Note: This is the second in a series of four posts describing the details of Metro’s proposed “Alternative 1” restructure, which would take effect at the same time as the planned March 2016 opening of Sound Transit’s University Link.  “Alternative 1” is the more ambitious of Metro’s two U-Link proposals.  Our overview of both proposals, and our short description of the minimum-change “Alternative 2,” is here.  Although these posts are under my byline, they owe a huge amount to the hard work of the entire STB staff, and especially Zach Shaner.

As in Northeast Seattle, Alternative 1 in Capitol Hill and First Hill focuses on creating a grid of very frequent routes, and making transfers between those routes much easier than they are today.  Capitol Hill, with its high density and ridership, would feature several major bus routes with 10-minute service.  Most Capitol Hill routes will allow for easy transfers to U-Link at Capitol Hill Station (“CHS”).  Many other popular trips will involve transfers between two 10-minute bus routes.  To achieve these high frequencies, a number of one-seat bus rides to downtown and the U-District would disappear.

As we’ve noted in other posts, these high frequencies are before improvements funded by Seattle’s Proposition 1, so some frequencies are likely to be even better than indicated by Metro.

Frequent service in Cap Hill
Frequent service in Capitol Hill under Alternative 1. Map by Oran Viriyincy.

The Capitol Hill Alternative 1 proposal is also notable for what it does not contain.  Metro decided not to restructure service in the Central District, or in South Seattle corridors (such as the route 36/60 corridor or Rainier Avenue South) served by routes that also serve CHS or UW Station.  We understand that including all of these corridors would have made the scope of the restructure difficult for Metro planning staff to manage, and likely increased the political difficulty of implementing any restructure plan.  Metro has not forgotten about these corridors; we can still expect to see further Central District and south-end restructure proposals in the future.

The following are the major frequent corridors in Alternative 1 south of the Ship Canal; for each one, we describe the service it’s replacing as well.

Route 8: 10 minutes.  Alternative 1 splits current Route 8 into two routes, 8 and 38 (discussed below).  Revised route 8 would get 10-minute frequency, while route 38 would get 15-minute frequency.  The revised 8 would be identical to today from Uptown to Madison Valley, but instead of turning south on MLK it would continue on Madison to Madison Park. Unfortunately, there are no changes to Denny Way, so the 8 would still be unreliable and prone to bunching eastbound in the afternoon.  Westbound, reliability should improve significantly as a result of the split and the improved frequency.

Route 8 would entirely replace the deleted route 11 along Madison, and represent a dramatic frequency improvement in Madison Park. Madison Park and Madison Valley customers traveling downtown would need to transfer to Link at CHS, but would usually have a faster trip than current route 11 despite the transfer.  In exchange, riders in those areas would enjoy new connections to SLU and Uptown.

Route 8 would also replace the east/west portion of route 43.  Customers traveling from John Street to the U-District would need to transfer to Link at CHS or to route 48, which would have 10-minute frequency, at 23rd and John.  Customers traveling from Summit to downtown would need to use route 47, which (Metro has unofficially reassured us) will continue to operate after the restructure through Seattle Prop 1 funding.

Route 48: 10 minutes.  The south half of Route 48 would be unchanged south of the Ship Canal, but receive a welcome and overdue improvement to 10-minute frequency.  (North of the Ship Canal, it would be through-routed with revised route 67 to Roosevelt and Northgate, instead of the current north half of the 48, which would become new route 45.)

Route 48 would replace the north/south part of route 43.  Riders between Montlake and Capitol Hill would transfer to 10-minute route 8 at 23rd and John.  Riders between Montlake and downtown would use route 48 and transfer to Link at UW Station, which would provide a faster trip in almost all cases despite the backtrack and the time spent transferring.  (This fact is a real indictment of current route 43, which west of Broadway often has an average speed slower than walking.)

Route 49: 10 minutes.  Route 49, currently the second-busiest route in the Metro system, would be changed to use Madison St instead of Pine St between Broadway and downtown.  It would receive a badly needed frequency boost to 10 minutes.

Route 49 would replace deleted route 12 for the great bulk of riders, who use route 12 to travel between downtown and First Hill hospitals.  It would also provide a new very frequent connection between the First Hill hospitals, Capitol Hill, CHS, and the U-District.  (Route 60 would remain unchanged for the moment, providing similar connections with much less frequency.)

East/west riders along Pine Street would use route 10, transferring to route 49 at Broadway if necessary.  Riders between north Capitol Hill and the downtown retail core would transfer between route 49 and Link at CHS.  Like current route 43 riders transferring from the revised 8, their trip would usually be faster despite the transfer.

Routes 3/4: 7-10 minutes.  These routes are unchanged, but are worth mentioning because they provide very frequent transfer opportunities with the 10-minute route 48, the First Hill Streetcar, and new peak service (to be discussed in our downtown post) along Boren Ave.

Route 2: 15 minutes.  Unchanged for the time being.

Route 10: 15 minutes.  Unchanged for now, but if the 43 is eliminated, the 10 may lay over downtown at 3rd/Pike, live looping at Volunteer Park instead.

The route would likely gain additional ridership along all parts of its length.  It would be the only remaining downtown service on much of Pine St after the deletion of route 11 and the move of route 49.  It would also likely serve some riders along 19th Ave, four blocks away, where current route 12 service would be deleted.  Given that route 10 already runs at capacity much of the day, route 10 seems like a natural candidate for post-restructure Prop 1 investment and increased frequency.

Route 38: 15 minutes.  The southern/eastern half of the current 8 would be renumbered as Route 38.  Most of the route, between Rainier Beach and Madison Valley, would be unchanged.  Its frequency would be unchanged as well.

But the part of the route between Madison Valley and Capitol Hill would be different, and a bit counterintuitive.  It would use Madison between MLK Jr Way and Pine; Pine between Madison and Broadway; and Broadway between Pine and its terminal at Aloha.  The purpose of this Z-shaped routing is to connect a wide swath of southeastern Capitol Hill to CHS and connecting bus service, and to replace frequent coverage of the commercial area near 17th and Madison (Trader Joe’s fans, rejoice) now provided by route 12. The distance of these segments is short enough that travel times between Madison Valley and CHS should be only a few minutes slower than those on route 8.  MLK or Madison riders wanting to go further west than CHS would have several frequent transfer options, depending on the desired destination: transfer to Link at CHS, transfer to route 10 along Pine Street, transfer to route 2 at MLK and Union, or transfer to route 8 at Madison Valley. The eastbound 38 would likely require a transit-only signal to be installed at Broadway/Pine, as left turns are currently banned at that intersection.

Route 9: 30 minutes.  This route would be mostly unchanged, but would terminate at Group Health (16th and John) rather than Aloha St.  Addition of the new terminal would provide a new commuter connection between the south end and east Capitol Hill. Between the 8 and the 9, on weekdays there would be 8 buses per hour between 15th/John and Capitol Hill Station.

Routes 11, 12, and 43 would be deleted entirely.  Their replacement service is discussed in detail above, but to summarize:  Route 11 would be replaced by a combination of routes 10, 38, and 8, all running more frequently than today’s route 11.  Route 12 would be replaced by more frequent route 49 for most riders, and by a combination of route 38 and other frequent corridors within 1/4 mile for the fewer riders east of Broadway.  Route 43 would be replaced by 10 minute service on both routes 8 and 48, with an assist from route 47 for Summit riders.

Tradeoffs: 

  • Riders between Summit and Olive Way and downtown would see their frequent downtown service on route 43 replaced by the infrequent, weekdays- and daytime-only route 47.  These riders would need to walk 1/4 to 1/2 mile, sometimes up or down steep hills, to reach CHS or frequent bus corridors serving downtown on Pine or Stewart.  Summit is the densest neighborhood in Seattle and generates fairly good ridership on current route 43, so this problem warrants a solution.  SDOT could use Prop 1 money to make route 47 more useful by increasing frequency and span, or Metro could plan some other service addition in the Summit area.
  • Retaining only route 10 on Pine St may create capacity issues, as only 40′ trolleys could serve the corridor due to the narrow turnaround at Grandview Place at Volunteer Park.  We think Metro should evaluate solving this problem by having route 38 continue west on Pine Street to downtown, rather than north on Broadway to Aloha Street.  Buses could lay over at the current route 43 terminal downtown.  While this would create a walk of about 1/5 mile for route 38 riders wishing to access CHS, there would still be a no-walk Link connection at Westlake for riders not wishing to walk.  As a bonus, if 60′ coaches were used on route 38, this solution could pave the way for route 10 to move to John Street—which would also solve the Summit-downtown issue and create a new connection between CHS and north Capitol Hill.
  • Downtown commuters along the eastern portion of the 8 (east Capitol Hill, Madison Valley, and Madison Park) would be subject to a serious reliability problem when they are traveling eastbound in the afternoon. When they emerge from Link at CHS, they will be waiting for a bus that is scheduled very frequently, but has an epic record of unreliability in the eastbound direction during afternoons and early evenings.  While street improvements are beyond the scope of a bus-network restructure, Denny must improve to make Link-to-new-8 transfers acceptable.  The city and Metro should fast-track whatever improvements they can, and consider implementing innovative ideas such as Zach’s, to ensure that Alternative 1—for all its benefits—doesn’t result in these riders waiting half an hour or more at CHS for bunched 8 buses and justifiably sour them on frequent transfers.

278 Replies to “Alternative 1: Capitol Hill and First Hill”

  1. 38 to downtown is good, but E Pine-downtown currently has the 10/11 with good frequency 7 days/week. If the 10 moves to John instead, E Pine-downtown frequency would still be worse than today. Yes, you can walk to CHS from much of the 10 route, but 0.5-1.0 miles of walking, at night, with legitimate safety concerns in the area? I know some would prefer not to.

    As far as the 12, I’ve already explained my dismay regarding the 12 cut in the other thread. Most commenters here disagree with me, I know. There are many arguments levied against the 12: Madison ‘s diagonal ruins the grid, Madison is an unfriendly street, cars drive too fast, there is duplicate service from the 2/8/10/11/43 etc, few people ride it except downtown-Swedish, it mostly serves rich people, walking or connecting is better, Metro isn’t interested in Madison BRT, etc etc.

    I looked at the on/off data the 12 (on page 14 of the route data sheet file). The 12 has 1751 “ons” inbound: 581 (33%) between Interlaken Park and 19th/Denny and 588 (34%) between Madison/19th and Madison/13th. So 67% of inbound ons are before Broadway. 1066 offs are downtown and 299 more are “unaccounted.”

    The outbound offs (2003 total) are 438 (22%) from Madison/12th to Madison/15th (this is actually only 3 stops!) and 396 (20%) in the Madison/19th to terminus segment. The rest of the offs (1170) are by the hospitals or downtown. More outbound vs. inbound because, I assume, some riders walk inbound with the downhill.

    The data show that 42%-67% of riders are using parts of the 12 that would go away. As “bad” as Madison and the 12 may be, 1150 people who choose it inbound will have to find alternatives. Some of us will crowd onto the bad and unchanged 2, the 10, or the new 49. Others will walk to CHS or even walk all the way, especially in the downhill direction. I can only speak for my commute; using transit these changes would be 8-10 minutes slower each way, worse if the 2 gets crushloaded. Walking will be time competitive with the bus, and much cheaper than $99/month.

    1. I can only say that the “offs” data are more consistent with my actual experience on the 12 than the “ons.”

      I think you’ll also find that ridership west of 15th (which would all be served adequately by the new 49 or the 10) is distributed throughout the day, while ridership on 19th is overwhelmingly peak-hour, peak-direction. I think an acceptable compromise would be to run a few peak trips on the 12 using Prop 1 money.

      1. Agree that the 12 is more “peaky” than the other Capitol Hill routes. Which is why I was against using Prop 1 funds to add off-peak 12 frequency – the all-day ridership is more limited than on Pine.

        I’ve been on AM peak inbound 12s that get standees at Madison/14th and can be close to crush-loaded before Broadway. Not every day, but 2x/weekly is normal. We’ve even left people behind at 12th on occasion. Even on an holiday like Veterans Day, nearly every seat was filled before Broadway. Bottom line, that’s 35-50 “ons” regularly just on 1 peak trip.

        As for the 10 being a replacement for the 12, most riders I see getting off the 12 at Madison/5th head south towards City Hall or Columbia Tower. The 10 would be a long walk or a connection to get further south. I suspect that if you work downtown near Pine but live on 19th you already walk to the 10. Looping back on Marion further attracts south downtown riders.

      2. The one good thing about 19th/Galer from a transit perspective is that it’s a fantastic place (physically speaking) to layover buses. I wonder if eventually it might make sense to extend the 10’s wire to 19th/Galer to layover there. It’s only 1/4 mile extension, you avoid the Grandview slow order and 40′ coach limitation, you can provide just a smidge more coverage to Stevens Elementary for basically zero operational costs, and with basic access at Galer and super-frequent service at Thomas the political case for getting rid of the 12 gets much easier to make. This seems like an ideal 10 routing to me.

      3. Did you click the link? It shows an alignment along Galer from 15th to 19th. Not a bad idea, really.

      4. That doesn’t show how the bus would turn around. The 19th/Galer layover zone is on southbound 19th farside Galer. There’s no easy way to turn around from there. Metro stopped laying over at the zone in the 19th/Galer intersection because buses blocked sightlines.

      5. Oh I get it. Still, it seems like that might be an easier problem to fix than the problems that alignment solves.

    2. I think there’s enough demand for a peak hour version of the 12. The ideal routing would be via Pike/Pine to complement the 10, but I don’t think there’s wire for that routing (unless there’s money for trolley wire in the budget).

      If the 60 is to continue it would seem that SLU is a better destination for it than Capitol Hill (via Boren/Fairview?). The 38 could also be routed to serve SLU (via Pike/Pine and Boren/Fairview) rather than going to Aloha Street. Adding those 2 routes to SLU would relieve a lot of pressure for 8 riders.

      1. I like the idea of sending the 60 down Boren to SLU, but it would cost a bit of extra money.

        I’d rather have the 38 go downtown as outlined in the post.

      2. I may be getting ahead of the plan with suggesting more routes to SLU, but eventually we will need more service than the 8 and the Streetcar can provide.

      3. If the new 49 is going to serve the First Hill hospital much more frequently than the 60, does the 60 need to do it too? If now, how about sending it straight down 12th to Capitol Hill?

  2. Boy, Madison sure gets cut up. Coleman Dock to Madison Pk is the 49 to Broadway, the 38 to MLK, and an unreliable 8 trip the rest of the way.
    And this is a candidate HCT corridor?

    1. Don’t be silly. Colman Dock to Madison Park is the 49 to CHS (or a quick walk up the hill and a 4-minute Link ride) and a transfer there to the 8.

      1. It’s not a trivial hike up the hill to 3rd (1/4mi), then you walk to Seneca Entrance (1/4mi) along 3rd, do the mezzanine to platform shuffle, wait and average of 3 to 7 minutes for a train, and I believe the trip from Univ Stn to CHS is more like 6 minutes, not 4.
        Add ’em up and you’re looking at 20+ minutes to get to the street level at CPS. I’m guessing lots of riders will opt for the new 49 to CPS.
        My bigger point was chopping Madison into 3 separate segments. Not optimal for a HCT route.

      2. 2 minutes USS->Westlake, 2 minutes Westlake->CHS.

        But the 49 is fine too, for those who would rather avoid the uphlil walk.

        My point is that it would be silly to take a three-seat ride just because you’d stay on Madison.

        As for dividing Madison up, count me in with the converts to the “Madison beyond Broadway makes for a poor grid” thesis. I think the new 49 and the untouched 2 are laying down Metro’s marker for what “Madison BRT” would mean: moving the 2 to Madison and improving its frequency to 10 minutes, for 5-minute service on the “BRT” corridor between Colman Dock and Seattle U. Sounds good to me.

