Page Two articles are from our reader community.

The good news is that we will be getting 15-minute service on the 11 E Madison bus this September due to Prop One funding. The bad news is that there is currently a proposal floating around that would remove the 11 from Madison between 24th Ave East and Broadway and move it over to East John Street, then down Olive to Bellevue and then the Pine/Pike area downtown. Basically this combines the 43 and 11 buses, but the 11 user will be inconvenienced with transfers or longer walks.


Hopefully, the following will answer the questions of why the central area needs a bus on Madison Street despite the desire to move the 11 over to East John so it can go to the Light Rail Station on Broadway (CHS):

1) John/Thomas already has access via the 8 and adding the 11 is duplicating existing service. Yes, this requires a transfer, but the users for the 8 transfer to the 11 today!

2) The 8 already goes to CHS and can be accessed at MLK or 23rd—and it’s seamless.

3) Light Rail access is already available for 11 users via the Nordstrom station that gives access to all light rail stations today and in the future, including CHS.

4) Moving the 11 off Madison, yes, helps replace the 43, but at what cost to the users of the current 11?

5) Replacing the 43 with the 11 puts a diesel bus in place of an electric bus and we are getting new electric trolleys. Is this really the direction we want to go?

6) The Proposed 11 on East John would be a longer run and more likely to be less reliable than our current unreliable 11. It will be faster to transfer to Light at CHS then to take the bus to Pike/Pine.

7) The tradeoffs don’t justify the transferring and walking that having no bus on Madison will cause.

8) Telling 11 users who go to Safeway that they can use the one on 15th is fine, but Group Health is not an alternative for the Medical facilities on Pill Hill! BTW, Group Health uses Swedish for its hospital.

9) Madison Street east of 23rd is growing with new businesses and housing being added. Taking the bus off Madison will retard that growth.

10) Madison Street has been chosen for a BRT route and redevelopment by its implementation.

11) Taking the 11 off Madison promotes the use of private vehicles.

The following is a partial list of places that people frequent on the Madison corridor today and this includes a transfer from the 8 at MLK from the 8 and at 23rd from the 43 and 48. This 11 is NOT just a Madison Park bus, it is a bus used by residents all along the Madison Corridor!

  • Gyms and Health Clubs on or near Madison
  • Seattle Arts Academy that meets at TDHS School Facility
  • The Bullitt Center
  • Planned Parenthood
  • Central Area Chamber of Commerce
  • Seattle Hearing & Balance Center
  • Three black Churches including Madison Temple Church of God, Mount Zion Baptist and A.M.E. Church plus a Catholic Church
  • Jewish Family Child Service at 16th Ave East & East Pine
  • Retirement homes such as Aegis Living and The Council House
  • Countless residential buildings along East Madison above Safeway, The Co-op, Trader Joe’s, and numerous other older facilities
  • The Community College on Broadway
  • Bailey Boushay House at MLK
  • Deaf-Blind Services Center at 1620 18th Ave, #200
  • League of Women Voters at 18th

The area on John/Thomas does not provide alternatives to most of these places and in some cases none. Transferring and waiting for buses at all hours of the day and weekends for employees is not good. Seniors and disabled are hampered by this move and Access (a Metro run on-call door-to-door service for the disabled) is not always an alternative.

Bottom line, to be given the 11 Madison bus 15-minute service in September and then to tell riders sorry, but you going to have to transfer or to walk to get your destinations is very mean spirited. This is why I say Metro needs to slow this process down and give its latest proposal the light of day by giving it to the community before giving it to the County Council.

The following unscientific poll was run on Nextdoor:

Which of the following routes would you prefer for the 11 E Madison?

  • A bus that would service Madison shore to shore with a seamless transfer to Pike/Pine buses: 31% in favor.
  • Keep the bus as-is on its current routing: 27%
  • Have the bus turn on to E John at 24th Ave E to Light Rail then to Pike/Pine: 19%
  • A two-bus solution with a Madison to Madison run with one running up John to Light Rail then to Pike/Pine: 13%
  • A bus that would service Madison from shore to shore: 10%

181 Replies to “We get faster service on the 11, and then it goes away”

  1. Reg,

    How many people ride between Madison east of 24th Avenue and Madison and Pine? There’s not much except more apartments along there. Grant, Central Market is on that stretch, and it’s likely to be popular with Madison Parkonians. But what else? It’s not like you have direct access to Pill Hill now. Walking from Pine to any of the hospitals or clinics can’t be easy for anyone who actually needs them on anything other than an emergency basis. And few people ride any kind of transit when they have a medical emergency.

    This is a genuine question, not a troll.

    1. Sorry, I forgot to note that the institutions you did mention are not uniquely more likely to have ridership to and from Madison east of 24th than from anywhere else in the City.

      My question was directed specifically to riders from east of 24th where John joins up. What is it that you believe makes them particularly interested in traveling to and/or from The Hearing and Balance Center, those retirement homes, or the Jewish Family and Child Services?

      1. Amazingly we ask Metro if they had those kind of stats and they said no. BTW, it’s not just traffic form the east portion of Madison that goes to places I mention, it’s also people who come from the West.

        Yes, you are right about Pill Hill, but from Broadway and Pine I had a short walk to that area, which is no longer possible without transferring.

      2. Reg,

        Please do remember that the diversion via John gives folks east of 24th Avenue East significantly quicker access to Link and therefore many destinations farther afield. That’s no particularly advantageous immediately, because it wouldn’t be that much longer just to continue transferring to the 48 at 23rd Avenue to get to the U. But when North Link opens to Northgate a whole quadrant of the city becomes quickly accessible.

        I would say that the best possible outcome of this would be the re-route via John and an MLK to Ferry version of Madison BRT. There would then be at least one directly shared station for transfers between the two systems, ensuring that those who do want to go to mid-Madison or Pill Hill from Madison Park can do so with a single easy transfer. But we don’t yet know that Madison BRT will actually become a reality. I expect it depends on Moving Seattle.

      3. I’m a Madison Valley resident and frequent rider of both the 11 and the 8 down there. This proposal has one primary gain and one primary loss — the rest is washed out.

        Gain: Eastbound trips to Madison St much shorter thanks to Link at Capitol Hill.
        Loss: Direct service to Pike/Pine westbound.

        – Okay, eastbound trips from downtown to the transfer point will be slow and unreliable. That isn’t any different from existing trips from downtown to Pike/Pine. (I’m a fan of “not having to waste all my time waiting at 4th and Pike anymore because the 11 is stuck on 2nd”.)
        – Hospitals on First Hill get a little further away, but have access via transfer to Streetcar on Broadway
        – If I’m going south on Link to Rainier Valley or the Airport, I’m not going towards downtown anyway — I’m taking the 8 to Mount Baker. (HOWEVER — if I’m taking Link back northbound in the PM rush, Capitol Hill will be the more desirable transfer point unless the 8 is split into the 8 and 38 at Mt Baker TC.)

        I too am a little concerned by the duplication of service along Thomas and John, which is a windy, busy, and narrow corridor, but because I will benefit from both 8 and 11 service at Capitol Hill station, I’m keeping my mouth shut.

        Thought Experiment: could this be setting up an argument to electrify the route? Moving to Thomas/John/Olive means that the only portion of the new route to need wires would be east of 23rd to the lake.

  2. Again, that poll question is looking at today–not 5 years from now when the commercial and transit landscape of Capitol Hill will be significantly different from what it is now. To be in any way useful or relevant, the poll question needs to consider the changes that are coming to Capitol Hill.

