isn’t necessary. Subtle changes in road noise and/or motion (e.g. curves, starts, and stops) can provide pretty good indication where you are. On my daily commute, I could usually tell which stop is coming up next with my eyes closed, even before they started doing announcements. A blind person should naturally be much better at this type of thing than I am.
Why should a blind person be forced to do something non-blind people don’t have to do? What if the driver forgets about the request? The blind person would have no idea. It actually annoys me when the volume is too low because there’s no point in having a system if you can’t hear it. What if a blind person also has difficulty hearing?
Audible announcements allow the blind to travel independently without depending on other people. It gives them useful and precise information without having to infer from motion and noise, assuming they can in the first place.
If stop announcements weren’t necessary, then why are advocacy groups for the visually-impared fighting for them? A survey of blind transit riders in San Francisco found that 72.9% find audio announcements most useful for taking transit.
Why have next stop indicators at all when you can just look out the window and read the street name signs or ask the driver? If you don’t want to hear the announcements I suggest earplugs or headphones.
The human brain processes visual and auditory stimuli differently. Visual stimuli is relatively passive, auditory stimuli is more intrusive, forcing you to stop whatever you’re doing and pay attention right now. Even with headphones, stop announcements at a high volume level make listening to music difficult.
In general, I think toning down the volume is a reasonable compromise, and I think the volume level on community transit buses is reasonable. Those that are hard of hearing and can’t read the signs can always just choose a seat closer to the front of the bus.
Have they talked at all about improving the walk between the airport Link station and the airport? I like taking light rail to the airport, but the exposed edge of that parking garage sure gets chilly in the winter, and a friendlier/better marked path might get more visitors to use Link.
MK, when I asked why the ST- designed and built Eastgate Freeway Station isn’t better protected, and why there isn’t a cover between the Eastgate P&R and the Eastgate Freeway Station, and why there isn’t going to be a cover over the proposed ST-designed walkway between Hospital Station and Overlake Hospital, I was essentially told walkways and bus stops all over the world aren’t very well covered, or even covered at all, so I shouldn’t expect anything better than how they do it elsewhere.
For Seattle rain, which is seldom more than a drizzle, a cover is expensive and overkill. If more construction money were available, it should have gone towards a wider sidewalk to allow local buses crossing the 142nd St. bridge to stop right at the freeway station.
At this point, a wider sidewalk is needed just for the safety of people getting to and from the flyer stop.
The path is pretty well marked, as it is, and if you’re coming off the train, there is really nowhere else to go. As to weather, if you’re able to handle the wait for the train on the other end, you’re probably dressed well enough anyway.
The path is well marked; the problem is the sign wording. Visitors who haven’t seen that video don’t know what “Link light rail” is. It should say “train to Seattle” underneath it, the way O’Hare’s signs say “Train to City”. There’s one set of signs that do say that, at the very east end of the terminal, but that’s where it’s least needed.
While I agree that comfort isn’t the most important thing for most stations, an Airport station is a bit more important for the city’s (and the transit system’s) PR. It is, after all, one the first parts of the region that visitors will see – and even mild discomfort/inconvenience/confusion can color a visitor’s opinion of the city & transit.
That’s why I feel that, for an airport transit connection, seemingly-excessive signage and seemingly-excessive comfort are important. Gotta make things as simple/easy/pleasant as possible for travelers. This may not be more important than speed/reliability/practicality, but it still is important.
As for the wait on the other end…well, that’s generally the Transit Tunnel. Not much inclement weather down there.
I agree that the path is *not* well marked. Watch newbies who have never walked the path before, they are a bit tentative and unsure.
The powers that be could simply have a painted stripe on the ground that goes from the station to the terminal area. This makes it clear not just for adults but makes it more fun for kids who tend to notice things on the ground. (One of the terminals has a path of fish on the floor that I think leads towards the baggage claim/exit, subtle yet nice, and fun for kids.)
Going towards the station it’s also unclear if people should walk through the elevator areas or around it. I guess one is supposed to walk around the elevators, but I usually find it faster to walk through that area.
Are there not signs every 100 feet that say “Link this way”, “terminal this way”?
asdf, yes there are plenty of signs. However, as stated, a tourist landing might not know what Link is. “Train to Seatttle” in addition to Link light rail would be a great addition
I have a question for my fellow commenters. I’ve been giving this idea a lot of thought, and I’m about to email this idea to the STB Board for consideration. What would you people think if I became the President of the Comment Section?
Wouldn’t it be a step down from your role as spiritual leader of STB and the most sought-after and brilliant transit expert in the country? I suppose you would do it as a philanthropic gesture.
What would you do as president? Would you take over censoring comments? Which kinds would you censor?
I vote “No”.