    2. I wonder if any 11 service will be preserved with Prop 1 funds, maybe to prototype the HCT route.

      The author’s concern about eastbound 8 getting squished by the freeway in the PM peak is right on — anyone who’s waited for the eastbound 8 at Broadway already knows. What I don’t understand is why it’s taken so long to be addressed. Recent documents made mention of a “Denny Way Traffic Study”, but that’s awfully cold comfort.

      I live in Madison Valley, and I’m happy to sacrifice direct Downtown and Pike/Pine service in the name of better trip times and higher frequency, which for most hours of the day will be great. But if that transfer at CHS doesn’t work properly, easily (move the current EB 8/43 stop across Broadway to the station plaza), and most important, at all times of day, it will be a major turnoff.

      1. Also — let’s not forget about the Streetcar….which won’t run far enough up Broadway to provide a transfer at CHS. Whoops.

        (Okay, it’s a really short walk. Still.)

      2. +1 that the CHS transfer situation MUST work well to mitigate the loss of 1-seat rides. Since CHS relies on escalators for high-volume platform access, let’s hope ST can keep them running better than the DSTT escalators. That’s essential to making the transfers work.

        Are there any estimates of minimum transfer time from “Link train doors open” to “standing at bus stop” that have been released? Seems like 2 minutes is achievable if you can walk the escalators. Granted, walk left/stand right behavior leads to uneven escalator wear which contibutes to the breakdown problem. Sigh.

      3. >700 feet, plus three signal crossings, is a superlatively egregious transfer situation, and will further contribute to the FHSC’s boggling pointlessness. (Will the southbound 49 be forced to share this dumb location too?)

        For anyone who has been by there of late, it is now hilariously apparent that the only reason the streetcar ends so far south is to prevent “service disruptions” during construction of the Broadway underpass.

        Construction that it appears will be done before the very first streetcar has rolled.

        Penny foolish, pound even more foolish.

      4. It’s almost certain that the 8 stops will be moved to the east side of the intersection, and that the 38/49/60 stops will move to the south side. That makes things easier for bus-Link and Link-bus transfers, but yes streetcar-bus transfers would be ~700 feet away. Contra d.p., though, it’d be as few as one stoplight crossing because of the Nagle Place extension, which would provide a calm (if long-ish) walk from the FHSC to the eastbound 8.

      5. Isn’t Denny reopening?

        The streetcar is south of Denny and West of Broadway. The westbound 8 will be north of John and east of Broadway. That is three crossings.

  3. My worry about the 8’s Madison Park tail is that its inevitable underperformance will provide Metro future cover to cut back mid-day and evening frequency, thus undermining Seattle’s first-time-ever development of a true spontaneous-level grid.

    What assurance do we have that such pervasively usable transit is Metro’s concerted long-term goal, and not limited to a subset of personnel whose influence may wax and wane with budgets and political circumstances and urban growing pains and blowback from poor Sound Transit implementations?

    1. The 11’s poor ridership in Madison Park was (is?) rooted in traditional local racism. Back in the day, the 11 was considered a fine way for domestic help to get to work, but no resident of Madison Park/Broadmoor would ever ride the 11. Hopefully, the new routing, increased frequency and, perhaps, evolved social values will entice more Madison Park residents to try public transportation. (Broadmoor residents, however, I don’t think will take the bait.)

      [STB staff note: GuyOnBeaconHill posted an apology on our Page 2 concerning the “racism” element of this comment. His Page 2 post is interesting and worth a read.]

      1. The 11 on the Madison Park end is used primarily for retirees and people going to the beach in the summer, and I don’t think that’s going to change any time soon.

        The real growth potential for ridership comes from Madison Valley, which is getting new couples with kids and groups of post-college 20-somethings all the time.

        As a resident of the latter group in Madison Valley, me and most of the people I know rarely take the 11 because of its infrequency, while we take the 8 regularly. I love this 8/38 proposal!

      2. If what you say is true, then why should we have any bus service to Madison Park at all! If you consider us racists then so be it, but we in Madison Park still pay taxes and very high ones too for the privilege of living here.

      3. @Reg Newback: I don’t know about the original intent of running the 11. It’s now 2015 and that’s all we should care about, so let’s not take TheGuyOnBeacon’s comments to heart.

        However, there is some truth to the other comments, in that many of the 11’s riders are that of Madison Valley folks and westward. Madison Park performance is dismal. Having service every 15 minutes may not be the best useage of our taxes in comparison to other neighborhoods that have a greater demand (and need) for transit service.

      4. So if we consider tax dollars, then should we discontinue bus service to Madison Park. If you answer is yes, remember you neighborhood could be next. BTW, we would expect a reduction in our property taxes if Metro drops our service!

      5. There’s no evidence Madison Park is more racist than anywhere else. The more general trend is that the people in the most expensive houses take transit less than others. That’s why they have a house with a garage and car, so they don’t have to take the bus. But when they do take the bus, I don’t see anything adverse about the 11. People in Madrona take the 2, and people in Mt Baker take the 14 and 48.

      6. The 11 still has “domestic help” as part of the ridership group, as well as the neighborhood’s young people, and yes, some of us who live in Mad Park/Broadmoor (perhaps less Broadmoor, yet there are often people boarding/disembarking there when I use the 11).

        Transit, to my chagrin, has been a no-go for me for commuting purposes as I work in Bellevue–but with our firm’s move downtown this summer I am excited to forgo the tolls and take the bus once again. This change immediately impacts me as my direct bus downtown will be gone, but the more I look at it the more the 8 is potentially appealing IF the bus-bunching issues can be mitigated. I don’t care so much about transferring at CHS so long as there is a reasonable expectation that an 8 will be trundling along quite soon. If it doesn’t work that way in practice, however, this “choice rider” may just continue to forgo transit–at least until the Madison BRT starts up.

        Having visited and lived in many places where pretty much everyone rides transit to get almost anywhere, I do like the idea of stepping outside and being able to catch a bus to Seattle Center, SLU or a easy transfer to Ballard. This is a vast improvement to what we have now and IF the Denny issue (not so bad on weekends) can be mitigated, I can see using that route often. Beats the heck out of trying to drive cross-town!

      7. Given the low ridership of the 11 and Alternative one, might ti be better to just have peek hour service to and from Madison Park to handle domestic help that ride the 11 today? Given the comments on this blog, it appears that limited resources should be better spent elsewhere.

        BTW, the Microsoft Connector does not come to Madison Park, but picks them up in Madison Valley. Might this be a better model for Metro. I for one know that if there was a vote in Madison Park transit, it would lose since there would be additional parking spaces available from former bus stops!

    2. d.p., this seems like a bit of goalpost moving.

      You complained for a long time that Metro was stuck in institutional mire and exhibited a Seattle-is-special disregard for best practices. But in recent years it’s become steadily more clear that they want to make things better, as politics will allow. Alternative 1 is the gutsiest attempt at real change yet. Would the agency have taken the risk of proposing it, and subjecting the Council to endless abuse from both change-haters and those who actually come out worse from the restructure, if agency management weren’t on board with the concept?

      With any agency there’s always a possibility that future leadership will make things worse. That’s not a reason to doubt present leadership when they stick their necks out to make things better.

      As for the 8 tail, it’s not a huge number of hours. Even if ridership from Madison Park doesn’t improve at all despite a tripling of frequency (an unlikely outcome) the stats for the 8 overall will keep looking good because of the overwhelming volume of riders up and down Denny. When a route as a whole looks good, there is less pressure on poor-performing tails. (Exhibit A: Route 4S.)

      1. Plus this increase in frequency on the new 8 is right in time to shuttle Capitol Hill dwellers to and from the beach. That should bolster the numbers a bit.

      2. That’s a fair analysis, David.

        All I was really saying is that the concept of a 10-minute core network would be bolstered in the Seattle hive mind if the first examples thereof were primed as out-of-the-park home runs. The 8 is one of those, all the way to the Madison Valley.

        But that last stretch of overservice could give ammunition to the regressives, delaying deployment of necessary high-frequency services elsewhere.

      3. Assuming that the 8 needs to split to keep the southern half reliable, where else but Madison Park is the northern half supposed to layover, while still serving Madison Valley?

      4. That was exactly the point that Metro staff made. They were not even trying to give Madison Park 10-minute service. It was just the best, and cheapest, layover option available. Madison Valley has a couple of spots that might work as terminals if necessary, but they would need some reconstruction and would no doubt arouse howls of neighborhood opposition.

      5. So are you saying that the need for a layover is dictating the kind service Madison Park will get and if there wasn’t a need for a layover, then why should any bus come to there? To be blunt, there isn’t enough room for 6 buses in the Park!

      6. Madison Park by itself, without any other neighborhood, would have a hard time justifying more than a 30-minute route. But it would justify a route. Fortunately for Madison Park residents, any route to Madison Park also has to serve other neighborhoods, whether in north (as in Alt 1) or south (as with the 11) Cap Hill, that generate a lot more demand.

        There are two stops in Madison Park that can serve as terminals. Between them there is room for up to four buses depending on bus length. That’s plenty for a 10-minute route.

    3. Then we bring back a short 8 turning back at 23rd or MLK. Seattle has two fundamental problems that hinder grid effectiveness. One, physical barriers that cut up the city rectangle into pockets. Two, large swathes of low-density residential areas that not many people go to. The former is what allows only one way out of Madison Park (no possibility of a north-south route). The latter is what weakens any east-west route to Madison Park, and also weakens a NW 85th/NE 65th route (Loyal Heights to Magnuson Park) and a 15th Ave NE route (UW to Mountlake Terrace). Any completely straight route misses the urban villages and significant commercial intersections, requiring everybody to transfer and weakening the route. San Francisco has buses on all the grid streets: Haight, Fillmore, Castro/Divisadero, etc, but it also has destinations along all these streets to make all the routes more viable. Still, we do the best we can, and a Denny-Madison route is about the most grid-correct if it can be made to succeed. The ability to transfer to Link at CHS for downtown also helps; that’s much faster than; e.g., taking the 8 to a Belltown route.

  4. This struck me funny.

    The purpose of this Z-shaped routing is to connect a wide swath of southeastern Capitol Hill to CHS and connecting bus service, and to replace frequent coverage of the commercial area near 17th and Madison (Trader Joe’s fans, rejoice) now provided by route 12.

    After all – what’s more important than Trader Joe’s & Whole Foods?

    Seriously – when an opportunity comes along in witch routings can be beneficial as well as simplified, you must strike.

    1. How else do you serve MLK, get to the primary destinations on Broadway, and connect to Link? The 8S has always been a convoluted and silly route, but it brought crosstown service to the eastern CD which has always been seriously underserved.

  5. I have already made it clear what I think of this screw job. But seeing it again just makes me more disappointed.

  6. FYI, the link to “Metro Presents U-Link Restructures” is broken. (It was posted on 03/06, not 03/05.)

  7. This, again, smacks me as the worst kind of central planning that gives transit advocates a bad name. Take a light rail system that hasn’t launched, eliminate long-standing routes for a lot of people, and then hand-wave away issues around extra walking, transfers and re-routing.

    Seriously – launch the light rail first, leave the buses as is, and then maybe start making modifications as you see how ridership and the rest are working out. There’s no substitute for the 12, 43 or existing 49 here – especially if you’re taking the bus w/a kid, disabled, a senior, not interested in walking 15 minutes each way in the rain.

    Don’t enjoy the variability of getting off the bus at a crowded intersection, shoving your way down into a crowded train station, maybe missing the train that just came and waiting another 10 minutes, and then getting off somewhere that’s not near where your bus gets off now? Sorry! We’ve improved things!

    Live in Montlake? Walk 15 minutes to UW and take the train from there! Or get on a bus and sit in 520 traffic for 15+ minutes instead of the 0 minutes you wait now as the bus goes up the hill towards downtown. Winning!

    What? You say the 8 is terrible? No it’s not. It’s got a super thick awesome line and we super-duper pinky swear it’ll run faster on Denny because of magic pixie dust.

    I’ve lived in North Capitol Hill & Montlake for 15 years – I’ve taken the 43, the 12, the 10, and now the 49. This basically hoses most of those routes (the 10 will get way more crowded with the elimination of the 12) and everyone here seems to think it’s no big deal. But I guess when all of you live in maps and spreadsheets, that’s all that matters.

    Light rail is great, but it’s not a substitute for buses that have routes near where people live.

    1. Don’t enjoy the variability of getting off the bus at a crowded intersection, shoving your way down into a crowded train station, maybe missing the train that just came and waiting another 10 minutes, and then getting off somewhere that’s not near where your bus gets off now?

      I enjoy taking 15 minutes to get one mile (the situation for the local 43 west of Broadway) even less. You can just miss that train and your trip will still be faster than it was on the bus.

      ive in Montlake? Walk 15 minutes to UW and take the train from there! Or get on a bus and sit in 520 traffic for 15+ minutes instead of the 0 minutes you wait now as the bus goes up the hill towards downtown.

      The only time I’ve ever seen a 15-minute delay northbound across the Montlake bridge is at weekend bridge openings in nice weather. In rush-hour traffic there is often a 5-minute delay to clear the Lake Washington Boulevard light, but then things are smooth. Again, the inner part of the 43 is so slow you win anyway. Yes, you head up the hill quickly, but that’s where the quickness ends.

      This basically hoses most of those routes

      The 49 and most riders on the 12 get more frequency. Funny definition of “hosed.”

      1. David,

        Points taken, and I do appreciate your massive efforts on presenting these issues.

        The extra time spent on vs. off bus has a lot to do with bus stop safety and comfort at transfer points. An uncovered, dark, and unsafe (percieved or actual) bus stop is not a nice transfer.

        As for the 12-riders gaining frequency, I guess we agree to disagree on this. There is more off-peak frequency, but we know there aren’t many off-peak riders of the 12, which is why people want to kill it. I’d argue it isn’t highly usable frequency either. Forcing 12 riders to walk longer or transfer somewhere erodes any frequency gains. Transfer waits for a 4/hr route like the 38 average 7.5 minutes. Even the 6/hour 49 has a 5 minute average wait. The 11 is 4/hr during the peak and the 12 is 6/hr.

        If you are a peak 12 rider, you are going to downtown or the hospitals, otherwise you’d use a different route. For those purposes, the replacements for the 12 do not improve travel times or frequency. If you are originating along 19th or east of 12th along Madison and commute downtown, it is simply not better.

        There’s a strong bias on this blog towards 16/7/365 routes with 4/hr frequency at all times and more connections vs. one seat rides. Not everyone sees it that way, however. Consider a simple example: to the average transit commuter, is a 4/hour route with an extra 12-minute walk better than a 2/hour route with a 4-minute walk?

        Let’s say the 4/hour route takes 15 minutes and the 2/hour route is slightly slower, taking 17 minutes. The 4hr route has a 7.5 minute average wait, so the average travel time is 34.5 minutes. The 2/hour route has a 15 minute average wait, giving an average travel time of 36 minutes. However, the shorter walk means I am less wet, have fewer safety concerns, and if I time it using OBA, the 2/hr commute can be as short as 21 minutes. The 4/hour route could never be less than 27 minutes even if timed perfectly.

      2. There’s a strong bias on this blog towards 16/7/365 routes with 4/hr frequency at all times and more connections.

        I’m just a small part of this blog, but I plead guilty as charged.

        And I think the reason for that is a deeper one: it’s about the purpose of transit. For one commute between two fixed locations at the same time every day, you’re absolutely right that the infrequent and slow one-seat ride can be attractive. But I don’t just want to be able to make a fixed commute on the bus, and have to drive, Car2Go, or avoid trips the rest of the time. I want to be able to take all sorts of trips at different times of day to different places. For that purpose, the gridded frequent network with a long span works massively, massively better, even as it may be a bit less attractive on one particular commute.