    Metro’s original proposal offered 10 minute or better service from Madison Park to CHS and SLU via route 8. It’s not like Metro set out to screw over Madison Park residents.

    1. Please get over the statement that the 11 is just a bus for Madison Park, it servers people all along Madison along Madison! Any argument to the contrary are FALSE and does not understand how people use the 11! The Park is just the turnaround for the bus.

      The newest METRO plan affects all the users of the 11 and yes it does affect people who need to access places between 24th Ave East and Broadway, and that is real whether you believe it or not. The map is real and it is from Metro!

      1. You will have to ask Metro and that does not matter given the given the severity of the changes!

      2. Just another comment about frequency, first it can change at any time depending on conditions and the economy as we’ve seen in the last years. Seconding is the issue of getting to places where people need to go 24 by 7 is the issue!

        Thirdly, increased frequency nor the proposed 43 routing for the 11 does not improve the performance of a bus that is already late 30 percent of the time base on Metro’s on stats. The proposed route is longer and will most like have increased reliability issues!

  3. The problem here, Reg, is that your entire constructed argument, soup to nuts, is reverse-engineered from your starting position, which is a perfect textbook example of loss aversion.

    You list the trips that are currently one-seat rides along the path of the 11, and you insist that these front-door destinations are inherently more valuable. (You provide no evidence save familiarity to support this insistence.)

    You insist that the route’s current pathway must be preserved on the basis of reliability, but again you cannot show your work. Olive sometimes isn’t great in the evening rush, but neither has Pine between Harvard and 12th been any picnic either since the Broadway intersection was poorly rechanneled.

    You continue to ignore the mitigating effect that frequency has on reliability, as well as the reduction in passenger load on the downtown segment that would result from giving people the opportunity to reach the 11 by subway outside of downtown. That goes double for anyone coming from somewhere other than the north end of downtown.

    I don’t have any immutable opinions on the 11’s final routing, except that I believe it must work well with the entire network of routes of which it is a part. The ability to get from anywhere to anywhere in this dense chunk of the city with ease and frequency must supercede the myopia of those who focus only on a single route in isolation.

    It is thus frustrating to me that, while you are passionate and directly effected, you seem able only to come to the discussion with a loss-aversion tautology in hand: “I fear losing the way things are; therefore I will insist the way things are is superior; therefore I will author volumes of posts with that superiority already a foregone conclusion.” It is neither especially helpful nor interesting.

    1. It is also quite disingenuous to claim that the 11’s improved frequency is “going away”, when literally every permutation of the network revision proposals has done otherwise.

    2. My only response to you post and attacks is to question whether you are a rider of the 11 as a resident of the Madison corridor or an employee of on the Madison corridor. It’s really easy to tell people to walk and/or transfer for the greater good of the city and frequency won’t make up for the loss of service.

      Just because Metro suggests doesn’t make it right and this is their third attempt and each time it’s failed because it failed to understand the users of the 11 and a lot of poster on this blog seem to know better than 11 bus users who will be impact. And please don’t go into to the trade offs, that won’t fly when you or Metro tell people where to go shopping, for medical service or worship.

      1. I am a frequent user of all routes that stretch across Capitol Hill, the Central District and, yes, the Madison Valley.

        In fact, I would consider the Madison Valley and its establishments and outdoor attractions among the nicest in Seattle, and consider the difficulty in reaching the area — attributable precisely to the poor integration between the Madison Valley routes and the rest of the surrounding network — to be among the most frustrating aspects of riding Metro.

        I know I’m not as “nice” as some of the people you may encounter in your reactionary “activism”, but my point is valid and you seem unwilling or unable to challenge it:

        This is not about the 11 in isolation. You have yet to demonstrate that any changes will present genuine “losses” to 11 riders that are not outweighed by greater gains for those very same riders. Not to mention gains in the general public’s ability to use the entire network to get around, including to and around the Madison Valley.

        Please do us all a favor and read the above Wikipedia link explaining “loss aversion”. Because loss aversion is emotional, not rational, and therefore does not contribute constructively to any discussion of route planning.

      2. Just another comment, if you want to use “Risk Adverse” would you say that to the riders of the 12 and 43 that had their routes totally eliminated in the first suggested round of Metro changes. Did you accuse them of being “Risk Adverse” too? If you did not them you’re whole argument falls apart from soup to nuts!

        We the users of the 11 E Madison, where be residents or employees have as much right as anyone else in Seattle for decent service. If you had looked at the survey it had two alternatives that involved change, the 11 with a notch and the two bus solution. You will note that the actual users, not the STB, voted for either the notch or the bus as is!

      3. It’s “loss aversion”, not risk aversion.

        The tendency to psychologically overstate the risk of losing a perceived benefit, to the point where you may deny yourself significantly greater gained benefits as a direct consequence.

        And it isn’t “your bus”. It’s everybody’s bus! And when it works better as part of a coherent whole, more of us get to use it!

    3. I’m a rider of the 11 from Madison Park/Valley–and I’ll be a daily rider once our firm moves downtown from Bellevue in October. I much prefer the proposed routing up John because I prefer direct access to the regional transit system at Capitol Hill as well as access to the neighborhood at 15th north of John. When I’m going to a ball game or another event in south downtown/Pioneer Square currently, I’ll either drive to Beacon Hill (15 min.) and take the train or just drive downtown and pay to park.

      It’s a 3/4 mile walk from my home to the nearest 8 stop, and a block to the nearest 11. It gets worse the further east you go, and of course the same works in reverse for people wanting to visit Madison Park. Let’s not forget that for 100 years Madison Park has been the beach park for all of Capitol Hill and this brings the bus line closer to most of them.

      I appreciate Reg’s advocacy and the thought he’s put into it; I just disagree with the current routing of the 11. I use it as little as possible because it takes forever to get to downtown. A routing via the Capitol Hill station is probably a wash time-wise to the retail core with transferring to the train, but to the entire remainder of downtown, the stadiums and points south on Link it is much faster. To go north to the UW (and in the future the U District, Roosevelt, Northgate etc.) it will save at least 20 minutes to transfer at Capitol Hill instead of Westlake.

      Now, my trips are no more or less important than anyone else’s, but for where I go (work, the airport, ballgames/concerts/dining, Safeway, Trader Joe’s) the only one that will be made worse is TJ’s. I’ll switch to the Safeway at 15th from the one on 23rd. The other ones get better, in some cases markedly so. I will take a great many more trips on transit with the John routing than I would otherwise.

      1. Scott,

        Your arguments are fine, but they don’t work for seniors and handicapped people who use the Madison corridor. I am a senior and handicapped and I know what I’m talking about and you must look at the senior housing and handicapped agencies. Who is going to tell these people to walk, transfer or find another way to get around. Access is not an option for everyone and I didn’t qualify for it when I was facing daily radiation treatment for cancer! BTW, I already have a cart for the groceries too!

        Please take a look at my 12th avenue option for the Metro plan and you will see that you still get to CHS and most everyone would be happy.

      2. Reg N,

        I certainly sympathize with your position. I just finished three years of caretaking for my elderly mother, ending only when these things end for all of us. I understand the mobility issues. The problem is that there are people all over the city with mobility issues who are served worse by transit than even this latest Metro proposal would do for a fairly small subset, and Metro is an agency tasked to serve all of the people in the county in the best and fairest way possible. I know it will impact you negatively and I have nothing I can say to you that would make that better. I appreciate your passion and community work; were I not required to work and travel a great deal I would be doing the same.