I’m going to withhold my vote until I hear what Sam will offer us in his campaign.
A chicken in every pot?
A bicycle in every garage?
A new offensive in the war on cars?
A shiny new quick, convenient, cost-effiecieent transit system?
Require “enhanced pat down” before posting?
I think I’ve finally caught on to Sam’s ingenious scheme: get his campaign platform published as children’s literature, with the connivance of the ingenious Mr. Geisel!
I am Sam
Sam I am
I like to eat
Green eggs and ham…
Will you, will you, in a train?
Will you, will you, in the rain?
Yes, Sam, I will support your platform to give all major announcements in poetry, and to attach dining cars to all Sounders!
It seems like I’m getting a lot of negative feedback. Maybe it’s because I used the word President. I would actually be more of a moderator. I would basically keep the peace, keep out the trolls, and lift the overall tone of the comment section to more of an academic one.
Yes, keeping out the trolls would be beneficial to the community. As a foremost expert in comment moderation, I have an assignment for you: start with yourself.
I don’t have a question this week, but an idea.
On the Expand Electric Trolley Bus Service Facebook page we identified routes that could possibly be electrified. The 8, 11 and 48S were suggested, but I also thought of the 60.
It makes perfect sense–most of the overhead between Broadway and Beacon Hill is already in place. Of course, electrifying everything south and west of Beacon Hill has to wait until the new South Park Bridge is completed, but when it does, it will be West Seattle’s first ETB route since the STS days, and it will be the first ETB route to serve a Park & Ride (Olson/Meyers).
The 60 is likely to be reorganized at some point, and 12th Avenue needs bus service. There are multiple ideas on how the routes coming from Beacon, MLK, and Rainier should be connected to routes on Boren, Broadway, 12th, and 23rd, so we really have to wait for Metro’s Capitol Hill plan to see which way it’s leaning. Seattle has made a proposal in the TMP, but that won’t necessarily be it. To me it’s most likely that the 60 would take 12th because it’s a straight shot. (12th-Denny-Broadway or 12th-John-Broadway) Given the uncertainty of changing the 60, and perhaps changing it again if 12th Avenue doesn’t perform as well as expected, Metro would probably wire the for-sure routes before it.
The 48S is going to be electrified at some point. Poles and room for transformers are being included when Seattle rebuilds 23rd Ave. As with everything, it’s just a question of money.
The south half of the 60 would be substantially slowed down by electrification. I know people like to extend ETB lines everywhere, but where real-world speeds exceed 35 mph it just doesn’t make sense.
The north half (everything north of Georgetown) would work fine, but it’s a lousy route that needs rethinking, so I’d be opposed to setting it in stone with trolley wire.
The lines that could make good use of electrification are the 8N (only if it’s split), 48S (again only if it’s split), and 11. The 7 and possibly the 44 should be dieselized.
Really, the 44? Why? So idling buses can belch fumes as they sit in traffic? So that it can wake up everyone living withing three blocks at seven minute intervals from 6am onwards?
Modern diesels really don’t “belch fumes” anymore, at least not ones you can see or smell. Properly working DPFs take essentially all the soot out of diesel exhaust.
The current hybrids are also much quieter than previous generations of diesel buses.
As for why to dieselize the 44, the reason is because it necessitates such long, wasteful deadheads (some of which are “revenue trips” that no one rides) while deriving no speed or maintenance benefit from electrification. In the era of clean hybrids, I think ETBs are only warranted where they produce a speed or maintenance benefit — in other words, on city routes with steep hills.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the climb that Market Street takes as it becomes 46th Street?
With the densification of Ballard, the topography between Ballard and Fremont, and the slowness of travel through Wallingford, I can’t see how ripping out the 44’s trolley wire makes any sense.
The current return trips certainly have as much ridership as any other run of the 43. And the interlining with the 43 gets tons of use on the weekends.
That climb really isn’t very steep. A 2600 series coach can handle it at over 30 mph if it doesn’t have to stop. It can’t compare to the hills that really demand ETBs.
If you want to advocate wasting a whole bunch of money deadheading when there’s no real reason to do so, be my guest. I just can’t agree.
You don’t even necessarily have to rip out the wire or convert all trips to diesel. Just convert all of the ones that would deadhead to and from the Locks terminal. Metro already does this with a few morning trips, but now that there is a shortage of working Breda equipment they should do it with more.
Late edit: Have a look at the morning 43 schedule. No one can claim that it’s a good use of money to have 12 outbound 43 trips between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. At least half of those trips are just there as long, cumbersome Route 44 deadheads. Shorten them.
With I-link opening in a couple of years, the need for the 43-44 thru-route should significantly decrease.
Yes, at which point the trolley wire should be extended to Children’s and the 44 should terminate there.