        The thing is that if Seattle is to keep growing we need a network that’s useful for more than commuting. We can’t grow the car population proportionally with the human population because making space for cars is staggeringly expensive, gets passed into housing costs, and makes it hard to design appealing city streets. If we want to keep growing, we need to let people use transit for all their trips, not just the commute to work or school.

        A final thought: it’s the 4/hr routes that attract ridership sufficient to turn them into 6/hour or even 8/hour routes. And when you have that sort of frequency, it becomes impossible to ignore the grid’s benefits. You can’t get to that point with poorly used, infrequent routes.

      3. “There’s a strong bias on this blog towards 16/7/365 routes with 4/hr frequency at all times and more connections vs. one seat rides. Not everyone sees it that way, however. Consider a simple example: to the average transit commuter, is a 4/hour route with an extra 12-minute walk better than a 2/hour route with a 4-minute walk?”

        The thing is, we can’t put one-seat rides everywhere. Many people lack one-seat rides to where they want to go, or even where good transit practices would dictate a route. So you’re talking about the inherited one-seat rides from when the population was much smaller and travel patterns were different. The reason the 43 goes from downtown to 23rd to the U-District and there was no 48 until later was there was not much south of it and few people went to college anyway. The reason the 25 goes on Fuhrman Avenue is there used to be more bus riders and neighborhood businesses there, and downtown was more the center of people’s lives than it is now (the only department stores and services). Even if we assume that one-seat rides are the best kind of network, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the inherited one-seat rides are the best ones. Like the 4S for instance, which nobody rides end to end and is much slower than parallel routes between 23rd and downtown.

      4. Final thoughts on this.

        Walk or riding the 8 to Link at CHS is probably the outcome of Alt 1 for the largest group of Capitol Hill riders who lose their routes. Incidentally, Metro will have to start sharing its ORCA pass revenue with ST for riders who used to be 100% Metro but now connect to Link. Big revenue hit. If 10,000 people split their passes between Metro and ST evenly instead of being 100% Metro, Metro loses almost $500,000/month in revenue.

        The 2 is hopeless already and will get worse with some former 12 riders switching over. I guess I can console myself with the fact that it runs in a nice logical east-west grid…

        I don’t want to see it happen, but the more I think about the 10, the more I think it might be eventually cut like the 12. The tail is vulnerable to the same critical attack as the 12 tail and others (fails tail guidelines, residents are mostly rich white people with huge houses and multiple cars who are peak hour commuters). The 15th Ave business district is well within 1 mile of CHS and connecting to the 8 cuts that distance down substantially. The denser parts of the 10 route along E Pine and 15th are on the edge of the CHS walkshed. The 49 is on Broadway and if you live west of Broadway, walking downtown is an option. There’s even less reason for the 10 if the 38 is changed to go downtown instead. The old 12 and 43 riders in East Capitol Hill will have to walk to the 8 to get to CHS or the 48 to get to UW Station but the tail riders are going to always be the biggest losers in a restructure.

        I will say that with all this extra walking, personal safety at night can be problematic, but who knows, maybe tons of pedestrians from CHS will change that.

      5. LOL, yes let’s cut the 10 too, why not. Walking a mile and then having to make a connection is totally reasonable! If you live at 15th & Galer and want to go to 4th & Pine, why would someone drive 15 minutes to their destination (Google actually says it is 10 mins driving but I’ll add 50% more to include finding parking), when they could walk 17 minutes, wait 5 mins for a bus, take a bus for 4 minutes, wait 4 minutes for a train and then be on the train for 2 minutes (walk to the 8 to Link). I mean option 2 is obviously superior! OR! They could walk 25 minutes directly to Link. And this is a nice flat walk. No hills in Capitol Hill.

        You guys really underestimate the transfer/walking penalty on short distance trips.

      6. The 10 might be moved to John someday, but it won’t ever be cut. The 15th business district will always have a line through it. And once you serve it, you’re also serving the tail – there’s no way to turn a bus around sooner.

      7. David, I hope you are right, but I think there is reason to speculate about the 10’s future if much of its ridership switches to Link or sales tax revenue declines in a future recession (there’s not much fat to cut in a restructured network). The tail already fails the guidelines today. It would gain some 12 tail riders, but it will lose its own tail riders who live further south along 15th and can walk to Link. Bottom line, I doubt the 10 will pass the tail guidelines in the future and it may be even worse than today. The 10 does not serve a main corridor like 49 and 48.

        The main part of the 15th business district could be served by the nearby 8, which depending on your destination is 1-4 blocks away. That distance is well within the walkable guidelines mentioned for other corridors. Moreover, CHS isn’t impossibly far away. It is 0.7 miles (12-15 minutes on foot) from 15th/Mercer (the north end of the biz area) to CHS at Broadway/John. The Route 2 tail on Queen Anne is 0.4 miles from Queen Anne Avenue and conventional wisdom on this blog was to cut it because the walk was easy. Likewise the 32nd NW to 24th NW walk in Ballard, which is 0.5 miles

        Again, I’m not advocating for cutting the 10, but you can make a similar argument about its tail as you can to explain why the 11/12/43 are going away or many other routes.

      1. I trust spreadsheets WAY more than I do anecdotal evidence. The guys that run this blog almost always have solid, objective measures to back up their propositions. Transit planning should not be done through “gut” feelings.

      2. It’s great that Metro will have an Open House at Seattle U on 3-19-2015, but that only works if you go there by car. Connections and transfers at that hour a poor and there s a safety issue walking there in the dark!

        It’s strange how most meetings that Metro hold are for people who can drive there or are willing to pay for a cab or ride share!

      3. @Reg N meh, the 12 runs every 20-30 mins in this time and it isn’t like you will be there for the whole thing. Also, the sun sets at 7:21PM on 3/19 so you can easily go there and be home before the sun sets if that is important to you.

        Better in the evening in a neighborhood than the middle of the work day.

  8. Looks like more trolleys are in the picture. Does this mean dieselization or do we wait another year or more and buy new ones using options on our current contract?

    1. I disagree, this plan drops the 12 and 43. There may be a BRT in the future, but where is the money going to come from and the needed right of way, like on Madison?

      1. Try visiting sometime.

        Seattle’s trolley wire is old and finicky; Metro has trained a generation of trolley drivers to crawl at 5mph through significant portions of their routes. Even the shortest-haul route can easily run 5-10 minutes faster when dieselized.

        And no, that isn’t just the high floors or aging motors on the outgoing fleet. It’s the wires themselves.

        Our trolley system is not universally beloved. The excruciating prospect of crawling up the hill that slowly has forced me
        to drive more times than I can count. Sort of undermines the supposed environmental benefits, no?

        Stop advocating crap network structures just because they are legacy and electric. Let the vestigial and unhelpful segments die, and work on fixing the remaining wire so that it can be the shining beacon of environmental futurism that you wrongly believe it already is.

      2. > Seattle’s trolley wire is old and finicky; Metro has trained a generation of trolley drivers to crawl at 5mph through significant portions of their routes. Even the shortest-haul route can easily run 5-10 minutes faster when dieselized.

        I am skeptical that “even the shortest-haul routes” could gain 5-10 minutes if turned to diesel. Do you have data for this?

        I love the trolley buses. They are quiet. They don’t belch smog. They save money. Finally (and this is purely opinion) – they are cool! They have character and add character to the city, especially compared to diesel buses.

      3. When I was driving for Metro, I once arrived 7 minutes early at 9th and Fulton on an outbound route 1 trip when I made the mistake of not paying attention to the schedule while driving a diesel. Oops. Slowing down to 5 mph for every switch, crossover, and trailer really takes a long time.

        The trolleys make up that time (and save big on wear and tear) on the steepest hills, where they can go several times as fast as diesels. Where there aren’t steep hills (think like those on routes 2, 3, 4, 12, 13), I think the drawbacks exceed the benefits, now that current diesels are hybridized and are so clean.

      4. The 3 and 4 don’t have steep hills? What is James St in downtown called, a speed bump? Most of the 3 and 4 are made up of hills.

      5. Sorry for confusing wording — that was intended to say the 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 do have steep hills, not the other way around…

        Between this series and my day job, maybe not enough sleep this week.

      6. The money will come from a Transit Now renewal in the next year or two. Madison BRT is the city’s project, not Metro’s, so the city will have to fund it. Sound Transit has a Madison corridor in its long-range plan but it’s not going to move on it anytime soon, and the board is unsure whether Madison BRT completely fulfills it or not. (I’m hoping we can leverage that into a Denny Way subway someday, since it’s close enough to be the “same corridor.)

      7. Why are trolley buses more effective on steep hills? I’ve heard it’s torque, but where? Why can’t a diesel motor do it like an electric motor?

      8. Electric motors develop maximum torque at 0 rpm and are directly connected to the axle in a trolleybus. Diesel (and gas) motors can’t run below an idle speed (~650 rpm in a big diesel), and develop their maximum torque well above idle speed (usually ~1500 rpm in a big diesel). They are also connected indirectly to the wheels at low speeds through a torque converter, which allows the bus to stop without making the engine stop. The electric motor can transfer all of its torque with no waiting, no stress on the driveline, and very little loss, while the diesel has to spend a lot of energy at low speed just making noise and heating up the torque converter and automatic transmission.

        Seattle trolleys are also geared better for hills, because they don’t have to reach 65 mph on the flat. A diesel would perform somewhat better on the big hills if it had a shorter final drive ratio so that its top speed was 35 mph.

        Hybrid systems help the diesel engines a whole lot, since they use their electric motors to pull the bus at low speeds. That’s why Metro’s hybrids feel so much more effortless away from a dead stop. But they are still geared too tall to do really well on the big hills.

      9. I get genuinely excited when a dieselized 44 or 10 (my two most common trolley routes) appears on the horizon.

        The 10 can save five minutes before it gets to Broadway. The 44 could do so by the time it crosses Stone.

  9. First Hill will fight any change to the 60. It is an important (and the only) N-S bus on First Hill and connects VITAL destinations (Capitol Hill, First Hill, Swedish, Harborview, Beacon Hill, VA hospital, etc. )

    1. The new 49 would make most of those Capitol Hill connections. The combination of the First Hill Streetcar and a 60 using Boren would make all of the rest. I honestly can’t think of a single trip that the current 60 allows that would be impossible with the 60-Boren, the streetcar, and the new 49 in place.

    2. “First Hill will fight any change to the 60. It is an important (and the only) N-S bus on First Hill and connects VITAL destinations (Capitol Hill, First Hill, Swedish, Harborview, Beacon Hill, VA hospital, etc. )”

      I like the idea of the 60 connecting to Group Health and serving 15th, to connect Group Health with the other medical centers. Then, the 10 could simply be the frequent business route on the Pike/Pine couplet between Pike Place and CHS.

    3. 12th Avenue also wants a bus route. And if it’s going to Beacon Hill it has to get to 12th somewhere. I assumed the 60 would evolve into a Beacon-12th-Pine-Broadway route or something like that.

  10. It is most interesting that Metro chose to leave Madison Park (and Washington Park) off of the following on the website:

    We’d like to know how you would use transit in these areas:

    Capitol Hill
    University District
    Northeast Seattle
    Eastlake
    Madison Valley
    South Lake Union
    Along SR-520 or SR-522

    I like others question the Alternative 1 when it comes to the 11 E Madison and would suggest that they keep the run as is. It at least gives easy access to downtown, Trader Joe’s, The Coop, Safeway and the Harvard Market QFC and Barbells, and the community college. In addition the 11 users would still have Pill Hill facilities and the new Whole Foods.

    I also question Metro getting rid of major routes that use overhead wires and is that what we want in Seattle?

    It would be nice if we could get at least 20 minute service instead of 30 on the 11 and a jog over the Broadway and John for Light Rail would be okay if needed. I would rather stay on one bus even if it takes longer especially since I really hate to wait in some of the connection points that Metro would expect us to use. I also expect the ridership from the Madison Park to drop since people will find simpler ways to get from point A to B!

    I agree with comments about buses being bunched up with 10 minute service and this already happens on the 11 and Madison Park and at Madison Valley doesn’t really have the space for bunched up buses. I agree with question about Metro’s commitment to keep frequent service in the future. In fact based on what I’ve heard and the omitting of Madison Park for feedback, is Metro really committed to keep any service to Madison Park in the future?

    Didn’t we just vote an increase to the sales tax to keep a certain level of service in Seattle? SO what happens to that money? I for one voted NO given the noise about the Madison BRT and the fact that SDOT, Sound and Metro are not working together at all. Think how much better it would have been to have the Broadway light rail in the Pike/Pine corridor?

    1. What would you think of extending Madison BRT from 1st & Madison to Madison Park someday, including adding trolley wires? What would you think if it became the only Madison Park route?

      1. The Madison BRT will never go to Madison Park since we don’t want overhead wires here! In addition it would not have the same number of stops as normal bus, like one in Madison Park and one in Madison Valley. Fewer stops makes the bus quicker. In addition, there is no way for it to have a right of way on Madison as it is right now!

        In addition, this would require us to transfer at some point to get the Pike Pine corridor downtown. The BRT is an SDOT pipe dream and where will the money come for that?

      2. Thanks for confirming that some Madison Park residents are still hostile to trolley wire even if it means less frequent buses, and that going to Pike/Pine is more desired than western Madison. Re trolleys, I’m the opposite: I want frequency, and I like the trolley wires as giving a streetcar-ish look. Re an all-Madison route, I tend to agree with you that Madison-Pine reflects more people’s trips than Madison-Madison.

      3. So which what do want frequency with one or more transfers or walking or the convenience that we have on the existing 11 E Madison?. Very simple, we can have both, just give us 15 or 20 minute service from 6 am to 6 pm on the existing route with a possible jog to CHS on Broadway.

        Will the reliability of the propose 8 be any better than the 11 is today and how about the risk of buses be bunched like at MLK.

        I for one don’t believe that Metro cares to continue service to Madison Park nor do I believe that the want I opinion since we were not included on their website!

      4. I want 5-10 minute routes with good transfer facilities. Obviously 5 minutes isn’t happening yet, but we can take steps in that direction, first by making 15 minutes the floor until 10pm.

      5. As a resident of Madison Park, I’m excited about every 10 minute service, though I agree that a one seat ride to the CBD, perhaps using the current 11 route east of 23rd Ave E and the current 43 west of 23rd would be better. Alternatively, on weekdays a half a dozen 11s westward in the AM and eastward in the PM might solve problems for a number of commuters. Regardless, the route must be electrified, the sooner the better.
        Also, extending the 10 east on Galer to the 19th Ave turn around seems wise to me.

    2. Reg, Metro also didn’t list Wallingford, Fremont, or First Hill. Does that mean that they don’t want feedback from those folks either? No, it just means they didn’t list every neighborhood in the city.

    3. If you (or any other commenter) want to provide feedback to Metro, take the survey. Any resident of any neighborhood can take it, and it’s very specific and comprehensive.

      We’ll be reminding everyone to take it next week. If you like Alternative 1, tell Metro. If you don’t like Alternative 1, tell Metro.

      1. But the questions still remains that Metro said they are only interested in the following areas: We’d like to know how you would use transit in these areas:

        Capitol Hill
        University District
        Northeast Seattle
        Eastlake
        Madison Valley
        South Lake Union
        Along SR-520 or SR-522

        So does Metro want comments for other areas or will they toss them?

      2. The survey asks which routes you ride. Metro will look at any comment by any rider of an affected route.

        If you like the 11 the way it is, tell them! Just be aware that if they keep it you will probably be stuck with the current frequency and not the 10-minute service the new 8 would bring.

      3. I will repeat myself again, What good is 10 minute service to area which you don’t need to go. There has to be a compromise position, like keeping the 11 with 20 minute service all day and it goes downtown without have to switch buses too!

      4. What good is 10 minute service to area which you don’t need to go.

        Because in a properly-designed transit system, it gets you to another 10-minute service you can transfer to to complete your trip. A 10-minute crosstown route that intersects two 10-minute perpendicular routes offers more trip pairs than two 20-minute services that go directly from point A.