        Those trips, however, are not daily–many of them may not even be weekly. There are many of us who take our trips daily or more so–or would with a seamless connection to the regional network at large. Your proposed re-route shows a valiant effort in trying to solve the issue of direct service from Madison Park to Link, but it would add probably 10 minutes to downtown and at least 5 to the Capitol Hill station from the proposed Metro route. Maybe I would still take it; I don’t know. It probably would be a deal breaker for some, particularly as Broadway is a complete mess during peak hours. (Everybody that’s going to ride the streetcar will learn that soon enough!)

        For trips to medical care, services etc. that are not typically needed daily, it would be nice to have a full-fare taxi scrip option for the elderly/disabled. We also found the Hyde Shuttles a great option, especially when planning on visits to pre-scheduled appointments–and it’s free! Many people who live in areas not so well served by transit have done these things for years.

      3. Scott,

        Your comments aside, you did not comment on my alternative that gave you in a link.

      4. Scott,

        Well enough, so how about leaving the 11 as is an having the people who need to get to CHS walk the two blocks north to CHS from Broadway and Pine? Would that not be a fair trade off for those who need the bus on Madison?

        If your answer is NO then you’re asking current users to give up their bus since you don’t want to walk the two blocks north to CHS. In addition, Metro has an obligation to serve the community and how does it look when they provide 15 minute service in September only to take it away all together six months later?

      5. Scott,

        Here is a response to your post from another resident of the Madison corridor who I showed your post!

        “I would say that Broadway is irrelevant because the 11 has to cross Broadway once no matter what. The 11 bus provides local bus service so overall trip time is not as important as it would be on an express route. Reliability and frequency trump trip time for local bus service.”

      6. Reg – Scott did comment on your proposed alternative, and say that it borders on the edge of being unacceptable:

        “Your proposed re-route shows a valiant effort in trying to solve the issue of direct service from Madison Park to Link, but it would add probably 10 minutes to downtown and at least 5 to the Capitol Hill station from the proposed Metro route. Maybe I would still take it; I don’t know. It probably would be a deal breaker for some…”

      7. Oh, I’ll end up doing that occasionally (and it’s closer to four blocks, by the way, on Broadway, to the nearest station entrance) – but if I have a bag, the weather sucks or whatever, I’ll drive. I’ve already made that choice; I can’t remember the last time I took the 11 downtown. I’ll drive to Beacon Hill to catch the train when I go downtown and I take the 11 as far as Capitol Hill when I go up there.

        But what about the elderly/disabled who live in Madison Park? You’re also asking them to walk the four blocks (or take the time penalty of continuing downtown, or the transfer penalty you are not willing to take) any time they are going to use the very expensive regional transit system. I suppose it just depends on whose ox is gored, doesn’t it?

        The neighborhood I used to live in used to have two direct downtown services within five blocks of my house either direction. That was cut to one, then eventually to none. The bus lines were still there; they just required a transfer to get downtown. That happened years ago, and the elderly and disabled managed, as did the people with kids, shoppers etc. I rode with them. I was related to some of them. I certainly support alternative methods of those with needs getting around, and I pointed out a couple. You and I aren’t going to agree on this, and I respect that, but so be it.

      8. Scott,

        Neither you nor anyone else has answered the question, why we get 15 minute service only to have it removed 6 months later? Oh, the CHS from Broadway, you say you don’t want to walk in the rain, nor do the others who use the 11! You have a choice at Broadway and that is take the streetcar or bus, right!

        I don’t believe Metro will get away with removing bus service on Madison resulting in seniors and/or the handicap not having service. BTW, I did call the Hyde Shuttle, that they are not prepared to take over the traffic on Madison in any way at all. You have to schedule your trips a week in advance, no way will that work.

        So given that you appear to be able bodied, why can’t you do the transfer to the 8 between 23rd Ave East and 22nd Ave East and E John? You have two choices there or Broadway, so given the seniors and handicap a chance for some mobility, you might be there someday yourself and I hope you remember your words then!!

      9. Reg N,


        Your one-seat ride is not a birthright.

        As to service frequency that is not a birthright either. Service frequency should largely be based on ridership. Frankly the ridership on Madison east of 23rd just doesn’t amount to much in the larger scheme of things. Fortunately for you no matter how Metro restructures Capitol Hill/CD service there are a number of frequent routes that need layover space and so Madison Park is likely to get more service than it would deserve based on actual transit use.

        You say those who want to go to CHS or to First Hill should suck it up and transfer or walk. The same can be said for those wanting to go to Pike/Pine or mid-Madison.

        Again I will point out the arguments you are making are the very same ones we saw from the ‘save the 42!’ crowd and the same ones that ended up scuttling the earlier proposed CD/Queen Anne restructure (‘Save the 2!’)

      10. Scott,

        First I think you need to apologize to the blog for you language and get over the Madison Park kick, it’s not funny or cute anymore. If you don’t want to see bus service join you fellow bloggers and propose that, it will solve a lot of problems for you.

        You will be talking to yourself unless you do what I requested!

      11. Reg N,

        I don’t know what you’re on about. I haven’t used a single negative word toward you or anyone else, but enough is enough. I suggest you take a few more minutes to read responses to the posts here as you seem to skim them for content (and I live in Madison Park–not that this should matter–so I really don’t understand that part of your comment). Some people are abrasive, some not. I’ve taken pains to not be. You apparently do not wish to extend the same courtesy to those who disagree with you.

        Your commentary towards anyone that isn’t in full agreement with you is insulting at best. Not everybody here has tried to pick fights with you; some of us just have different opinions. You have a chip on your shoulder and it detracts from whatever posts you make here.

        I just finished three years of caretaking for my elderly and disabled mother and I know damn well what that entails, so your self-righteousness in thinking that you and your own problems are the only ones worth anything are frankly disgusting. I have backed and will always back good options for seniors and the disabled. There are options out there and they can always be improved. But by God you have no more right to a one-stop ride from your door to some other door than anyone else in this city. Hundreds of people in your position don’t have that but they manage–I have first hand knowledge of that. Others, believe it or not, may want to use transit to more than one destination.

        I’m done with this thread, and frankly don’t care what else you have to say. This blog is a worse place because you post on it–not because of your ideas at all, which have some merit–but because of your attitude to your fellow citizens who may have different viewpoints. Your threat that “I’ll be talking to myself?” That conversation would have more merit than this one. Good day.

  4. d.p.,

    I think it’s time for you to cool it with the name calling and the use of n your reactionary “activism”” has gone too far! If you can’t comment with out attacking then please stop because this is my last response to you!

    1. The possibility of constructive system evolution was proffered. All of your actions since have been in direct “reaction”, in the form of questioning others’ motives and lambasting any evolution as inherently insidious.

      “Reactionary” isn’t a slander. It is a precise description of your entire mode of engagement on this topic.

    1. Okay, then how about addressing the substantive criticisms of your arguments’s tautological weaknesses, as presented to you by many non-incendiary writers before me?

  5. Reg, in situations like this I always try to think of it in reverse. Imagine it’s 2041 and you’ve had the 11-John and Link for 25 years. At that time, Metro proposes a new routing for an 11 that travels Madison to 16th to Pine. The comments in opposition would just as fierce, simply because of people’s preference for the status quo.