I thought I said the South-of-Georgetown segment WOULD NOT be electrified UNTIL the New South Park Bridge is COMPLETED.
Meanwhile, in Portland:
Rumor is Metro is looking at this. Then again, the rumors I come across tend to be utter crap.
Yesterday I caught the 101 to Renton for some mountain biking… stops between I-5 and downtown Renton had lots of boardings in both directions, despite pretty horrible pedestrian conditions along and crossing the road most of the way in. I don’t know the area all that well, but I’d say the following things:
– It’s probably not a good idea to add many more stoplights on MLK through Skyway or encourage more non-industrial development along it — that would basically make it a “stroad” (like most of the 101’s route through Renton) with little hope of moving beyond that.
– Even so, existing users have to get across the road to use the 101, particularly if they live in the apartments SW of MLK, or if they’re going to some place near the Fred Meyer or Renton City Hall that the 106/107 don’t go to. Maybe this is one of those places where a couple pedestrian bridges would actually be a good idea (sort of like Aurora adjacent to Queen Anne hill)… especially as they could work with the nearby terrain to minimize extra climbing.
– The transit network might work better (requiring fewer crossings of MLK) if the 101 handed off its scenic tour of the Renton big box district to (perhaps) the 107.
Anyone more familiar with the area have thoughts or ideas?
I ride through there occasionally, and I was surprised at the usage of those bus stops. It’s not a lot of people but it’s a few every trip. The reason is that it’s a long hilly walk to any other transit service (e.g., the 106). Any reorganization will have to keep local bus on that MLK segment. But I haven’t heard of any development expansions there.
Several of us think that the 101 should not go to the P&R first all day. That’s more of a peak-hour use.
Creston Point Apartments. Lots of reasonably priced 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments. A family of 4 can live in an apartment for less than the cost of a Capitol Hill studio. Transit is good if you work in downtown Seattle (101,102), but there isn’t much of a neighborhood there and crossing the road to get to the bus stop can be lethal.
Oh, and the 101 should most definitely go to the Renton TC first. It seems like 95% of the riders on the 101 get off at Rainier Avenue and walk to their final destination. The 102 can keep its same routing, but the 101 doesn’t need to go to the South Renton P&R.
I was driving (the horror, I know) southbound on IH-5 out of Lynnwood very early this morning. While I was still north of the Lynnwood Park-and-Ride, I saw a Metro bus heading north with “TO TERMINAL” showing on it. Anybody know where that bus might have been headed? Does Metro still do the Boeing custom routes that used to be in the route-600s-series?
You were north of 405, I assume? You probably spotted Route 952, the one and only Boeing Everett route left. It runs up 167 from Auburn, and then up I-405 through Bellevue, four times northbound in the morning and four times southbound in the afternoon. It also serves Ash Way for connections with the 512 for Seattle-bound commuters.
Except that today is Sunday and it only runs on weekdays. So it couldn’t have been the 952.
This was just southwest of 405, between Alderwood Mall and the 44th Ave W exit at about 3:30 in the morning. The 952 seems reasonable but it goes northbound in the mornings and southbound in the evenings so I’m still at a loss as to the “To Terminal” signage if it now runs on Sunday.
Last week I saw a Metro-colored 545 at the Capitol Hill stop. I looked around the side to see if the sign could show an ST route and it said “545 Redmond”. I wished I had a camera.
Yes, I see them on the 545 every so often, especially when the 520 bridge is closed.
I’ve seen a wide variety of mixes. For a while there, Metro was putting regular Metro coaches on ST routes about once out of every 10 rides I took. I once road a Community Transit-allocated Sound Transit bus (it has the 4 digit number followed by a “C” on the back) that was running the 522 northbound out of downtown. They apparently didn’t have the announcements in the computer because the soft voice of CT didn’t announce any stops.
Here’s a cool picture of route 550 being run by a RapidRide bus: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brasegaliwa/12335617663/
Do they really have Ford Pinto taxis serving Sea-Tac?
I’m not quite sure who the audience is of this video. It doesn’t discuss some airport modes like shuttle services and limos, and instead wastes the watcher’s time with silly access modes. It doesn’t really explain with a cartoon diagram where the platform is, which is what someone who would ride it would want to know. It doesn’t explain how a light rail user can get anywhere other than Downtown and that there are many other transit services to get a rider to other places. It doesn’t encourage users to ask questions from help staff at the airport at the station. It mentions Orca cards but doesn’t explain how someone might want to choose one over a simple ticket. Overall, it seems to be more of a “feel good” cutesy ad for existing users and management than it is a way to encourage more riders.
Finally got around to watching the video. It’s a bit confusing and misleading.
Comments are closed.