        A system built on painless transfers can provide better service to more trip pairs than a system that depends on point-to-point service from everywhere to everywhere.

      5. “What good is 10 minute service…”

        Because you can leave whenever you’re ready, without having to use a schedule or wait more than 10 minutes. One of the reasons people drive is they can go whenever they want rather than studying a schedule and waiting, and they can pack more activities into the day. Frequent transit narrows that gap, and makes transit a viable alternative for more people.

        “…to area which you don’t need to go.”

        You don’t need to but somebody else does. We can’t just cut off Madison Park from transit because it’s a Seattle neighborhood, and the most effective network goes to all neighborhoods. Or should we sever the road too because it must not be important either. But at the same time we can recognize that Madison Park’s location makes it difficult to serve, and its wealth makes ridership lower, and that may imply something for the frequency and routing. But lower ridership implies lower investment (an extension from a place we’re serving anyway; i.e. Madison/MLK on the 8), whereas keeping the 11 on top of that is a large investment (a one-seat ride to downtown paralleling the 10 for much of the way). I believe that Madison Park’s ridership will increase in the future with more frequent service and as the Millenial generation ages and has kids, so this network prepares the way for it. But I am open to variations, such as Prop 1 funding a peak-hour route to downtown (either Madison-Pine or Madison-Madison) until the Denny Deluge is fixed.

      6. I for one (Mad Park resident) can’t wait for 10 minute service on Madison; and despite the fact the one-seat ride goes away, the new 8 will open up different areas of the city to us and I look forward to that. I’ll transfer to the train at CHS to get downtown if necessary, but if the firm moves to SLU or I want to go to Ballard or Seattle Center without the horrible drive out of Madison and crosstown to anywhere, I would now have an option that would require no more thinking than “did I remember my ORCA card?” I’ll trade the direct line downtown for that if I have to. If you’re going anywhere downtown other than Pike/Pine or part of 2nd on the 11 you have to walk or transfer anyhow; making the transfer at CHS opens up all of downtown. (I say this knowing full well that deleting the 11 has a deleterious effect on my one-seat ride personally as I live and work less than two blocks from the line at either end.)

        If they do anything at all to help with the Denny SNAFU, it’ll even be better.

      7. To the Madison Park resident who can’t wait for 10-minute service, you will have 15-minute service all day starting in September and should satisfy our needs in Madison to keep the existing routing AS IS! We don’t need 6 buses an hour, when the will be bunching up in Madison Valley, Madison Park or at Trader Joe’s!

        Lets take the 15-minute service on the 11, especially since we are paying for it with a .1% sales tax increase in Seattle!

      8. Reg,

        Please please please stop claiming to be representing anyone but yourself with your “us”s and “we”s. When Madison Park residents HAVE commented here a few times, you’ve blasted them and told them what we have “should satisfy our needs” and “Please don’t tell [us] to make one or more transfers when we don’t need to do it [now]” when the “we” to which you are referring is trying to hold a dialogue with you!

      9. If I have to choose, I’ll take the direct transfer to rail at Capitol Hill rather than at Westlake. Almost assuredly the train will get me to Westlake at least as fast (let alone everywhere else on the line, plus direct service to neighborhoods I can’t now take transit to with the new 8).

        I’ve lived in other parts of the city that long ago lost direct service downtown but had it replaced with more frequent service that connected me with more places and options, and I lived. I’ve also lived in places with systems that require transfers between frequent routes, and others with routes like the 11 that are great for certain trip pairs but are nearly useless to get anywhere else throughout the city. One works well for getting around, the other forces you to drive even when you don’t want to.

        (I do wish there were a way to do both this and keep service to places like Trader Joe’s and Madison Co-op, but that’s hopefully where the extra funding Seattle citizens overwhelmingly voted for will come in. Otherwise, it’s the price we pay for choosing to live in what is an overwhelmingly single-family, low density neighborhood.)

        I voted yes. And I support this alternative–as opposed to the other–even though it negatively affects me personally. I’ve read Jarrett Walker’s stuff and he knows what he’s talking about; I’ve experienced it elsewhere.

      10. Thanks, Shane V. We’re not all monolithic, nor, I suspect, are we all in the same age cohort. ;-)

  11. I’m looking forward to seeing the best way to handle the 47’s shed. I definitely like the idea of running the 10 along John and Olive, but that removes service on 15th south of John which seems (on paper) like a substantial portion of the 10’s north-south alignment. Also, I think the only way this would be very helpful for most people on the north end of Summit is if the 10 gets 10 minute headways, that’s quite a long walk to get to a 15 minute headway route. I get that the 49 is right up the hill, but I don’t think most people in Summit consider that very viable.

    I like the 47, but I don’t feel like there’s enough mixed use development in Summit to act as an all-day attractor to the area, so I’m not sure how much ridership it would get even if it ran 15 minutes all day. Maybe the right answer is a frequent 10 along John and Olive with a peak-only 47 serving the entirety of Summit north-south. That still leaves 15th south of John, but I’d be happy to hear from somebody who knows that that’s not necessary.

    1. Yeah, why isn’t the 10 a 10-minute route? It really needs to be, given its short-haul connective nature, not to mention that it must be seen as a demonstration of the power and a possibility of consolidation, and not as a de facto service cut.

      1. Unless Metro takes Zach’s and my suggestion of running the 38 downtown, I’d expect the 10 to be a target of Prop 1 investment.

      2. Lets not ignore the fact that Capitol Hill Station will be a much more attractive option for current Route 10 riders. The travel time savings is significant! One of the big questions that I have is how many riders will just leave Route 10 and start walking to Capitol Hill Station. While there may be residents that will shift to the 10, there will also be many that will leave the 10 and take Link.

      3. I think you’ll be surprised. There’s an awful lot of the 10’s walkshed from which, at most times of day, you’re liable to get downtown on the bus in less time than you can walk to Link’s front door.

        The non-theoretical downside of wide-spaced node-rail bullshit, etcetcbrokenrecordetc.

    2. Regarding my last point… looking at a map pretty much indicates that the leg south of John isn’t crucial to the line or anything, and can probably do without any service. It’s only four blocks (~400m) between John and Pine, so worst case would be walking that whole length to either the 10 or the 38, depending on your destination. This is quite acceptable. I fully support the notion of running the 38 down Pine and the 10 down John (on 10 minute headways). I still wonder if running the 47 peak-only in addition to the 10’s service is a good idea.

      1. That solution could also result in 5 minute frequency between 15th and Summit, which would be pretty great for Hilltop residents getting to CHS.

      2. The 10 is among Metro’s highest performing routes. Moving it from E Pine to Olive Way and E John would be a mistake. The 10 directly connects the 15th Avenue business district, Pike/Pine and downtown. These three areas generate all day, 7-day a week demand, and Pike/Pine in particular is also busy during evenings and weekends. Just as your Summit neighbors might not find CHS an attractive option, I think many of the trips on the 10 today will not be captured by Link.

        A solution for Olive Way might be to have a route mimic what makes the 10 so effective–it’s short and runs along a dense corridor generating all-day demand. A truncated 43, starting from 19th and Galer, then turning west onto E John and following the 43’s current route into downtown. The problem with the 43 right now is that it tries to connect too many far flung dots, but shortening it to a Capitol Hill-downtown route would avoid a lot of the delays north of the ship canal.

  12. My comment doesn’t carry as much import (though still some) if Metro adopts your revision for the 38, but here goes:

    Sure, Montlake riders who currently use the 43 may be able to backtrack to UW Station to reach downtown, but what about the rider at, say, 23rd and Aloha? Though the far NE corner of Capitol Hill may not be a huge generator of ridership, I find unacceptable the degree to which their service is degraded; their downtown options are as follows:

    1) travel north 1.5 miles out-of-direction to get to UW Station.
    2) walk half a mile just to get to the more geographically intuitive (but unreliable and barely faster than walking) two-seat ride (8—>Link).
    3) take the 48 all the way down to the CD to transfer to the not especially fast 2, 3, or 4
    4) walk an extremely steep half mile to the (slow) 10. All this to travel a little over two miles!

    I outlined my suggestions in an earlier comment, in which I proposed stitching together the 23rd Ave service of the 43 with the 8N. (I now realize this may be unnecessary since my all-Madison route would be a short walk or bus ride away.) I was also quite critical of the proposed zig-zaggy 38, which is arguably less straight than any currently existing route in the Capitol Hill route structure. Some commenters defended the route by noting its utility as a short-haul shuttle to the grocery store. I personally don’t think this justifies the route in itself; you could draw lines on a map in an area as dense of Capitol Hill and create some logical origin-destination pairs, but this doesn’t make it part of a sensible network.

    But there is demand for short-haul travel in the area, and Metro doesn’t seem to want to consider an all-Madison route, so here’s my revised suggestion: with SDOT funds, create a (free? specially branded?) bidirectional loop circulator using Broadway, Pine, Madison, 23rd (or 19th), and Aloha, with at least 10-12 minute frequencies. This would connect Capitol Hill Station with most of the nearby business districts, facilitate intra-Hill travel, and provide coverage for North and East Capitol Hill that would obviate the need for some sort of replacement for the 43 and 12.

    My reservations: loops are not ideal transit, not sure where it would layover, Aloha is pretty narrow, and I’m not especially enamored with the LADOT DASH/DC Circulator bifurcated model of municipal overlays on the “main” transit network.

    1. I have no love for the vestigial 12, and I think we can live without the 43, but I agree the situations you listed are suboptimal. One idea I’ve had for ameliorating these concerns is as follows:

      1. Delete the 43
      2. Keep a “Route 12” but run it as a frequent combination of 12+43. It would run via Madison-19th-Thomas-23rd-UW Station. (see map here).
      3. Instead of running the 49 on Madison, bite the bullet and restructure the 49+36 to provide a super-frequent crosstown connection between UDistrict, Roanoke, CHS, First Hill, Little Saigon, Beacon Hill, and Othello.

      Benefits:
      1. You can serve the most heavily used portion of the 12 in the exact same way as today, while still eliminating the tail.
      2. It can be a trolley route from Day 1.
      3. You preserve a one-seat ride to Downtown for those along 19th between Thomas-Madison and 23rd/24th between Montlake and Thomas.
      4. Sets up Madison BRT rather nicely.

      1. Metro seems to have a lot of transit service shadowing the FHSC route, which doesn’t seem appropriate. To be effective the streetcar should be running at least 6-8 trips per hour in each direction with little duplicative service running alongside. That’s one reason I don’t think the 49+36 will happen. Also, it should be crystal clear to anyone who has taken even one ride on the 36 that a Beacon Hill to the ID/Jackson Street route is mandatory. Forget all the theoretical arguments about grids, nodes, legibility and connectivity–the 36 will forever be running on Jackson Street. Plus it looks like the 36 and the 70 can now thru-route with 10 minute headways on both routes.

      2. It’s worth noting that the city’s TMP Corridor 3 places the service on 12th rather than Broadway between Beacon Hill and John.

      3. If the 36 must forever run on Jackson, then I suppose you could still implement most of TMP corridor 3 via a 60+49 restructure, just losing the Othello tail and probably truncating it to Beacon Hill (to keep it trolley) or Georgetown (if diesel).

      4. Jackson/12th doesn’t currently have wiring that would allow a 36+49 combination and 19th/John doesn’t have wiring to facilitate the 12+43 combination. Both problems could be fixed however.

    2. 23rd and Aloha is basically the location that comes out worst from the entire Capitol Hill part of Alt 1. Fortunately, it generates fairly little ridership — but not zero, largely because of Holy Names.

      If I were riding from there to downtown under Alt 1, my strategy would depend on time of day. At times when there would be relatively little traffic at Montlake, or (eastbound) when the 8 was likely to be screwed up, I’d do the 48 -> UWS backtrack. At other times, I’d walk the half mile to and from the 8 and transfer at CHS.

      I’m not totally on board with Zach’s 43 + 12 proposal because I think it spends a lot of hours duplicating service that’s already good for pretty much everyone except people around 23rd/Aloha. 23rd/24th north of John has a lot of buses for moderate ridership, and the closest available turnback in the U-District would be all the way up at Campus Parkway.

      1. To be sure, that 12+43 proposal isn’t an ideal scenario by any means, but rather one possible way of getting the bones of a frequent/consolidated network in place while making Alternative 1 more palatable to those who would otherwise be legitimately worse off. And I think it could save service hours overall if combined with something else, like the 49+36 restructure.

      2. As I’ve argued previously, 19th/Madison riders get jobbed pretty bad too. And unlike 23rd/Aloha, Madison generates a lot of riders.

        From 2 choices of 1 seat rides downtown (11 or 12) with solid peak frequency, 19th/Madison will be left with only the 38 at the same bus stop, forcing connections to anywhere west of Broadway. Walking 6 minutes to the unchanged but now more-crowded 10 or the still-unreliable, slightly more frequent 8 (which still doesn’t serve downtown) are hardly good alternatives.

      3. I have to mention that the distance from 17th and Madison to 17th and Union is barely over two blocks — the same distance between Madison and Seneca near Virginia Mason hospital that some people feel should be the Route 2 alignment. Thus, there is a one-seat ride from the mid-Madison area to Downtown; it’s the Route 2.

    3. A circulator is an idea, and I’ve been thinking about that for Shoreline. But historically circulators have been low ridership. There was one in Ballard and one in downtown Bellevue, and they both failed. How do we prevent that from happening again, and how do we convince Metro and/or the city to try it again?

      1. I’m going to drop this idea, and honestly I haven’t given it much critical thought. But what about combining the 43 & 49 at E John St? Traveling south, the route would be just the same as the 49. When it reaches John St, it turns left and picks up as the current 43. This saves people along 23rd Ave from having to connect with the 2, walk a bunch or transfer twice to reach downtown.

        Service along Madison St, however, would have to be supplemented.

      2. Well, I’m not entirely convinced of the idea myself and I’m promoting it as something of a plan B. But unless there are examples I’m unaware of, local circulators have historically had low ridership because they’ve been for coverage and symbolic purposes rather than spontaneous travel. I’m too young to remember it, but gathering from some of the old Metro system maps at the UW library and recollections from older STBers (maybe you can confirm Mike?), it seems like these earlier circulators were implemented during Metro’s phase where marginal routes went everywhere without investments in frequency or legibility.

        If the proposed circulator was well-branded, publicized by local business, perhaps low- or no-fare, and actually frequent, I think it would have a chance at success. For example, if it was passing by, I might hop on instead of walking between Pike/Pine and north Broadway. Other commenters have mentioned such a route’s usefulness for grocery and shopping runs, and the route actually covers most of the areas on Capitol Hill (Broadway, Pike/Pine, maybe Volunteer Park) that tourists would be interested in. It might still fail, and maybe it’s not the best direction for urban transit, but if there’s anywhere that a well-designed neighborhood circulator could ingrain itself into the daily mobility needs of a neighborhood, it’s probably there.

      3. Bellevue’s was the Bel-Hop in the early 1980s around when the transit center was built. It ran every 10 minutes around downtown daytime and was either free or very cheap. (25c? Metro’s one-zone fare was 40c then.) I never used it and rarely saw others use it. The Ballard-Fremont loop was a regular Metro route and little later; I never heard about it until long after it was gone, but I think it ran every 30 or 60 minutes daytime; I think it ran every 30 or 60 minutes. I’ve heard there’s a circulator in downtown Kent now but I don’t know where or when it goes. Then there’s the free homeless shuttle downtown circulator between Pioneer Square and First Hill that replaced the ride free area; it runs weekdays daytime.

  13. Is there a link to the map? I’d like to see the whole thing to better understand continuity…it’s hard when it’s broken into quadrants. Thanks.