    I can see the public comment now, “You incompetent scoundrels. How dare you propose to disconnect us from Capitol Hill Station, sever our easy connection to Pioneer Square and the Stadiums, force patients to walk from their appointments at Group Health, or cut our off-peak service from 15 to 30 minutes! You want me to go all the way to Westlake to transfer to Northgate Link, instead of the Capitol Hill transfer I’ve relied on for years? Sure, it’ll be nice to be able to get rid of the 4-block walk to Trader Joes, but that’s a large price to pay for losing easy access to the Metropolitan Market at Broadway/John. Please keep the 11 as it is and as everyone has been using it for decades, on Thomas/John/Olive.”

    That’s not to say that there is no loss in the current proposal, but rather that future gains are always less tangible to people, myself included. If we’d had Alternative 1 for years, and Metro suddenly wanted to propose the network we currently have (infrequent, duplicative, and haphazard), people would rightfully cry foul. But since it’s what we have and it’s what we know, we defend it fiercely.

    1. Zach,

      Nice try, but you to the people affected today. Your same argument was used for every Metro proposal. If you this this new plan is so great that I challenge you to describe the alternative routing to each of the places I mention above.

      BTW, don’t count on Access filling the gap for seniors or the impaired. I had an occasion where I tried to use them for cancer treatment and I didn’t qualify. Please look at the demographics of the Madison corridor where there at least four retirement homes and you’re asking them to walk, transfer and/or wait instead of the one-seat ride thy have today. This will also lengthen the trips and cost as well.

      FYI, this blog post has been passed on to Metro and we are continuing the conversation. BTW, I don’t plan on being around in 2041.

      1. Of course Zach’s thought experiment should be applied to any proposed change. That’s the whole point!

        Only then can you truly judge the existing route (and its role in the existing system) against the potential route (and its role in a potential system) on the merits, and independent of emotion-driven huffing and puffing.

        I did not even realize that your version of the status quo continues to involve 30-minute headways in the off-peak, while Metro’s latest proposed revision would increase the route to 15 minutes or better at all times! You are advocating for half the service? Even though the proposal never strays further than 6 blocks from any destination you mention (and in most of your examples, more like 3 blocks)!?

        Real people would use the services in Zach’s thought experiment. More of them, in fact, because the frequency and connectivity has been so much improved. You cannot handwave away the real benefits inherent in system rationalizations with a huffy and entitled attitude.

  6. Thanks Zach and dp. Me thinks the author of this page 2 will never understand that Trader Joe’s is not the sole destination by transit for any but the tiniest minority of the denizens (including me) of Madison Park. I’d not waste any more psychic or intellectual effort here. I for one, a rider of the 11 since the mid 1960s, look forward to the change to 15 minute service along John/Olive with great glee. Next, could we PLEASE hang wires down to Madison Park again, the way it was in the 1950s and early 1960s?

    1. Since Metro seems content to value the opinions of existing (and resident) riders over those of any potential (and visitor-to-the-neighborhood) riders, would you please do us all the favor of writing to Metro to express your elation at — and endorsement of — the pursuit of a more frequent and more connective role for the 11?

      It may be worth explicitly stating that the highly vocal Mr. Newbeck speaks neither for all residents nor all transit users of the Madison corridor, as he increasingly attempts to claim he does.

      Also, and for the record, this is not really Metro’s fault, nor is it Mr. Newbeck’s. Sound Transit is ultimately to blame for its anti-urban Link approach and failure to consider the realities of bus integration in its station spacing and placement. Pitting individual riders’ interests against one another, and the absence of a perfect or obvious solution, were made virtually inevitable by Sound Transit’s grand and willful mistakes.

    2. Lloyd,

      Did you vote in the Nextdoor poll and BTW, I’m all for trolleys in Madison Park too!

  7. When will the next round be published? It’s getting to the point that it’s hard to argue about an incomplete/non-final network description, especially when we don’t know the frequencies of the routes.

    “Please get over the statement that the 11 is just a bus for Madison Park”

    I think people are using “Madison Park” in a general sense as “everything east of 23rd (or 28th)”. For this topic it accurately identifies an important subset of Route 11 riders and destinations, even if it’s inaccurate for the village and neighborhood. My term for this area is “east(ern) Madison”.

    “if you want to use “Risk Adverse” would you say that to the riders of the 12 and 43 that had their routes totally eliminated in the first suggested round of Metro changes”

    Yes, that’s the issue. You list 16 destinations but these seem to be theoretical destinations rather than actual Route 11 riders. A wide cross-section of eastern Route 11 riders probably do go to Trader Joe’s, but those going to the black churches and retirement centers probably come from elsewhere and could just as easily take the 12 (or possibly the 2). Other routes like the 43, 2, and 12 also have a list of one-seat destinations that they might lose someday; why does the Route 11 list have a larger or worse impact than those?

    My opinion (and the reason I’ve been quiet in this article) is that none of the proposals are ideal, and there’s reason to believe that no proposal could be ideal given east Seattle’s narrow geography, so we have to settle for something. Therefore it’s worth deferring to Metro to some extent.

    I like your ideas about a Madison-Pine-Broadway-Madison route or a pair of routes (Madison-John-Pine and Madison-Madison). But these have to be weighted against other factors and Metro’s preferences. For instance, with a pair of routes, would the 12 be overservice and what would happen to it?

    1. Oh, Mike, you know that some of us never find it hard to argue!

      Happy 4th! ;-)

    2. Mike,

      Thank you for putting this into context and trying to calm the discussion. I would still say that a lot of people go to Trader Joes form the east end of Madison whether it’s a one stop trio or a stop form the west end of the Madison run. I’ve been told by some that Dick’s Drive in is a great alternative, but not for me! Yes, this is real and Safeway is the same and YES I’ve seen real live body’s dong it. In addition people from the retirement homes use the bus, they are not just waiting to die in their apartments and they use the bus regularly.

      Those needing to get to CHS have the today of hoping on the 8 and that will not change when LR opens up. Yes, it’s a two seat ride, but I do a two seat ride to UWMC and I won’t use LR at Husky stadium because it’s too far. The 48 drops me off right in front of UWMC. And please don’t tell me to go to Group Heath (Group Death as some call it)!

      I’m still waiting for the great minds of the blog to come up with easy ways to get to the 16 places I mentioned form the East and West ends of Madison for both residents and employees using the 11.
      I was present when Metro planners stumbled trying to come up with alternatives for the first two proposals and they haven’t been able to give answers to this list which they have a copy of! Be aware that this is my 5th month on this.

      Last, to say that we don’t need a bus on Madison is to say that we don’t need BRT either, your can have it both ways. Again thanks you Mike!

    3. The planners who couldn’t give you answers were maybe against the plan themselves but got overruled, and Metro’s opinion as a whole may be that this is the least bad option. In other words, it cuts off the trips you cite but that’s to avoid cutting off other trips that were considered more critical. We can ask Metro more about this when something is published.

      1. Mike,

        Based on what Metro told us as well as the Sounding Boards, the proposal goes directly to KC Council, NO Comment Period at all!

      2. We can give comments to the Council and attend the hearing, and ask Metro about the reasoning behind its proposal and why it’s better than something else.

      3. Yes, the newest proposal will go straight to Council, as it was created in response to the 3rd round of feedback. The new 11 routing seems to be their way of retaining a one-seat ride to Downtown and Pike/Pine, providing Madison Park with access to Link, keeping trolleys on Madison between 1st-19th (by not changing the 12), and bringing the 11 up to Route 43 frequencies in order to maintain the same frequency currently enjoyed on John/Thomas/Olive, all of which were in response to public feedback.