  14. Now that route 12 is being deleted, Metro has basically no use for the overhead on 19th Ave E. So what will they do when the 12 is deleted? De-energize it? Tear it down? Sure, de-energized overhead gets stolen, but Metro couldn’t care less in this case since the overhead is abandoned anyway, with no intention to use it again in the future (near or distant).

    1. So far, in the modern trolley era, they have left wire in place (and energized) when they’ve stopped using it. But they also haven’t cut anything as discrete as the 12 tail in that time.

      I’m sure, at least, that they won’t remove it until final decisions have been made about how to serve the Madison corridor.

      1. But isn’t keeping power to the overhead on after the route has been abandoned a waste of money? You wouldn’t keep your TV on when you’re not watching it (or keep room lights on when you’re not actually in the room) or risk paying more money on your home electric bill, so why does Metro keep abandoned sections of overhead energized anyway?

        Keeping the wire in place I can understand, as it takes many hours of labor and therefore many hundreds–even thousands–of dollars to dismantle (case in point: Convention Place Station In the DSTT’s post-Breda era).

      2. Keeping the overhead energized doesn’t cost much; probably not even a penny per day. It is ultimately just a wire. Without a load pulling current (e.g. a trolley bus), you’re looking at some losses through resistance, but that’s it. Better to just leave it energized – it’d cost way more to send someone out to flip the switch.

      3. And energized wire is somewhat harder to steal [far from impossible, unfortunately].

        William, read my initial thoughts on that:
        Sure, de-energized overhead gets stolen, but Metro couldn’t care less in this case since the overhead is abandoned anyway, with no intention to use it again in the future (near or distant).

        A rather better alternative would be eliminating the switches and crossings at junctions where a still-active line crosses an abandoned line to favor the still-active line. Since the switches and “diamonds” at railroad junctions are perennial maintenance headaches, it can be assumed the same can be said for ETB junctions. Also, it means operators no longer have to slow down through the junction.

        For example, let’s look at the junction at 19th & Thomas, where the 12 and 43 currently intersect. When route 12 is deleted, the approach wires to and from the junction on 19th in both directions would be cut short just before the intersection itself, allowing “normal” wire to be used on Thomas (assuming the wire on Thomas could see future use on route 8).

  15. While I don’t have any problems with the route 49 proposal in and of itself, I foresee some difficulties with it’s implementation on Broadway, south of Pine. The stops that Seattle Streetcar put into place on Broadway only accommodate 1 vehicle at a time and accommodate ZERO transit vehicles when cars are stopped in front of them for red lights. Even now, @ Pine/Broadway with just the 9 and 60 running it can sometimes take busses 2 or even 3 light phases to reach the platform and load/unload. It’s hard to imagine what this will look like with the 9, 60, and both the streetcar and the 49 running every 10 minutes.

    I really don’t understand why metro isn’t considering including the 9 and the 60 in this round. The idea that these routes would just be too much too handle in this restructure sounds ridiculous when they are pulling in routes from the far corners of the eastside into this round (not that I object to that). The point is, these routes DIRECTLY SERVE CHS and metro is oddly ignoring them. I think it behooves metro to at least reconsider these routes, if for no other reason, simply to not jam the section of Broadway that Seattle streetcar has left constrained.

  16. I do have another question, what is going to happen to the money Seattle is giving Metro to maintain a level of service in the city? We have have extra buses in peak hours for years and we just voted in increase in the sales tax, so who gets that money now and WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?

    1. The Seattle Prop 1 money will overlay whatever Metro decides to implement for U-Link, the same way it’s going to overlay the rest of Metro’s network. SDOT hasn’t made any decisions yet on where to add service after the U-Link restructure because Metro hasn’t yet made any decisions about what the U-Link restructure is going to be. SDOT told us they expect to be making those decisions over the summer.

      The accountability is at your local ballot box. If you don’t like what Metro is doing, vote out the Council. If you don’t like what SDOT is doing, vote out the mayor.

      1. The reply did not mention the added peak hour runs that Seattle is paying for. Based on you answer it appears that we are voicing opinions on a moving target with three players, SDOT, Metro and Sound Transit! So why are you asking for our opinions and your are not even asking for alternative, your website looks like take one or two ONLY!

      2. First, let’s be clear about what “we,” Seattle Transit Blog, are. We are independent of Metro, ST, or SDOT. We are writing as a group of private citizens with views on, and some knowledge of, Seattle transit.

        Metro is asking for your opinion through the survey we linked. We at STB are happy to hear your opinion through comments on our posts (or your own Page 2 posts), but expressing your opinion here, rather than directly to Metro, is unlikely to affect anything Metro does.

        Second, presenting two alternatives for public comment is typical of how Metro does service changes. The final product almost always ends up being different from either alternative, and incorporating ideas from both. Once Metro decides what it’s doing, then SDOT will decide how to spend Prop 1 money to improve the Metro network. The decisions SDOT makes will almost definitely look similar to what they are doing for the rest of the network. That is, they’ll probably spend enough on peak frequencies and reliability to meet the Metro service guidelines and then spend the rest of the money to help reinforce the all-day frequent network.

      3. David, your replies should be clarify that you are not talking for Metro, but your post seem to answering my questions for Metro! I would hope that they look at this blog and I think should participate too!

      4. Our answers are based on what Metro has told us and on Metro’s materials. Zach served on the Sounding Board for this restructure, and Zach, Bruce, Martin, and I have all had conversations with Metro and SDOT staff during this process. Of course, we’ve also all studied the materials closely.

      5. Metro staff do read the blog and comments, as do Sound Transit staff and some councilmembers. So they know what we’re saying. They rarely post here because government agencies are restricted in what they can opine publicly, and politicians are watching their re-election backs. To make your voice heard most effectively, send it directly to Metro or ST or your councilmembers and answer their surveys. Official feedback gets put in a report and is more likely to be read by decision-makers during deliberations.

  17. The Rainier Valley sustains robust ridership on the 7, the 8, and Central Link. This area is substantially less dense than the Summit Slope area and more development is on the way at a breakneck pace. The deletion of the 43 is simply unacceptable, especially when the alternative as presented here is pouring money into the 8 on Denny Way. Service hours thrown out the window after reducing the amount of coverage in the city’s densest neighborhood.

    When are we going to start kicking ourselves, hard, for not planning 2 or 3 Capitol Hill stations?

    1. I think we will kick ourselves until we get something resembling today’s 8. Not only is it bad for the area you mentioned, but it is bad for the Central Area. From what I see, they get little from Link. They have to work their way downtown or north to the Husky Stadium (over a bridge that opens and traffic that can be horrendous). Even the trip to the Capitol Hill Station is problematic (requiring a long slog, if this changes goes in). Meanwhile, onward to Angle Lake!

      1. I think the 38 offers MLK residents some wonderful new destinations. They will be able to get up the hill to Trader Joe’s, the Pike/Pine corridor and even north Capitol Hill — in addition to the Capitol Hill link station. The only non-residential places that they lose in a one-seat ride are the small 15th Avenue commercial district and South Lake Union access.

    2. When are we going to start kicking ourselves, hard, for not planning 2 or 3 Capitol Hill stations?

      You mean you haven’t started yet?

    3. Rainier Valley is also a 5-mile long narrow straight line. You can walk from Summit to the Broadway Market to Trader Joe’s pretty easily, while going up and down the valley is 2-3 miles at a time. So people who walk on the hill take the bus in the valley. It’s a completely different environment, a squat square rather than a long narrow rectangle, and the 7 and 8S tell us nothing about whether the 43 or 11 or 12 or 47 is worthwile.

  18. I don’t have any specific suggestions or complaints (that must be refreshing) but I do find this very interesting. I see very little in this proposal that is influenced by Link. I think these changes could have been done years ago (although maybe the key was the additional service hours saved by not shuttling people from the U-District to downtown).

    On the other hand, I could easily see Madison BRT, if it went to Madison Park, changing these routes dramatically. With that, I would change the routing to the 38 to follow the old 8, and truncate the 8 right after the station (the 38 would be a lot more reliable that way). Now folks in Madison Park have a fast ride to downtown, while folks in the C. D. have a much faster ride to Capitol Hill (again). The 49 could go to downtown, or it could just keep going to Yesler and turn around there. Folks headed downtown north of the Capitol Hill Station would transfer to Link or Madison (depending on where they got on).

    These changes becomes especially nice once Link is expanded to Northgate. For someone in the C. D., the current Link expansion doesn’t do much (especially with this routing). The 38 takes has a long way to go before it gets to the Capitol Hill station. If a rider is headed north, then it is probably better to take the 48. Heading south, it is probably better to slog your way downtown (or south, towards Mount Baker). But with the resurrected 8 (split from its very slow partner) you would have a fast way to get to the U-District (not just lower campus) as well as Roosevelt, Northgate, and connecting neighborhoods.

    Does that sound about right, or did I miss something?

    1. The BRT will have very limited stops and what good is a fast ride from Madison Park, when it doesn’t get you where you need to go. Also the BRT would go down Madison not the Pike/Pine corridor where most of the 11 users today use today. we would possible have a stop in Madison Park, Madison Valley, 23rd, Broadway and so on down to the Coleman Dock. This just won’t work and this doesn’t even talk about the lack of space for one or more dedicated lanes for BRT on Madison.

      1. The BRT will have very limited stops and what good is a fast ride from Madison Park, when it doesn’t get you where you need to go.

        See my previous reply to you: transfers. They only work when the system is frequent, which only works when you don’t have to waste hours providing duplicitous service in an attempt to deliver a one-seat ride to everyone.

      2. So the BRT is NOT a replacement for the 11 and 12 let alone the new 8! As I have said before, Madison Park will not go for overhead wires for a BRT and SDOT does not want to service us either!

        Again, the BRT is a pipe dream and there is NO money to fund it! The other question is, who is responsible for Seattle bus service, SDOT or Metro, it can’t be both!

      3. The BRT is not limited-stop like Swift. Madison Park to downtown is too short for limited-stop service. It will be like RapidRide, with stops further than regular stops but closer than limited stops. There will be no local overlay, and other routes in the same corridor (e.g., #2) will use the same stops.

      4. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around your logic, Reg. You say don’t want the second fastest, most convenient connection in the area to downtown (BRT) because (oh no!) overhead wires are ugly. Meanwhile, we are supposed to connect Capitol Hill (and thus our light rail line) with fast, frequent bus service to Madison Park, a moderately populous area that just so happens to cut through the least densely populated area between I-90 and SR-520.

        Fair enough. I’m sure the folks in the Central Area would gladly take either the straight forward route to Capitol Hill (which they have had for years) or “ugly” trolley wire (BRT). Seriously, turning the BRT on 23rd make a lot of sense if you look at the census maps (or know anything about the area). Sending a fast, frequent bus to the Capitol Hill station does as well. Madison Park could be connected to the rest of the city via, I don’t know, an infrequent connector bus?

        Really, what is so special about Madison Park that you think it deserves something *better* than BRT? Maybe end the BRT at 23rd, resurrect the old 8 (split in two) and simply send a bus every twenty minutes or so from Madison Park to Capitol Hill. Now you can transfer to a fast bus to downtown or a fast ride on Link to everywhere. Not bad for folks that are afraid of trolley wire.

  19. “When they emerge from Link at CHS, they will be waiting for a bus that is scheduled very frequently, but has an epic record of unreliability in the eastbound direction during afternoons and early evenings. ”

    If a bus is running this frequently, I suspect that none of the riders will care if they get on their exact bus.

    I’d also note that bus bunching is not that likely here, even with Denny traffic. Bus bunching usually occurs when the routes are rather long, and eastbound Route 8 begins less than two miles west of Capitol Hill station. The operationally tricky thing will be how Metro builds congestion into their scheduling, because as long as there is a long enough layover at the west end of the route the drivers should be able to leave in at an even spacing.

      1. Other properties in congested areas in the US create what they call “headway-based” service rather than “scheduled service”. They tell the drivers that they can’t begin their route until they wait a sufficient time after the prior bus left. It takes some training to make it effective, but it can be done.

        Whether Metro is able to change the institutional way that they operate is of course another matter…

      2. Does it? How do you know that a bus with a close follower EB wasn’t already behind schedule when it got to its layover? If the incoming buses are more reliable, the outgoing buses should be dispatched more regularly.

      3. With headway-based scheduling, buses are never “behind schedule”. Rather than have every run governed by fixed time points, the transit operator operates the route in a team with the other drivers and monitored by a supervisor. Think of it as a conveyor belt of several buses along it — as opposed to a micro-managed fixed arrival time where every bus driver is mainly independently worried about the actual time. Of course, there would need to be adequate recovery time at the ends of the route, but even then if the “belt” is moving slower you can still keep every bus spaced apart.
        .
        With technology, we can locate the position of every bus. If routes are frequent enough (say 10 minutes or less), the arrival times become relatively moot anyway. It’s silly to managed our transit driver assignments on frequent routes like it’s a 1950’s factory down to a time point every few minutes when we have the technology to operate things more reliably. It’s time that we rethink how we assign and penalize or incentivize drivers and catch up to the more reliable bus service we can get if we are willing to rethink how we assign drivers in the field.

      4. Al S., I was replying to Kyle S, not to you but your reply got in ahead of mine.

        So headway-based scheduling would be like what they were trying to do with RapidRide before everyone started complaining about the lack of schedules?

      5. Headway-based scheduling is what RapidRide tried to do until the public told Metro to shove it and demanded a complete schedule. 15 minutes is not frequent enough for headway-based scheduling, especially when people are transferring to another route and need to know what time to leave the house. With 10-minute frequency it starts to work, because you just add up the segment travel times and 5-10 minutes between them and at the beginning, and you can start anytime. But that breaks down with 15 minutes because you may have to or more 15-minute waits in your trip and a 30-minute uncertainty on when you’ll arrive. So you really must have a schedule so you know (1) whether the trip is viable, (2) when to leave and when you’ll arrive, and (3) whether you should go at another time when the waits will be shorter.

      6. I agree with you, Mike. 10 minutes is probably the longest period of time that someone would wait with headway-based scheduling. A case could even be made for 7.5 minutes as the maximum.

      7. I don’t disagree with headway based service, BUT, it does ensure the conveyor belt grinds to crawl based on the driving habits of the worst driver in the bunch.
        Some trolley drivers can easily ‘smoke’ a slow poke leader and pull into the layover just behind them. Of course, you want to hang back during the route just enough so riders aren’t inclined to let the full bus go by, and wait on your empty coach.

      8. mic with technology, bus locations are known minute by minute. Drivers can’t drive badly without others noticing it fairly quickly. If there is a problem driver, the supervisor can have a chat with them almost immediately.

        Further, it is usually in drivers’ best interests to not drive slowly. I’d think most drivers would want to get to their end points as fast as possible so that they can have a longer break. I’ve even known drivers in other cities to get speeding tickets because they were in such a hurry to get to the end of the line and their break!

    1. I think this, along with improving the transfer experience, is going to be one of the most important aspects of making something like Alternative 1 work. There are some massive bus bunching issues during periods of 10 minute headways on Metro’s existing service. Some of this is due to route length, bridge crossings, etc, but much could be reduced by moving to real-time bus headway control to protect headways. Otherwise, every 10 minutes turns into two buses in two minutes and none for 18. Much of this proposal hinges on reduced average wait times for bus transfers, and that deal is not going to work if Metro can’t deliver the frequencies as promised. I think for a lot of Seattle riders, the idea of introducing any new opportunity to be penalized by poor reliability is a risk that does not equal the proposed reward.

      Given the number of routes that get 10 minute or better frequency in this proposal, implementing headway management is going to be a major undertaking, requiring more dispatchers, driver training, technology improvements, public outreach, and so on. Hopefully Metro is already thinking seriously about this issue.

      1. Brian, your points are good and I would add the safety issues for passengers on the bus, light rail or bus stop have to be taken into account. Metro and the police can only react to incidents today, not prevent them and this should scare any bus rider too with this new plan.

        We also have the distances that Metro is expecting people to walk day or night to catch the bus or light rail. So what standards is Metro working toward and who sets the distances for access to a bus city, county, state or Metro?

        What distances do we expect seniors and kids to walk on streets that may be hazardous due to cracks or poor if any lighting? Do we really expect SPD to monitor bus stops, which they don’t do today? Is Metro going to have Webcams at these major transfer points so they can watch people be mugged or worse?

      2. Reg you make a good point. I have not ever seen the City of Seattle do a technical analysis on pedestrian lighting when studying pedestrian needs to and from transit stops. It would be easy to do field research since light meters are fairly inexpensive. I guess that they just don’t feel it is important enough to study.

      3. It would be nice to see a response to my questions posed above as to how far Metro expects people to walk for bus access or transfer and whose rules are these cit, state, etc,

      4. I believe Metro’s guidelines are that people will be expected to walk up to 1/4 mile to access a bus, but transfers will be much closer. It might be a same stop transfer, a walk around a corner or one or two street crossings. The transit agencies make their own policies on this although SDOT might get involved in Seattle.

        For Rt. 8 at Capitol Hill station, it should stop near a station entrance in one direction and accross the street in the other direction. I expect there will be a lot of pedestrian activity in the station area most of the day. ST will probably have security in the station just like they do in DSTT stations today.

  20. I don’t think that it is fully understood that Route 38 vastly improves the access to groceries for residents around MLK. Route 8 along MLK was mainly a residential alignment except for the 23rd/Jackson jog and the smaller commercial district around Mt. Baker station. The new 38 gives CD direct one-seat riders to Trader Joes, Madison Co-op and QFC on Broadway. It’s even great for SE Seattle residents, who don’t have a Trader Joes and will now have a direct route to that store.

    It’s a great demonstration of how bus routing needs to consider mixing stops in both residential areas and in commercial districts.

  21. This is my first day on the blog and based on what I’ve seen, some of the responses must be non bus users. It is real easy to tell people to make transfers, when you not the one having to change locations in every kind of Seattle weather and in some areas where you wouldn’t want to be at night, let alone during the day!

    It also appears that some of the posters are asking one group of bus riders to give up their bus for others. One must ask, what problem they are trying to solve and what kind of problems are they going to create like they did when light rail started in the south end.

    Saying the an area is “racist” is inappropriate and should not be condoned on this blog. Madison Park is part of Seattle, whether we or Seattle residents like it or not!

    We are all tax payers and to say that some areas like Madison Park doesn’t need bus service or they should get what left over is wrong. We pay very high property taxes and we do expect some services like but service in Madison Park. Trying to buy us off with 10 minute service that is requires transfers and walking (or running) to make connections is dead wrong too!

    We understand that changes will come, but changes must be made to work for most of the people affected. Yes, we should remove duplication, but should drop service where it is needed is wrong. In my view, Alternative One and Two are not the only options and this blog as well as Metro should encourage alternative solutions.

    1. Sure, Alt. 1 and Alt. 2 are not the only options. They’re really polar opposites; many people here would love to have Alt. 1, warts and all, but in reality the result will be something else. Prop. 1 additions will make either of the alternatives better.

      It’s important that Metro not only remove duplication, but run the service it has more efficiently. One hopes that if they do that, they can do more with the resources that they have. In any case, the county council has directed them to do that using the Service Guidelines.

    2. Our service to/from Madison will improve dramatically with every 10 minute service, neighbor. Dramatically. For that huge improvement, we’ll pay a bit, as always happens in life. “Service every 10 minutes and hang electric wires” ought to be the mantra in Madison Park and Madison Valley. Tweaks are always possible but we MUST get past this feeling that the bus routes created in 1940, yes 1940, are the one and only way to do things.

      1. The 10 minutes just a selling point and won’t last since there isn’t enough ridership to support it and addition cost cutting will occur with empty buses. Your new 8 is not a replacement for the 1940 11 route, but again your wrong, the 11 used run on Union downtown and it was also connected to West Seattle buses too!

        The 8 will only follow the 11 route to E. Jon and E. Madison where it will switch to E. John going West. This will require a lot of transfers for locations people got to from Madison Valley and Madison/Washington Park.

        Please don’t tell to make one or more transfers when we don’t need to do it know. Just given us 15 or 20 Minute service on the existing 11 and all is well! Please don’t FIX what AIN’T broken for us…

      2. Ridership is better on systems that have good regional connectivity rather than just connecting people to a single location. It’s quite likely that, implemented well, ridership with this proposal will be enough to justify more frequent service than half hourly.

      3. I’ve been around long enough to remember the 11 on Union AND the 11 throughlined to/from the 21 (in electric days when there WERE wires in the park) and later the 125. In the latter case peak hour service from downtown to Madison Park was very unpredictable, and Metro wisely severed that link a few years back. As the demographics down here change (and they ARE changing under our very noses) we DO need better service and better connections to all destinations, not JUST downtown.

    3. It’s real easy to tell people to use the one-seat rides when they don’t go where they want to go or when they want to go and are sometimes overly slow. People don’t go just to downtown and just to Broadway & Pine, they go to SLU and UW and Columbia City and Bellevue — all of which require transfers in your network. Or they drive, which is a one-seat ride. But we’re trying to minimize driving and make transit a more convenient alternative. Not just for going downtown, but for going everywhere. It doesn’t work if you have to wait 20-30 minutes before you start and between each segment. That’s what leads to ridiculous travel times like an hour from Ballard to Sand Point or from Lake City to Aurora. People throw up their hands and drive. Because the one-seat rides are all going downtown, and the few crosstown routes (44, 48, 75) are incomplete.

      Please look around humantransit.org, because Jarrett explains the philosophy behind this better than we can, and shows how it works in other cities and what the results are.

      1. Real great, but it’s not just downtown for those of riding the 11 E Madison. We stop at all points between and we only talking about a Mile but run. It is really cute see all of you experts telling us how to use a proposed bus system that will penalize those who use the 11 E Madison. This can be made to work, but not with the attitude display by so called experts on this forum!

        Lets, really be honest Metro doesn’t really want to provide service to Madison Park and I’m not the only saying that, just ask them and ask SDOT. If you experts would like more cars on the road continue pushing a plan that will foster that and there are several posts stating that!

        Maybe the forum should consider talking about eliminating service to Madison Park and have us walk to MLK to catch a bus or drive a car!!! SDOT’s most recent plan for BRT won’t even go to the Madison Park and Metro doesn’t want our opinion base on the website.

      2. I don’t work for either Metro or SDOT, but I’d bet my house on it. The staff members at those agencies are not part of some grand conspiracy to pick winners and losers. They’re trying to allow more mobility for more people in a rapidly changing city.

      3. As I understand it, the only reason the BRT won’t go to Madison Park is because the neighborhood insisted on it. David Lawson’s plan on this blog would have it go there, and in these very threads, several commenters have praised the 8’s extension there.

      4. To be clear, my latest plans would no longer have a route all the way up Madison. I’ve come around to the view that it just isn’t a workable corridor. Instead, the latest version of my network has an 11 revised to use John Street instead of Pine and running every 12 minutes. But I never published that network for lack of time, and because things were moving too fast. It’s based on an hours amount that’s pre-September cuts but also pre-Prop 1.

      5. You’re the only one who’s talking about cutting off Madison Park. The places that might be cut off are Laurelhurst, Lakeside Ave S, Mt Rainier Drive south of McClellan, and 32nd Ave NW (already). These are all almost 100% residential. 32nd NW has a parallel route eight flat blocks away. Half of Laurelhurst is within a 10-minute walk of the 75, as is Mt Rainier Blvd to 31st Ave S. Lakeside Ave is isolated but it’s hard to serve such a small number of people. Madison Park has a commercial district and several restaurants and the beach, and is very close to Madison Valley which must be served anyway. There’s no evidence Metro wants to cut off Madison Park, just conspiracy theories. If the residents don’t want any buses in the neighborhood, tell Metro and maybe you can convince them. But then how will people get to the businesses without a car?

      6. Let’s try this again, SDOT won’t even talk to Madison Park about BRT, but yes years go we said no to overhead wires. We need communications not the lack of communications from SDOT, which is a known problem and I’m dealing with them on a sidewalk issue. They’re in a world of their own.

        David, your talking about your latest plan, so who are you making the plan for Metro or this blog. Very confusing! We want a bus to stay on the 11 route, not swing north to Denny, another non starter and more of Alternative One!

        You talk about a rapidly changing city, so have you looked at the increased density on E. Madison? Have you looked at the logistics on E. Madison with one lane each direction and a turn lane used for deliveries in the business areas. There is NO room for a BRT, but there is a need for service and not SEGMENTED service to places people go to!

        Someone also propose a shuttle service for Madison Park to get people to MLK or 23rd, just another cop out to cut our service. Again, people are already stating they will drive rather than use Alternative One!! So is that what Metro wants.

      7. Reg, to avoid confusion, I’ll fill you in on a bit of blog history that will be familiar to regular readers.

        I do a lot of the reporting for STB on Metro service and network changes, and they are something I’ve been interested in for as long as I can remember. In the summer of 2013, after a bunch of research and poring over Metro and census data, I proposed my own post-Link restructure plan covering all of the city of Seattle. The purpose of my proposal was to show that with a consolidated network we could have buses running often enough in nearly all of the city to make transfers and spontaneous trips easy. That proposal had a 10-minute route running the length of Madison. Since then, I’ve developed another plan which allows for even better frequencies in many areas, but I haven’t published it for a variety of reasons. The unpublished proposal has a 12-minute route running between downtown and Madison Park via John St.

        While they are obviously very different in the particulars (and Metro has more information than I could ever hope to), my plan and Metro’s Alternative 1 are designed with many of the same goals in mind.

      8. The transit lanes could be omitted east of 28th; I doubt there’s enough congestion to require them. But the wire would come, and probably large fancy bus shelters. To be clear, there’s no official proposal for this; it’s just some transit fans’ suggestions. My understanding is that Madison Park asked to be excluded from the BRT study area in order to avoid pressure for upzones. There’s also the expense of extending BRT that far; the project’s budget and anticipated levy are not sized for it. It would have to be an add-on project later, based on the principle that an all-Madison route is more network-effective and cost-effective than alternatives. (Alternatives being the 8 or 11.) Both of those premises are debated, and some former supporters have turned against them.

        We’ll either have alternative 1 with the 8 or alternative 2 with the 11. The 8 is not “no buses in Madison Park”, and if it causes a few people to drive, that’s not the only factor to consider.

        Here’s why transfers are good.

        We should also focus on making the transfer environment better, not just leaving the bus stops as-is. For instance, people are concerned about safety at 23rd & John at night. So what can we do to make it better? Put the stops closer together, don’t require crossing two traffic lights, have nice shelters, good lighting, visible police patrols, and real-time arrival signs. Ditto at Capitol Hill Station and all other transfer points. Make them mini transit centers that people won’t mind waiting at. If 23rd-John-Madison becomes a 3-way transfer point, extend the amenities to the entire triangle.

      9. Orin, thank you for the post, but you haven’t changed my mind and given the Metro is giving Madison Park/Washington Park the service we should have had for years, I vote and most of MP/WP will vote to keep what we get in September.

        You may like transferring, but we don’t and where is SPD going to get the officers to keep us safe at the bus stops as you suggest. They can’t even handle the crime downtown, let alone Madison Park. We can’t rely on promises that can’t be met!

        Your reference to 28th is also invalid due the turn lane used by the businesses there for deliveries and the congestion at Bailey Boshea with emergency vehicles!

        We want to stay with our 11 on the Madison/Pike/Pine corridor in Alternative Two!

      10. Again, I’ll remind all parties that if Sound Transit had built a real urban multi-stop north-south subway, etcetcbrokenrecordetc.

  22. I live in Madison Park, work downtown and commute via the 11. It is always full even at off peak times. And not just with elderly riders or domestic workers.

    It’s unreliable now and the idea of transferring on Capitol Hill every day just doesn’t appeal to me. Can’t Metro provide basic routes from all major neighbors to downtown without forcing transfers? At $5.50 a day, it shouldn’t take me longer to ride public transportation than it would to walk. I will likely choose to drive as a single driver rather than deal with a transfer and walking 10 blocks.

    1. It is great to have actual residents of Madison Park speak up on the forum, rather than outsiders telling us how to use the bus and saying that the Alternative One is fine and we should just swallow it and shut up.

      Just a heads up to County Council Position 3 candidates, you need to be for Metro transit in Madison/Washington Park or you won’t get our VOTE! Yes, we do vote and at and we always have good turnouts too!

      1. So, are you going to insist on Madison BRT reaching Madison Park? My impression was that the neighborhood didn’t want that.

    2. I used to ride Route 39 from Genesee Park to Downtown Seattle. Metro restructured the route so that I now have to use the 50 and transfer to Link at Columbia City.

      The big negative is that the promised initial higher frequency didn’t happen. I suspect the residents felt a bit of “bait and switch” when it came to losing our one-seat ride. Lesson: Make Metro keep their word on frequencies!

      Another negative was the horrible stop locations at Columbia City Link for Route 50. It’s very frustrating to miss a train because the stop is after the intersection that has a long red light. Where the stops are is a big deal! If they Metro relocates their stop to be in front of the Capitol Hill North station entrance, it won’t be an issue.

      Despite these negatives, being able to get Downtown rapidly, not having to wait long for a train, and being able to drop into any station on Link and get close to home has created a very pleasant commute. Trains are faster and have a smoother ride. I can’t really complain.

    3. Can’t Metro provide basic routes from all major neighbors to downtown without forcing transfers?

      Not if you want frequent or fast service. That is exactly what Metro’s network was in the 1980s. Most buses ran every 30 to 60 minutes, and trips downtown from outlying neighborhoods could take over an hour. But every last neighborhood had a bus downtown. And in any case, far fewer people (as a proportion of the total) work downtown these days. We’d also need to provide a bus from every neighborhood to SLU, the U-District, and Fremont.

      There are two reasons to force the transfer on Capitol Hill: 1) because the train can cover the distance between Broadway and downtown in less than a quarter of the time it takes the bus, and 2) so you can have a bus every 10 minutes, rather than 30, along the bus route.

    4. “Can’t Metro provide basic routes from all major neighbors to downtown without forcing transfers?”

      A one-seat network costs more to operate and serves non-downtown trips badly. Are you willing to pay 50% more in taxes to preserve all the existing one-seat rides and get the core routes and crosstown routes up to where they should be? Leaving the network as-is is not an option; it’s causing people to drive and/or be greatly frustrated. If you allow a frequent transfer-based network, then the 50% won’t be needed and you can keep it.

    5. The ride from Captol Hill Station to University Street Station will only be about 5 minutes.

      And if you provide a one-seat ride from everywhere to downtown, there will not be enough money left over to run a proper network connecting all parts of the city. That’s why a grid or modified grid is best.

  23. For the sake of simplifying the network, there should be a route along Madison all the way from the ferry docks to Madison Park. Even the proposed Madison BRT isn’t going to go to the logical end at Madison Park.

    1. Given the alternatives proposed by Metro, I actually agree with a non BRT route from Madison Park to the Coleman Dock. It makes for sense then having to deal with the multiple transfers that Metro wants us to do. One would sill have to connect via the tunnel to get to Pike Pine, but that’s better than Alternative one in my view!

      1. You’re saying that a very long ride to a point sort of near a tunnel station (3rd/Madison) followed by a one-stop ride in the tunnel is better than a shorter ride directly to a tunnel station (CHS) followed by a one-stop ride in the tunnel? I find that confusing.

      2. Yes, since I get to most the places I need to on one bus, like Safeway, Trader Joe’s, Coop, TDHS, QFC and Pill Hill. Please stop trying to tell us where we should be going by bus, and we don’t always use the 11 to go downtown.