        I think it’s a good plan, and I struggle to see the imposition when Madison Park gets double the off-peak service, Madison Valley gets a super frequent common corridor between MLK and Summit, they get front-door access to Capitol Hill Station, and even those losing service on Madison between 20th-24th will have THREE frequent all-day routes within 4-5 blocks, the 8/11 on John/Thomas, the 12 on Madison, and the 2 on Union.

      4. Once again and hopefully for the last time the 11 is NOT an only Madison Park bus. It currently serves residents along the Madison corridor and part of Pine which will NOT be served under the newest plan! Riders connect to it via teh 8 and 48 on a regular bases too.

        BTW, Madison Park residents don’t only need to go to Nordstrom, then go other places, but they are the minority of the population riding that bus. We also have a number agencies and facilities along the Madison Corridor whose clientele use the bus along with employees who work there and take the bus.

        This plan will promote the use of anything but the Metro bus and if you are right eliminates the need for a Madison BRT!

      5. Let me say this plain and simple, I can support the Metro plan for the 11 on John if and only if Metro provides an all Madison bus shore to shore, which would be replaced by the BRT in the future!

        This is a combination of the May and June Metro proposal and I can’t believe that there are not enough hours to support two buses, one on Madison and one on John. The city of Seattle voters didn’t tax them selves to have service removed like the John only plan would do

        Again, if you support the John plan only, you are saying NO to a Madison BRT!

      6. That is such nonsense!

        The BRT plan, above all else, improves upon the 12, while hopefully allowing Metro to finally cancel the 100%-unused 19th Ave segment, at least outside of peak.

        The BRT has very little to do with the 11, although additional legible service reaching as far as the Madison Valley and complementing a revised and more frequent John-11 is a happy supplemental outcome.

        In the near term, your request is to create 3 routes (two new 11s, plus retaining the 12 as-is) with no additional hours, thus ensuring that all three are infrequent and inherently less usable.

        Stop trying to claim that because you cannot understand math, that other “must” blindly agree with you.

      7. The Madison-John-Pine route is clearly to maintain “43” service to 23rd. My feedback in the earlier rounds was that it’s too risky to lose this corridor until we see what people do after Link opens. The 8 doesn’t go downtown, and the 12-John loses the transfer to the 48 (and overserves 19th). Both of those would leave significant holes if it turns out that Metro underestimated the importance of the “43” east-west corridor. Probably other people defended that corridor too, and Metro ended up resurrecting it and attaching it to the 11.

        “I can’t believe that there are not enough hours to support two buses, one on Madison and one on John”

        That’s what we can ask Metro during the council round: where did the hours go? Metro’s goal is clearly to have as many full-time frequent routes as possible by consolidating other routes. That may mean the 49, 10, 11, and as far as it can stretch on the 8. Or maybe the 8 above the 11. Remember that splitting the 8 and 48 will take a significant number of service hours.

      8. Maybe the splitting of the 8 and/or 48 is ill-advised at this time. The reaction to splitting the 48 has certainly been heard on this blog!

      9. I completely agree that splitting the 48 is a very bad idea. I don’t feel as strongly about the 8, but I’d definitely like to see the tradeoff in terms of service hours.

  8. Eh, I like this idea and I’m glad that Metro is actively thinking about options that push back against throwing out a perfectly good route like the 43 while taking the 11 and making it bypass almost anything of use for people under the age of 70. It seems like the only place anybody wants the buses to go is to a hospital (Harborview, Virginia Mason, Pill Hill) or a light rail stop.

    Besides, Seattle’s topology is wonky enough that transfers are going to be a fact of life. Might as well start getting used to it. All of us on the 48 are going to be enjoying that fun soon enough once Metro chops it in half. At least Madison Park is going to get the fancy bus rapid transit thing once we all vote to approve Move Seattle this year. Riders of the 3 get to slowly, carefully, congestedly wind around Harborzoo.

    1. The BRT is years off even if it passes and given the attitude by some on this blog and Metro, do you really think they would go for putting service back on Madison even if the voters and Congress approves the funding? Based on this logic there is nothing on the East Madison/East Pine corridor worth having a bus for, so why have a BRT go on Madison at all?

      This is the third attempt by Metro to shuffle the deck to meet to get buses to the CHS, but it violates their own announced goal to eliminate DUPLICATION. That is why the killed the 12 and 43 in their Alternative 1. So now Metro is proposing running both the 8 and 11 on John/Thomas and isn’t that why they took the 43 off of 23rd since it duplicated the 48. Metro’s logic just doesn’t work.

      Yes, I agree splitting some of these runs like the 48 doesn’t make sense and some of it’s premature given that Light Rail will only go to to Husky Stadium and points north are several years off.

      You raise a real good point, in that 70 years old and above maybe shouldn’t be riding the bus if they can’t walk or aren’t willing or able move fast enough to transfer be it to Light Rail, the street car or another bus. Maybe Access should be their transportation of choice and BTW people over 70 still have a need to go to places other than doctors or hospitals. Some of this same argument goes for parents with young kids, especially in strollers; maybe Access should be expanded for them too! Oh and yes the handicapped, what does Metro do for them, low rider buses but they have to get to the bus to enjoy that convenience!

      This is not a question of accepting change; it’s more an acceptance and respect for where the users of Metro go on the bus today. I myself have proposed alternative the 11 on an all Madison run with a notch on Broadway which was the number one vote getter in the Nextdoor poll that I conducted. Yes, the poll is unscientific, but it was used by actual riders of the 11, not just blog posters! This proposal required a seamless transfer at Broadway and Pine to the 10 to go the Pike/Pine corridor. Amazingly, this actually led to the May Metro proposal of an all 11 run without a notch, which did not pass muster any way. BTW, my position on the June Metro proposal was only made public after the poll was completed!

      There also is a proposal to run to buses from the East end of Madison, one that would be the current Metro proposal up John to CHS to Pike/Pine and another being a Madison to Madison route. This is did not poll well given the other alternatives, but it would have worked if Metro had split the available hours that are being added in September on the 11, plus hours from the 43! Yes, we might lose 10 or 15 minute service, but getting to your destination is the objective. The rejection of the plan in my view means Metro is rejecting a Madison BRT!

      1. Sound like Metro is rejecting a regression to poor frequencies and fractured, laborious-to-use service patterns.

      2. FOrgot to mention one big objective for Metro and SDOT is to get people out of their cars and based on the feedback I’m getting, people who can drive (I can’t) will use their cars, Uber or cabs to get to where they need to go. Again and that is totally against what the city is trying to do, isn’t it?

        All we need is more congestion and this case caused by Metro the agency that is supposed to be reducing it by offering better transportation. Do you remember the Metro slogan “Let us get you there”?

      3. Metro’s newer slogan is “Let us get you there without having to wait an hour, plan your entire day around a simple errand, or carry around a pine tree’s worth of paper schedules in order to do so.”

        It’s a much better slogan, frankly.

      4. “FOrgot to mention one big objective for Metro and SDOT is to get people out of their cars and based on the feedback I’m getting, people who can drive (I can’t) will use their cars”

        Again that’s a citywide goal, not the Route 11 corridor in isolation. Sometimes Metro has to cut off lower-performing segments to boost higher-performing segments, for exactly the reasons DP said above. So some riders will have to start driving, but a larger number of people can stop driving. That’s how to judge the quality of the change: whether the total number of people who can stop driving is significantly larger than the number of people who have to start driving.

      5. Again this paragraph also makes the argument against BRT for Madions:

        Again that’s a citywide goal, not the Route 11 corridor in isolation. Sometimes Metro has to cut off lower-performing segments to boost higher-performing segments, for exactly the reasons DP said above. So some riders will have to start driving, but a larger number of people can stop driving. That’s how to judge the quality of the change: whether the total number of people who can stop driving is significantly larger than the number of people who have to start driving.

      6. “Again that’s a citywide goal, not the Route 11 corridor in isolation.”

        Actually an east Seattle goal. When Metro reorganizes it usually keeps the service hours in the subarea. So a single route is not sacrosanct, but it it loses service then the hours must be nearby and are traceable.

    2. “It seems like the only place anybody wants the buses to go is to … a light rail stop.”

      It’s not a single place, it’s everything the frequent train goes to, which is a lot. The only other stop of comparable importance is 3rd & Pine where almost all the buses transfer at.

      “Based on this logic there is nothing on the East Madison/East Pine corridor worth having a bus for, so why have a BRT go on Madison at all?”

      Metro has never proposed not having a bus on eastern Madison. The issue of mid Madison is that all of it is within a few blocks of several other routes, and Metro has limited service hours so that’s apparently the first to go. An all-Madison BRT is the city’s idea, and it’s going ahead with it even though Metro has concerns about that route being the most effective, which the city is apparently ignoring because its TMP says an all-Madison route is superior.

      “70 years old and above maybe shouldn’t be riding the bus if they can’t walk or aren’t willing or able move fast enough to transfer be it to Light Rail, the street car or another bus. Maybe Access should be their transportation of choice”

      The point is that there are retirement homes all over the city, not just on Madison. Some of them have less bus service, or the buses take a long time to go where the residents want to go. People on STB have been especially concerned about Arrowhead Gardens, a retirement home in West Seattle that was stupidly built inside a P&R with a steep hill as the only pedestrian way to White Center. The isolated P&R lost and lost service and the people were basically stuck there on weekends until the 60 came. So people are concerned about retirement centers, and I have relatives who would have a hard time walking from Madison to the other bus stops. But a county transit system needs to serve the widest cross-section of people in the county, and that means it can’t give every retirement center front-door service. There should be an option between Access and regular routes, but there currently isn’t, although Access users can get half-price taxi vouchers. (What we need is neighborhood taxis costing less than the vouchers. This could serve the mildly disabled who don’t need all the expensive Access features, and could also solve the last-mile problem for the rest of the public.)

      “This is the third attempt by Metro to shuffle the deck to meet to get buses to the CHS, but it violates their own announced goal to eliminate DUPLICATION.”

      Non-duplication is a goal but it has to be balanced against other goals. Overlapping a mile is not very much, and it may be necessary to reach a cost-effective layover point, to serve a main street where most people are going, to reach an HCT station, or to avoid people having to transfer twice within a short distance.

      1. This paragraph proves my point, thanks:

        Non-duplication is a goal but it has to be balanced against other goals. Overlapping a mile is not very much, and it may be necessary to reach a cost-effective layover point, to serve a main street where most people are going, to reach an HCT station, or to avoid people having to transfer twice within a short distance.

      2. I’m just stating the basic responsibilities of any municipal transit network, qualified by my limited ability and the topic at hand. Have you read or Jarret’s book “Human Transit”? It gives a background for discussing the values and tradeoffs inherent in a transit network.

        One recurring principle is “ridership vs coverage”. You can have a network that gives the widest cross-section of people a desirable alternative to driving (frequent, consolidated on highest-usage streets, priority ROW, not too many stops), or a network with infrequent routes to the largest number of houses and nursing homes, which gives good one-seat rides when and where it runs but everyone else has to drive, and in practice even people on the route drive because the bus is inconvenient. In fact, Metro is giving us just these alternatives in its
        long-range plan designing. The principle is that you have to allocate some percentage of your operating budget to ridership service, and the percentage to coverage service, depending on the community’s values. This reorganization is a move toward ridership service, which logically means a move away from coverage service. And in general, that’s where Metro and the county is headed, toward more ridership service, but without eliminating coverage completely.

  9. Based on the logic that buses must go to CHS then why would that not apply to the Madison BRT?

    SDOT wants a BRT and Metro doesn’t think Madison justifies the current bus, so how can Madison justify the BRT?

    In my view supporting the new non Madison 11 means you can’t support or justify the BRT either. Please don’t try eat you cake and have it too!

    1. The current 11, which leaves Madison at 16th, has approximately nothing whatsoever to do with a BRT that intends to unify (and integrate better with other transit) the corridor between downtown, First Hill, Seattle University, the upper reaches of Pike-Pine, East Capitol Hill, the northern C.D., and the Madison Valley.

      You’re grasping at straws.

      If anything, an 11-via-John and an all-Madison BRT would complement each other far better than the current 11 routing could complement either of the other two.

      1. d. p.

        Thank you for coming around to my position that is a need for a but on Madison east on Madison. By saying that the BRT compliments an 11 on John, You’re also saying the the current 8 on John compliments the current 11 as it is today!

        We can easily fix this by having two buses from the East end of Madison, one to John/CHS and Pike/Pine and the other an all Madison short to shore. So we agree that we need a bus on Madison and to ask people to wait for a BRT which may not get approved by the voters and by Congress is crazy!

        If you’re for a Madison BRT then you can’t be fore moving bus service to John or are you really for a John BRT? You can’t have it both ways!

      2. The current 8 and current 11 do not complement one another mostly because the current 8 does not work very well. That is half the problem this revision is trying to fix.

        Also, for someone with such concern for front-door service to destinations on Madison between 23rd and 16th, you are surprisingly cavalier about destinations near Madison west of 16th.

      3. d. p.

        So now you suggesting the 11 is moving to john to fix the broken 8, so why not fix the 8 rather then having two broken runs, given that the 11 is late 30% of the time? Well do you have any suggestions for fixing the 8, I’m sure Metro would listen to new ideas now! I had suggested splitting the 8 at CHS rather than the south end, which get around some of the Denny mess.

        I’m not being cavalier about places east 16th and the two bus or the all Madison 11 would handle those quite well. Leaving the 11 as works since we’re not trying to fix something that ain’t broken. This is a quote form an 11 driver today when I told him about the 11 on John, In fact every 11 driver I’ve talked has the same negative reaction.

        Since you did comment on the BRT, you must agree with my words, thanks.

      4. Jesus, you’re desperate.

        You’ve already admitted that you don’t care if the bus is infrequent or unreliable, as long as it stays precisely on the path that is most familiar to you.

        That puts you at odds not only with anyone who cares about mobility in this city, but also with most of your own neighbors (many of whom have expressed as much to you on these pages).

        The 8 is broken because of Denny, and also because it tries to function as both an east-west and north-shouts route on the grid, running into many reliability obstacles at all times along the way. Routing the 11 as proposed runs in to neither of these problems. So stop lying.

        The present-day 11 is late 30% of the time? Yikes! I can see why you’re so attached to doing nothing to improve it!

      5. First, stop swearing on here or stop blogging! I’m not desperate at all and move the 11 over won’t solve the reliability problem, but actually make it worse, just ask the bus drives. I might also suggest that you spend a day riding the 11 and see where the problems are. It’s real easy to pontificate from 40,000 feet and tell people what to do. You arguments won’t work and are devoid of factual information!