        I try to stay away given how seedy it has become and you verify that by looking at the Seattle Times editorial several weeks ago! In addition, there is no reason we couldn’t have 15 or 20 minute service as a min rather that 30!

      3. Reg N,

        You could get your wish for frequent service to downtown via a straight shot on Madison if you would just allow the BRT to reach Madison Park.

        That route, and the proposed 8 route providing your neighbors a direct connection to Group Health, Seattle Central College, Capitol Hill Station, and South Lake Union are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the point of a gridded network is that you can take the bus in more than one direction.

        BRT will allow the buses to be faster, and that is what enables the higher frequency using fewer service hours. If you are a bus rider, why would you not want right-of-way priority for your bus?

        Moreover, if you get BRT to Madison Park, that will surely cement the continuation of bus service to Madison Park for our grandchildren’s grandchildren.

      4. I am NOT the one who said NO the BRT in Madison Park, SDOT did that on it’s own. Just ask them and good luck in getting them to answer the phone!

        Yes, Madison Park has said NO to overhead wires years ago, but SDOT has also publically stated that there is no desire to service Madison Park, again ask them.

        I wish I had the power you think I have. Again look at E. Madison, there is no room for BRT and the reduced stops will never fly either! In addition, who’s going to fund BRT, you, I know I will vote no just as I did for the recent prop 1. If the BRT were real, it would be handled by Metro not a third agency and it would be part of the alternatives offered!

      5. I suppose Reg N is going to campaign against Reg N for City Council, since Reg N has voted against, and will continue to vote against, funding the service on route 11 that Reg N insists Madison Park must have. Are there two Reg Ns commenting here?

    2. Oran, thank you for info and this is the first I’ve heard of it. Funny part, this will work and why is Metro making changes in September for Seattle and then redoing the whole thin next March, 2016?

      1. It’s two different timelines and funding sources interacting. One clock is Link’s extension openings and the bus reorganizations like this. The other clock is the long saga that started with the 2008 recession that gutted Metro’s revenue, the two-year reprieve that forestalled cuts, the failed county Prop 1, the cut planning, the economic rebound that cancelled the cuts, and the successful city Prop 1. Prop 1 money is coming in soon, and voters want to see results this year. And the city council chose to supplement the existing routes rather than asking for changes. They did this knowing that the U-Link reorg would be decided now, but they didn’t know what it would be, and it was too many months in the future to wait for it. So they put the money into the existing routes based on the service guidelines, and that led to more service on the 11, 12, and 25 because part of those routes were underservice. The rest of the routes came along for the ride, especially the 12 because you can’t install a trolley turnback at the drop of a hat. So 19th Avenue is getting more service six or nine months before it’s deleted, ironic as it is.

  24. When the streetcar is extended further north, will there be a stop at John/Olive to make easier transfers to bus? They could eliminate the stop (currently terminus) near Denny Way. There would be no reason for it anyways.

  25. Speaking of Madison, what is the reason why the buses don’t run down to Colman Ferry Docks NOW? In fact, there aren’t any routes running to Colman Docks now. You have to walk inland several minutes to get to any route. That makes no sense. The docks are not only at the edge of the city (the logical place for routes to end), but seem like a significant destination as well.

    1. Routes 16 and 66 used to serve Colman Dock on Alaskan Way, but were moved away for the duration of the Alaskan Way and seawall rebuild projects.

      Given that there is a level, accessible pedestrian bridge from the terminal to 1st and Marion, I don’t think service to Alaskan Way is critical.

      1. Did Route 12 used to go down to the Ferry Docks? If so, will it again once the construction is over?

      2. No, the 12 hasn’t ever gone to Alaskan Way, at least not in the modern trolley era. There’s no wire down there. Before it adopted its current live-loop routing on Marion/Madison, it was through-routed with the 10 using 1st Avenue.

        Before the seawall project, the 16 served the Alaskan Way stop for many years; the 66 was a later addition. I can’t remember what served the Alaskan Way stop before the 16, but I know there was something.

      3. David,

        Wasn’t it the 302/305 (either or both) that served the ferry terminal? The old precursors to the 66 that continued past Northgate to Richmond Beach.

    2. +1 for spelling Colman correctly. One would think some long-time (in some cases, very long time) residents of the city who post here might get that one right. ;-)

      I live in Madison Park and I won’t drive. I’ll be on that new bus and train….

      1. That makes 2 of us here in Madison Park, at least.
        Back in the dim dark days of the 1950s and 1960s, the 37 cut down from 1st Avenue to Alaskan Way at Madison (i think) and then went along Alaskan Way all the way to Spokane and over the bridge to Alki. Before the piers were converted to container operations there were some longshore and ship crews using the 37 plus the folks at the USCG base – days long gone.

    3. Route 10 and 12 are usually interlined today. That means that people on Route 10 can get closer to City Hall and Columbia Tower, and people on Route 12 can get to Westlake and closer to Belltown AND closer to a Link entrance.

      With the elimination of the 12, that Downtown connection goes away.

      This is one reason why keeping Route 12 will not be as useful in the future. If you are on Route 12, you will be forced to transfer at 3rd and Marion or Madison, which is not near a Link station. When Capitol Hill Station opens (if Alternative 1 with Route 8 and 38 is chosen), its convenience and speed will be so significant that few on the 19th Avenue corridor will miss it once they learn the new routing. The trips that are the biggest problem are those to and from the hospitals on First Hill.

      I suspect that Route 12 will have a story like Route 42. Metro will keep it running for a few years while slowly cutting its frequency. Eventually, it could be eliminated.

      1. The 10 and 12 haven’t been through-routed since October 2012. Each of them now live-loops, the 10 on Pine/Pike and the 12 on Madison/Marion.

      2. You really think people on the 19th Avenue Corridor will prefer to simply hike a quarter of a mile east or west? I think you overestimate people’s desire to walk long distances.

        The 12 route will likely remain popular even with the transfers, if it has any sort of frequency.

  26. Proposal 1 trades some electric trolleybus routes for diesel routes. Not only the loss of the 43 and 12, but the potential inability to electrify the 48S. I am not against making the system more efficient but I wish there were a way to continue utilizing this overhead wire, or perhaps string new wire for some of the new routing. From an environmental point of view, replacing zero-emission trolleys with fossil-buring diesels is a step backwards.
    When the 70 was electrified, there was a detailed Environmental Impact Study. Same when the 36 wire was extended south. Will there be such a study if Metro decommissions electric routes and reduces the size of its electric bus network in favor of more diesel routes? Or does environmental impact not count when removing an environmentally friendly service, only when adding one?

    1. It’s the other way around. The 23rd Avenue renovation is going ahead and trolley wires are part of it, although that part may not be funded yet. So the 48S will very likely be electrified at some point and that will force it to split from the 48N or 67. The trolley fleet will be replaced with new buses in the next couple years. In the next decade there’s at least a 50% chance of more capital projects (by Metro or the city) to electrify a few more high-performance routes, either through short wire extensions or on Seattle TMP (Transit Master Plan) corridors. If wise heads prevail, some of the proposed streetcar corridors could be realized as trolleybus corridors; e.g., Roosevelt (extend the 70 to 65th or Northgate) or Westlake (Fremont). Other possible candidates are Denny Way (the 8), 45th (reroute the 44 to Children’s) or Greenwood (the 5).

      Trolleybuses are good for Seattle’s climate goals, attract passengers who like their quietness and smoothness and hill-climbing, isolate us from oil price volatility, and are favored by people who like the wires’ streetcar-ish aura (as opposed to those who think the wires are a blight). Strictly speaking (according to a Metro hearing I attended), they cost more than diesel buses to operate but federal “fixed guideway route” grants or tax deductions more than offset that and make them cheaper.

      Both of the 43’s and 12’s replacements are provisionally being electrified in the next decade (48 and Madison BRT), so it’s not a certain permanent loss. The 8 could be electrified too, if Madison Park doesn’t scuttle it. (Note: electrifying Madison Park is independent of whether the 8, 11, or Madison BRT travels on it. Any of them could be incorporated.)

      1. Well, it depends on the going price of diesel fuel. At the diesel prices of several years ago, it was thought to be break-even over the long run between trolley operations and diesel bus operations. (Electricity is cheaper than diesel and trolleybuses are more efficent and they last longer, but there’s large wire maintenance costs.) Anyway, which is cheaper changes depending on the diesel price. One thing is sure: the trolleybus costs are *more stable* than diesel costs.

      2. What about electric hybrid buses? It seems to me like they’d be the best replacements for trolleys, since they can climb hills just as well.

  27. We currently use our ORCA cards on Metro, so will we have to pay an addition fare to ride the Light Rail. I know that the last time I rode it, I was required to pay! Or will we have to have a different ORCA card so we can ride both and what will it cost?

    There is a lot of confusion on this issue and I still haven’t figured out if we have to pay extra to ride the SLUT. I for one have never paid or swiped my card!

    1. You can use one ORCA card on both. Riding either a Metro bus or an ST bus/train using ORCA, you get a transfer valid on both Metro and ST for 2 hours from your first swipe. If the fare on your second ride is higher than your first, you will pay the difference when you swipe for your second ride.

      In short, Metro and ST each set their own fares, but you can use ORCA for both, and transfer between them using ORCA.

      There are no transfers between Metro and ST (and no ST transfers at all) if you pay cash.

      1. David, sorry but you didn’t answer my question. Currently it is one fare for me to go anywhere I use the 11, so will it cost me more if i chose to use the Light Rail to get downtown and how much more? How much will seniors have to pay for the privilege of transferring to the light rail?

        In other words, if I use the Light Rail, will I be charged if I come off a bus having used the ORCA card on the bus?

      2. No, you won’t be charged extra unless your train trip costs more than the $2.50 you paid on the bus. Going just about anywhere but the airport will be free.

      3. If you’re a senior, you won’t have to pay extra in either direction, because the senior fares on both services are $1.00. To get that fare you have to have a Regional Reduced Fare Permit on your ORCA card.

    2. No separate cards, no paying twice. Your ORCA card will work equally well on Link, and it would provide a free transfer from Route 8 worth $2.50. Going anywhere on Link from Capitol Hill will be free, with the likely exception of Tukwila/Airport/Angle Lake, which will only cost you ~$.50-$.75 more, deducted when you tap off from the train.

      1. If you use Orca, there are no extra charges between rail/bus and just bus for your trip. If you ride Link to Capitol Hill Station and transfer to Route 8.Your fare will be the same as if you road a Route 11 from Downtown Seattle

  28. I’m surprised no one thought to actually send the 60 to 19th as a potential option. Given the routes that already serve Broadway and what will overlap the 60 in this Alt 1 proposal there is nothing the 60 does that the 49, FHSC, Link, or even the 9 won’t do more effectively. The 60 could maintain the apparently critical connection between the hospitals and TJ’s, etc and relieve Broadway of one more bus. I would think this makes running the 38 downtown a bit more palatable. The radial connections to downtown and SCCC are also fairly reasonable.

  29. If the Pike/Pine corridor west of Broadway is going form three routes (10,11,49) to just one (10), I think it NEEDS to be 10 minute service, not 15 minute service as the plans seem to show. Would everyone agree?

    1. I fully agree with the need for 10 minute service and Metro will have a lot or extra trolley buses available since the 12 and 43 will b dropped! The 10 minute will only work if the 10 is kept on the Pike/Pine corridor and not moved to John which has been mentioned in the blog!

    2. If I’m reading the maps correctly, the 38 would also serve Pine between Broadway and 15th E. That adds 15 minute headways, so make it 8 buses an hour for that segment. Is there crowding east of 15th E?

    3. I would also add that many of the riders served by Route 10 between Republican (on 15th Ave) and Summit (on Pine St) will be within walking distance to Capitol Hill station and may just walk to Link. The 10 may take one of the biggest percentage loss in the number of riders as a result of U-Link opening.

    4. Yes, I think the 10 should at least start out as 10-minute headway, and serve Capitol Hill Station a little more directly. A route on Pike/Pine east of Broadway (38?) that then turns up Broadway to go by the station would probably be a good idea, and maybe have it continue on the 47’s northern path.

      Or maybe have a peak 11 continue to provide that Pike/Pine service, and let riders vote with their feet between the 8 and the 11. It’s not as if we didn’t vote for the extra service hours to do both, at least for a couple years. Reg’s combative prose aside, I think Madison Park *riders* will be overjoyed at having more options of where they can ride.

      1. Great thinking, but can Broadway handle buses with the street care and bike lane, I think not! Peak Hour service great idea, but I think you will find that the 15-minute service starting in September solves a lot of the reliability problems on the 11 and a push for Alternative Two.

        Maybe Madison Park and as suggested in this blog only need peak hour service only. It would be really nice to have longer that a 5 month period for the Prop One changes to take effect and to see what that does to ridership.

      2. The streetcar is center-running for much of its length, so it doesn’t compete with the buses for dwell space, with few exceptions.

      3. On Jackson, but not on Broadway – there’re only two lanes for most of Broadway, and the buses are already using the streetcar stops.

  30. I would like to pass on a comment from a poster on Nextdoor Madison Park, which really sums up the problem with Alternative one for all routes “The proposals are head spinning.”

    A number of others are in total disbelief that this will actually happen and it is less than a year away. We’ve gotten a lot of comments and most people don’t understand the complexity of the change, nor the impact on their normal routines like work, shopping and getting from point A to B, which will totally change. It’s really easy for some to tell people to change the pattern and even places that they shop. It’s also really easy to tell people to walk some or and/or to wait for buses in unfriendly parts of town. Others have thrown in the towel and said that they going to drive rather than deal with transfer and walking!

    Yes, some people will benefit from these changes, but the cavalier attitude toward those who will be hurt will not benefit anyone especially if Metro or the County come asking for money again as they most like will! This change is going to take a massive sales effort and in my view, it’s gotten off to a very bad start to say they least! In addition, the confusion of the added funded from Proposition One doesn’t help the credibility of the City of Seattle, Metro or King County!

    In reality these changes a draconian and greater that were proposed by Metro last year and much harder to stomach due to complex relationship of the pieces which the website does a poor job of relating! Not everyone has the time or expertise to devote to becoming an expert on way the changes will impact their lives which they surely will, since almost everyone is impacted for the good or bad!

    I really hope that Metro is really giving us two alternatives for each of the routes listed and that this is not a done deal which some of have expressed to me! So far I haven’t really seen openness for alternatives and if that be the case, then Metro should be honest with us!

    Change is hard, but it can be forced down out thoughts or it can be made palatable, so which will it be?

    1. Reg N,

      I’d like to hear directly from some of the people who you are talking about, and hear their specific complaints.

      1. Brent,

        These comments are from the comments we’ve gotten on Nextdoor Madison Park and the surrounding communities. They are for members of Nextdoor only unless they wish to pass them on and they have given the address of the Seattle Transit Blogger.

        Bottom line, the users of Nextdoor were presented the full info via the website address that we got in the email from Metro and over two dozen people have commented. So what is your point or what you trying to say? If you don’t like my comments above then just say so!

      2. Here is a revised version of my summary posted above and this will also be posted on Nextdoor.

        I would like to pass on a comment from a poster on Nextdoor Madison Park, which really sums up the problem with Alternative one for all routes “The proposals are head spinning.”

        A number of others are in total disbelief that this will actually happen and it is less than a year away. We’ve gotten a lot of comments and most people don’t understand the complexity of the change, nor the impact on their normal routines like work, shopping and getting from point A to B, which will totally change. It’s really easy for some to tell people to change the pattern and even places that they shop. It’s also really easy to tell people to walk some or and/or to wait for buses in unfriendly parts of town. Others have thrown in the towel and said that they going to drive rather than deal with transfer and walking!