        I’m giving you a 24 hour time-out so yo reread what you’ve written and figure out to stop the polemics!

      6. What, are you 5 years old?

        You don’t get to put “time outs” on anyone who challenges your deeply held (deeply misguided) belief that you are the only stakeholder here.

  10. I live on 25th and John, and I love this plan. Considering the soon to be lost 43, this option maintains a frequent transit corridor between E. Capitol Hill, Madison Valley, and Madison Park. This seems even more critical once CHS comes online (even better if they can offset the 8 and 11 to create 5-10 minute headways). My observation from riding the 11 is that very few riders access the stops on the deleted Madison section…and it’s only a few blocks/minutes walk north to John for those customers. My only criticism is the loss of a direct connection to the Pike/Pine/Rancho Bravo corridor, but that seems like a small sacrifice for the gains of a (relatively) high frequency E. John pathway.

    1. You do know that you have access to all the places you so desire to go today on the 8 and you will have the same next March? Your assumption about a short walk is find, but how many blocks are short for you, for example the walk to Trader Joes/Madison Coop is at lest 6 blocks. That may not be find for a senior, disabled person a parent with kids. And BTW, do you also expect people to walk in inclement weather?

      Can you please tell me why you need TWO buses on John/Thomas to get you CHS especially since the 8 is getting increased frequency? Again if your argument is correct that SDOT should be considering a John BRT not a Madison BRT!

      1. So, my main concern is that right now I have the 8 stop 1/2 blocks away, and the 43 two blocks away, for access to CHS and Broadway (north). I realize that the 8 is increasing frequency, but we are losing the 43, and from what I can tell the improved 8 will not make up for an axed 43, especially considering the 8’s increased frequency will only be daytime/peak (so up until 8 pm).

        Currently, I use the 11 for downtown trips (which won’t be as necessary after CHS opens) and for Broadway access if there’s a seriously delayed 8 or 43 (or I want a burrito at Rancho Bravo). And, even with these options available, I still walk the 1 mile from 25th and E John to Broadway approximately 50% of the time (after 8pm-ish) since I can make it on foot faster than waiting >12 OBA minutes. I guess what I’m saying is that I’d rather have a corridor with 5-10 minute headways than a parallel one that requires me to game OBA and risk sprinting between stops several blocks apart while my thumb spasms from hitting the refresh button.

        All that being said, I could live with either option. My gut says that high frequency bus corridors that intersect with subway stops will end up being slightly more useful, though.

      2. I’m glad that you’re able to walk the distances you and some of it is uphill I know. I too have walked long distances due to the bus being late, so I understand your comments. But have you given any consideration to the 16 places I listed on East Madison? For example do you expect the Blind and the people living in the 3 retirement homes to walk like you and I can still do? In addition there are handicapped people who get on the current 11 too.

        BTW, you may not do you grocery shopping along Madison, but a lot of the users of the current 11 do and there are no good alternatives. The blog has already told them to get grocery carts, but how far should they walk to be able to feed themselves. Yes there are fast food places on Broadway, but what if they can’t afford to eat out?

        You also mentioned connections after 8 PM, so how about the people on Madison who will have to game OBA to try to make connections between the 11 and 12 to even get to and from East Madison. Your needs are as real as the needs of the people who currently use East Madison and the 8 is a valid alternative today. Maybe the 8 should be connected to 43 with another bus going to the Seattle Center.

        I feel for your pain in losing the 43, but moving the pain to the users of the Madison Corridor isn’t fair either. Both are important to their users. Remember Metro wanted to drop the 12 and 43, both are back.
        Telling the users of the 11 that they don’t need the places they go to today is cruel and punishes them for living along Madison and as invalid as telling the users of the 43 that they don’t need their current destinations. Neither the STB nor Metro should be telling current user of the bus system that they no longer count. Seattle is trying to get people out of cars, but Metro proposals for last month’s actually promoted the use of cars, not buses!

        Light rail is great, but its real greatness will only be achieved when it actually reaches the UW, not just Husky Stadium and when it reaches Northgate. All of the current destination on Light Rail can be accessed in locations other than CHS.

  11. Metro was at a Central Are Chamber of Commerce meeting last night and their proposal went over like a lead balloon. I guess not enough STB bloggers were to try to tell member of the Chamber that they were no longer important enough to maintain the 11 bus service!

  12. Given the above comments about “not enough hours” one must question where the hours go after the Prop One funding hours are implemented and then the March 2016 are implemented. Metro had to hire extra drives and was so short of equipment that they had to take buses out of mothballs.

    So whee are the hours going? Originally they cut the 12 and 43, now it’s the 11. This makes not sense and is in no way transparent! What is the comparison of hours pre Prop One and versus the hours post March 2016.

    For example, the 11 and 43 are getting expanded service due to Prop one, Metro is combining them, so where did the hours that were saved at the expense of Madison go? I’m thinking that the Seattle voters were taken for a ride and will be paying extra sales tax for services not received after March 2016!

    1. IIRC, service is going to be increasing on the 48(-south) and 49, over and above the boost from Prop One. I think that’s where the hours are going.

      1. Thank you for chiming in. I think there is a real need for transparency from Metro on the hours from Prop One and where they go after LRT? I know that has been some question here about them going to the county for expanded service, but Metro needs to speak up or else the Voters of Seattle won’t be funding Move Seattle in November and the ST3 after that!

        Eliminating service on the 12 and 43 didn’t fly and what was Metro thinking when they came up with the idea of removing service off of Madison. Did they expect a different reaction from those who voted for better bus service, only to be told sorry we don’t have enough hours to go around!

        As I said about the went over like a lead balloon it a meeting with the Central Chamber of Commerce last night with Metro in attendance.

      2. It’s not surprising that the Central Area Chamber of Commerce opposes rerouting the 11, any less than some people on Seneca Street opposing rerouting the 2. But Metro has to look at what best serves the most people in the city and district and overall mobility, not just those who live in a certain few blocks. Everyone in the city is paying for Prop 1 and deserves equal consideration for the service hours; people on Madison can’t expect a disproprotionate amount of service.

      3. Mike,

        Remember that the users of the 2 won their battle with Metro and I don’t intend to lose.This is personal for me and a lot of others for reasons already expressed!

        We, the users of the 11 don’t expect a disproportionate amount of service and my poll above shows it by the way they voted! When we voted for Prop One funding we didn’t say given away our bus so we can walk/transfer! No service is NOT acceptable and the users of the 2, 12 and 43 said the same thing!

      4. Oh, I remember that the “2 people” won. I remember it every time I’m sitting in god-awful traffic on Spring Street, on a bus that was already 20 minutes late, and could not choose the Madison bus instead because that one is half-hourly and timed to leave downtown precisely the moment I got there.

        So yeah, I remember Metro screwing over the usability of their entire east-west network and wasting uncountable hours of my life just to avoid hearing the loudmouth rantings of a handful of know-nothings.

        And that’s why I refuse to see it happen again.

      5. Winning is relative. They won a battle. That doesn’t mean the 2 will never ever change. The 2 seems to have stronger weight on its side than the 12. The 12 has two very different halves. The Madison part is high volume and essential. The 19th Avenue part is a low-ridership relic, with two parallel routes within four blocks on both sides.