        Yes, some people will benefit from these changes, but the cavalier attitude toward those who will be hurt will not benefit anyone especially if Metro or the County come asking for money again as they most likely will! This change is going to take a massive sales effort and in my view, it’s gotten off to a very bad start to say they least! In addition, the confusion of the added funding from Proposition One doesn’t help the credibility of the City of Seattle, Metro or King County! The talk about SDOT’s BRT just added to the confusion and uncertainty of what’s going on.
        In reality these changes are draconian and greater than those proposed by Metro last year and much harder to stomach due to complex relationship of the pieces which the website does a poor job of relating! Not everyone has the time or expertise to devote to becoming an expert on way the changes will impact their lives which they surely will, since almost everyone is impacted for the good or bad!

        I really hope that Metro is really giving us two alternatives for each of the routes listed and that this is not a done deal which some have expressed to me! So far I haven’t really seen openness for alternatives and if that be the case, then Metro should be honest with us!

        Change is hard, but it can be forced down our thoughts or it can be made palatable, so which will it be?

      3. Alternatives 1 and 2 are real alternatives, but they’re also just the starting pieces from which the sausage will be made. Mark my words, some routes proposed for deletion will be retained, while others will be consolidated and made more frequent as Alternative 1 proposes. Metro is being very transparent about this process, having sounding boards and open houses and presentations to community groups, after which the alternatives will be re-presented in April and we’ll do this all over again, after which the County Council will have to approve, after which the City will get to decide how to spend their newly freed funds to add more service. Think of the alternatives as thought exercises that optimize different sets of values: Alt 1 is “What would a frequent, consolidated network that Metro can pay for on its own look like?” while Alternative 2 is “A lack of frequency hurts more people but less severely, so let’s keep broader geographic coverage and let Prop 1 fill in the gaps where it can.” The end game is a utilitarian one, to build a network that helps the most people and hurts the least.

        In Madison Park’s specific case, however, I admit to struggling to see what you’d be upset about. 50% more peak frequency and a literal tripling of frequency off peak, to a beautiful but dead-end neighborhood, is an expensive gift that Alt 1 gives you, with excellent and frequent transfer opportunities that the half-hourly off-peak 11 can’t provide today. I, for one, will be visiting Cafe Flora and Nishino much more often if the Route 8 revisions happen.

      4. Sir, I nor others in Madison Park are not trip, but taking away access from places we go by bus and using them as incentives for others like on the 38 does not work. Someone is playing us off against each other! In addition, 6 buses per hour won’t work with the bunching an it’s not enough of an incentive if you have to get somewhere from Madison Park and the surrounding areas around E Madison.

        Remember, we are the ones that have to adjust to these changes and unless you use the 11 on a regular bases I question you ability to walk in our shoes!!!

      5. Reg – we all have to adjust to whatever changes are eventually made. As a frequent visitor to Madison Valley (and sometimes to Madison Park), I personally think Alternative 1 will be a great improvement over what we have now.

        If there are other people you know in Madison Park who are upset by these proposed changes, ask them to make their voices heard! But don’t simply relay something that someone wrote on Next Door Madison Park, because since that is a private forum, we have no way of knowing if what you pass along from NDMP is actually real!

        (And why is NDMP private anyway? The Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, West Seattle Blog, etc. are all public. What are the members of the NDMP discussing that could possibly warrant being hidden from the public eye?)

        Let’s turn the question around: In your opinion, what would be the ideal transit service to Madison Park?

      6. Yes, I’m already formulating an alternative plan and I will publish as soon as it is ready. Hopefully this forum will accept an alternative that might actually work and achieve the desired objective without hurting people who use transit or have having to play one area against another as the current Alternative does!

        BTW, you need to look Nextdoor up and there is a good reason that it is members only. It has been written up numerous times and I’m the Lead for Madison park.

        As far as your having visited the Valley and the Park, please don’t think that that can be equated on living here and relying on transit as you our transportation!

      7. Reg, I’m looking forward to seeing your plan.

        And after a quick Bing search, I see what Nextdoor is – but what’re the benefits of having the neighborhood discussion forum there and not somewhere visible to outsiders? Is it just because that neighborhood group already exists there? Or because you value the address verification?

      8. Nextdoor is NOT a blog, not is it Craigslist, but it has similar functions. Nextdoor verifies that people who join live or work in that area. Madison Park has close to 700 member and there are similar groups around us in Washington Park, Arboretum and other areas in Seattle and around the country.

        Yes, we value the privacy and security especially since people personal info may be available. We live in a different world then 1980 and Nextdoor is excellent at what it does and it’s safe!

      9. Thanks for passing along the link to the STB posts. I look forward to a cordial dialogue with reasonable minds.

  31. I have a question that was posed on Nextdoor and hopefully someone will have a workable answer other than telling to take Access, a cab or transfer at 22nd and John. Metro and all of need to remember there are ADA rules and that is why all the buses have lifts!

    “What about the elderly and handicapped who use the 43 to get to both Group Health and the Safeway on 15th?”

    If you don’t know what Nextdoor is please Google it!

    1. If anyone wants to know what Nextdoor is, they can just visit https://nextdoor.com/about_us/

      See, isn’t that easy? Please don’t suggest that we should search for something when a simple URL will take us right there (and we don’t even know what we’re searching for).

    2. If that person is within what they consider a reasonable walk of John then they take the 8. If they currently catch the 43 on 23rd/24th/Montlake then yes, all of their options require a transfer, taking access or taking a cab.

      The transfer options are 23rd & John between 2 every 10 minute routes for an average transfer time of 5 minutes, or ride the 48 to UW station, take Link to Capitol Hill Station and transfer to the 8.

      They also have a one seat ride (as they do today) to the Safeway at 23rd & Madison. A transfer to the 38 there will also give access to Trader Joe’s, Madison Market, Whole Foods, and QFC.

      1. I really wonder how many elderly or handicapped with accept this cavalier answer and I wonder if it is ADA compliant!

      2. There’s nothing wrong with Alt 1 from an ADA perspective. For mainline service, ADA requires that facilities and vehicles be accessible (and accessibility systems kept in good working order) and that the system not discriminate against riders with disabilities. It doesn’t require one-seat service anywhere. All of the transfer stops that would be used in Alt 1 and all Metro and ST buses meet ADA accessibility requirements.

        In the Capitol Hill part of the Alt 1 area, the 2, 3, 4, 10, 47, and 49 will all remain trolleys and will all benefit from the shift to low-floor coaches. The 48 may also be electrified in the future, although it uses only low-floor hybrid coaches today.

      3. David, again does this answer the question for a rider of the 43 or does Metro expect them to use a cab or Access, when the can get there by bus?

      4. Reg N,

        FWIW, Even Access rides aren’t guaranteed to be one-seat. A lot of Access trips involve transferring between vans serving different regions at South Bellevue Park & Ride or at an Access transfer center in Tukwila.

      5. I would note that Route 12 is probably one of the worst routes around when it comes to accessibility. It’s almost impossible to get on or off a bus in Downtown Seattle on Route 12 at a level stop. I’m surprised there aren’t more wheelchairs careening down Madison or Marion Street!

    3. It’s also worth noting that boarding and deboarding on many of these routes will get much easier and quicker for seniors and riders with disabilities in the next year or so as Metro replaces its entire trolley fleet with kneeling, stair-free low-floor coaches. Unfortunately, the 8 (and 38 if Alt 1 happens) will still have a few high-floor coaches until around 2018, but Metro is moving toward exclusively low-floor kneeling coaches as fast as the replacement cycle allows.

      1. As I understand the 12 and 43 are being dripped, but none of the other routes are electric so how will benefit the elderly or handicapped? Again, these changes to Metro must be ADA complaint and I still question if they are?

      2. Yes, it is ADA-compliant. The ADA does not require one-seat rides from everywhere to everywhere, nor does it require any given one-seat ride to be maintained. I could just as well ask how a handicapped person in the ID could get to Group Health under the existing system – does Metro want him or her to transfer at Pine or take Access? Is that ADA-compliant? Yes, it is.

      3. Reg N,

        If you want Metro’s route network to be as accessible as possible, don’t vote against Metro fleet replacement funding.

    4. Reg N,

      You have been quite vocal, and cavalier, in your opposition to letting your neighbors in Madison Park have a one-seat ride to Group Health and the Safeway on 15th.

      Perhaps the person who posted that question on Nextdoor is trying to get a point through your thick skull, and her/his point went right over your head.

      1. Brent,

        Here is the Nextdoor post from the person I posted above and they live in the Arboretum area near Madison Park and I hope that you will read it again:

        ‘What about the elderly and handicapped who use the 43 to get to both Group Health and the Safeway on 15th?”

        Please note, the comment is about the 43 that runs on 23rd/24th Ave E (Arboretum area and not the 11 or Madison Park) and it’s elimination and in my view it is a very valid point! In other words, they lose the “one-seat ride”, right!

      2. Reg, What about seniors and riders with disabilities in Madison Park who would like a 1-seat ride to Group Health? Why do you have so much cavalier indifference for them?

  32. I find the comments and ridicule of the previous poster totally unacceptable since I pose a question about elderly and handicap bus access to the 43. This form of blogging is a discredit to this blog as was the “racist” comment several days ago. I personally reject the responses and their tone since I am both elderly and handicapped! We on this blog are owed an open apology for the tone and content of the posts!

    This blog has provided me a lot of information not available elsewhere, but unless the personal attacks stop, I’m out of here!

    BTW, I was going to post my Alternative Three on this blog, but given the above postings I’ve given the proposal to Metro (deAnna) already and it will be shared with reader of Nextdoor!

    1. My Alternative Three was just posted for member of Nextdoor this afternoon and it will be reviewed with Metro this Wednesday. In addition we are also planning a poll of our readers between the tree alternatives!!

  33. Reg N,

    You are the previous poster.

    Could you stick to arguing points, instead of attacking everyone’s character here? You aren’t winning friends with your endless insults.

  34. I can live with the 8 going to 23rd and so that users could transfer to and from the 48. This would also allow the elimination of the 43. Some won’t like it, but we all have to give a little. The only question how the 8 could do a turn around at 23rd Ave E and E Madison.

    Thank you for you for your suggestion.

    BTW, I hope that Metro will give us a fair hearing or why hold the outreach. They are working for us, this is still America and we still have the right to suggest alternative. If Metro doesn’t listen, then future ballot funding will be in BIG trouble.

    1. Is this in reply to my comment in the other post?

      I don’t know how the 8 could layover near 23rd E and E Madison, but isn’t that also the proposed terminal of Madison BRT?

      If you’ve scheduled a meeting with Metro I’m sure they’ll give you a listen. I’m merely suggesting that you tell them what you like and don’t like about their alternatives, suggest what you would prefer to do about specific routes that affect you and let the planners do their work of building a sensible network within the constraint of it being revenue-neutral. You certainly don’t have to take my advice.

  35. My Alternate Three was reviewed by residents of Madison Valley, Madison Park and Metro wednesday and the reaction was very open given the alternatives. The plan will be distributed by Metro at other Metro events.

    Metro to their credit, listened especially to how and where we use the bus and they were interested in the alternatives that they hadn’t thought of! A big area of confusion is how people pay and those not using ORCA will pay more per Metro.

    In my view it is very each to criticize, but it is much harder to come up with an alternative that actually listens to what the Bus rider use the bus for. Remember the buses are there to get people where they need to go and won’t be used if they don’t work for the users!

    In the view of many, not just myself, there are only two plans on the table their Alternative one and my Alternative three. Two is not an option since we have to have change to support light rail. My plan listened to actual bus riders concerns and hopefully continues the discussion.

    Metro Alternative Three

    • 8 – Run down MLK to MLK & E Madison, to E John, then to CHS (Capitol Hill Station) only.
    • 9 – Look into covering 19th Ave E
    • 10 – Leave run as is.
    • 11 – Run the bus from Madison Park to the Coleman dock at 15 minute intervals. Downtown Pike/Pine access via tunnel or CHS.
    Run to Broadway and Pine south to Madison to Coleman dock.
    • 12 – Drop, replace with 9 and 11.
    • 38 – New Run from CHS to Seattle Center and SLU.
    • 43 – Drop in favor of 48.
    • 48 – Run from current route on 23rd/24th Ave to UW.
    • 49 and 60 – Combine with route 60 to pick up north portion of 49.

    Major transfer points:
    MLK and E Madison 8 and 11
    22nd Ave E and E John 8, 11 and 48
    CHS 8, 38, and 49
    Broadway & Pine 11 and 49

    Advantages:
    Keeps access to business all along Madison, Central Community College, places of worship, Seattle University, Swedish Medical center, Pill Hill, Virginia Mason, Poly Clinic, major downtown hotels, downtown financial district, downtown Public Library and Coleman Terminal plus the new waterfront. The John corridor gives access to Group Health and CHS.

    The new routing should drive traffic to the 8 and 11 and people can still easily get to the shopping area downtown via Light Rail or bus from Broadway.

    The 11 goes diagonally through town, and still services downtown and the businesses on Madison. This could be replaced with BRT if and when.

    1. Reg’s Alt 3 is intriguing (but this is not to say I support it, I just like some of the thinking going on behind it).

      If Madison Velley/Park are open to a route running the entire length of Madison, I have a hard time arguing with that.

      One of the huge weaknesses in the presentation of Reg’s Alt 3 is the lack of focus on frequency. For example, route 60 runs every 20 minutes all day and 30 minutes on weekends. Route 49 runs more frequently, and is proposed to move to 10-minute all-day headway. The two routes are distinctly a frequency mismatch. That said, there could be options for splitting route 60, so it doesn’t become Metro’s longest route, and provide 10-minute headway through Harborview, for frequent connection to CHS. One more positive is that route 60’s path through First Hill avoids duplicating the streetcar service (which will hopefully move to 5-minute all-day headway in the distant future).

      A bigger killer for interlining routes 49 and 60 is that route 60 is diesel, with no trolley wire along most of its route.

      One nerdy point on nomenclature: Please don’t give the Denny route the name “Thirty-late”. There are plenty of other unused numbers.

      1. The idea of the 60 and 49 was talked about and one option is to just have the two buses meet so there is service to north Broadway. Hopefully you saw the 9 extension to 19th avenue which was very popular.

        I’m glad to see your post and we need more that. I really love your comment about the thirty late and actually someone want to switch the numbers of the 8 and 38 in the meeting yesterday.

        This whole plan is based on the revised 8 and 11 as I proposed and it should produce butts in seats streamline the system. Yes, I didn’t work frequency since I’ve literally worked day and night to get this plan together. In addition, frequency is so changeable given the impact of Prop one on top of what Metro proposes. The new 8 and 11 should at least have 15 minute service and I’m not sure Madison can handle 10 minute service.

        Yes, I can sell the 11 running the entire length of Madison, especially since it does not involve overhead wires and it and the shortened 8 work together and I for one didn’t know how much the 8 users relied on the 11 and vice versa. We really got slammed since our original discussions were about the 11 and we regret that mistake. So live and learn and hopefully this discussion will continue!

        What would be really cool if someone this board had the time/energy to map this so it could be seen visually, which would really help. The biggest problem in Metro’s presentation was their maps: too many, too busy and to big!

      1. Minutes from the 3-18-15 meeting with Metro regarding the changes to bus routes.

        Jeremy Fichter, Transportation Project Manager III is the lead from Seattle Metro on these changes. He met with community members to outline the bus proposals and to answer questions.

        Please visit http://madisonvalley.org for a description of the proposals.

        Primary concerns for attendees at the meeting:

        • Increased frequency of buses (every 10 min) will lead to traffic congestion and perhaps delays.

        • Increased transfers to other buses, light rail, streetcars so less one seat rides to destinations.

        • One seat rides overwhelming choice over increased frequency

        • Safety when transferring and walking to other stops or one’s destination. Increased walking distances to shopping destinations so carrying purchases would be burdensome.

        • Metro is very much encouraging use of ORCA cards for public transport. They are striving for a paperless system in future.

        • Implantation of whichever plan is chosen will take place in 2016 after the light rail to UW and Capitol Hill street cars are operating.

Comments are closed.