        “The change didn’t fly” is strong words for why the 12 may have been reinstated. It implies that any change was proven to be a wealking and can never happen. But I think the actual reason is different. When Metro proposed the 11-John it had to backfill service on western and central Madison because those are essential. So it restored the 12 because it’s the status quo, and 19th Avenue came along for the ride. 19th Avenue was saved because it’s been historically part of the 12, not because it’s essential or the opposition was too powerful. And also because a shorter 12 would require a trolleybus turnaround in mid Madison, which Metro is apparently reluctant to do.

        “It didn’t fly” also doesn’t apply to the 43 because it’s still gone. In fact, this whole reorganization has revolved on whether breaking the 43 and 49 can fly. Those are the two most grid-incorrect routes (a pro-change factor) but they’re also the two highest-ridership routes (an anti-change factor). I didn’t think Metro would be bold enough to break the 43, but then it proposed it!

        There are three factors in breaking the 43: (1) the one-seat ride around the turn, (2) the downtown-John segment, (3) the 23rd segment. Metro decided that forcing a transfer at 23rd was acceptable, and raised the 48 and 8’s frequency to compensate (and now added the 11). It assumes that trip patterns will change, with some people going the other direction so they won’t need to transfer (e.g., to CHS or UWS). We’ll see in time whether this prediction is true. The 23rd segment (trips without turning) can be absorbed by the 48. That leaves the downtown-John segment. I (and presumably others) told Metro it’s important to maintain the downtown-John-to-23rd corridor until we’re sure that transfers from the 48 have gone down. The 3rd alternative — the 12-John route — didn’t achieve that because it turns on 19th short of 23rd. (That has always been the problem with the existing 12: it turns on 19th hindering a 48+12 transfer.) So Metro restored the “43” to 23rd and attached it to the east Madison segment. That’s not the same as restoring the 43 in its entirety.

        In my mind: the downtown-Pine or downtown-John segment are essential, and maybe both. Mid Madison is of third importance: it has fewer residents and destinations. We should keep both downtown-John and downtown-Pine until we see how Capitol Hill station changes ridership patterns, because underestimating (underserving) these corridors would significantly damage the transit network. Mid Madison I’m afraid doesn’t have that level of necessity. There’s no all-Madison route now, so people are using the 11 or 12. Alternative “4” would preserve Madison to 19th. The hole would be the “center rectangle”, a kind of Bermuda Triangle that people would have to go around. Metro seems to believe that John and Pine are higher-ridership and more essential than the center rectangle, and I tend to agree. So you may just have to accept it for the next few years. I don’t believe any of this is permanent, and I will tell the Council that if Metro reorganizes Capitol Hill, it should reevaluate it a year after Link opens, to see how travel patterns have changed and whether something can be done to increase service in the center rectangle.

      6. Mike,

        Are you propose that Metro hold off the Capital Hill changes for a year or to look at doing it in a year based on the facts on the ground given the CHS opening?

      7. Two other issues of “flying” are the 49 and the 10. I want to turn the 49 into a north-south route (UDistrict-Broadway-Mt Baker). But it is the highest-ridership route on the hill (and in Metro’s entire network, I heard recently), so Metro doesn’t seem willing to touch that. It proposed to reroute it to Madison-Broadway. I was hesitant on that because it’s so unknown, and it would bring western Madison service only to Broadway. Again I’m afraid of damaging the network if Metro underestimated the importance of western Madison to mid Madison. The 12 covers mid Madison to 19th, and that seems like a safer bet. Again we’ll know more after Link is running for a while.

        But as I said, I’m unhappy that the 12 doesn’t go to 23rd. I don’t think a 19th-Madison route is that useful: it has always been out of the way for me. If I lived on 19th I’d want to go to central Capitol Hill and midtown, not Madison. The only time I’ve found the 12 useful is when I lived in that duplex on 18th & Union (next to the duplex I almost bought but didn’t), and the 12 had the best schedule to my job Seneca & Western. But an all-Madison route could have done that; it didn’t have to be a 19th-Madison route, which seems more like a strange historic relic.

        Over time things may look better for the Madison corridor. A ton of apartments and businesses are going up around it. and at least four office towers downtown have been proposed near it. Hopefully they’ll be more mixed-use and 24-hour than the current 9-to-5 ghetto. Then if Madison gets some more cultural amenities (bars and nightlife), it could attract people from Pine and John, and become the happening place. That would really make an all-Madison route worthwhile, and end the lingering need for the 11-Pine.

      8. And luckily for the Route 2 denizens, the Madison/Spring alternative got majority support in the Madison BRT feedback. So the 2 may not have to move off Spring: the BRT may move to it instead. That still doesn’t say about eastbound: would it remain on Seneca or move to Madison? But a Spring/Madison #2 would be closer to the status quo than a Madison/Marion #2.

        (I do not favor Marion for anything: it’s further from the library and further from University Street Station. Being closer to Pioneer Square Station doesn’t seem much of a benefit.)

      9. Westbound. I was trying to visualize it but got it reversed. But Spring is the street going east from the library.

      10. Mike,

        Could you please clarify what should be done next March with the proposed changes and you do realize that only the 11 part of may be know to some of us. We don’t know what has been done to the other pieces of the puzzle and for the reason we need an real open discussion period for the public before this goes to KC.

        I’ve ask the head of Metro and for the entire KC Council help in getting this current plan out in the daylight, and that means all of it! If we can’t have an open discussion then the entire Metro change should be put on hold until the effects of Prop One improvements and CHS are implemented.

      11. Reg, I was going to tell the Council that they do one of two things: either postpone the changes, or do them and reevaluate it after a year. But the past week I’ve been moving toward the second. Having more full-time frequent corridors (i.e., consolidating routes) is important in itself. We need to get away from a bunch of half-hourly routes because they’re only half useful. If we leave the status quo, then the 43 drops to half-hourly, and the 10 and 11 will too when Prop 1 expires in 2020. That’s the entire problem on the hill! Urban-level service only exists as far as Bellevue Avenue, so that’s why I live near Bellevue Avenue. I appreciate the frequent evening service on the 49 and now the 10, but that’s the minimum level of service the rest of east Seattle should have. At least alternative 4 doubles down on some frequent corridors and connections to Link, and that’s a start. And I hope that if the Center Rectangle Hole does emerge, it will only be there for 2-3 years.

      12. When will the package go to the council? I thought it would be in June but that has passed.

      13. Mike,

        I heard right after the 4th of July and that’s passed too. I honestly believe that they are now reacting to the mess/pressure created by the proposed changes to the 11/43. This was proven by what I heard form the Central Chamber of Commerce last Monday night. It seems to me from the feedback that they are in a holding pattern.

        BTW, did you see my suggestion of having the 11 to to 12th Ave East or 15th Ave East then north to John and the CHS and downtown via the current 43 routing. This services the needs for East Madison West of 24th Ave East and eliminates the duplication of the 8 and 11 on john/Thomas. There are very little downsides to this and it doesn’t hurt any group of riders either since all transfer points are still there.

        It does have some advantages since the 11 would go to CHS and allow for Metro to save face too!

      14. Reg, I said in another article that you can write to STB and ask for my email, citing this message as consent.

      15. If you’re lucky, Metro might just procrastinate it until it’s too late for the March service change. The changes have to be approved by late summer to give time to plan the operating runs and assign/train the drivers. That might also be cutting it close for such a large change. Normally routine changes are approved three months ahead. reorgs are six months ahead, and large reorgs (like the cuts) even longer.

        I support your Madison-John-Broadway-Madison alternative. So now you’re suggesting (I have to consider it concretely): Madison – 12th-or-15th – John – Pine. I have no problems with that route in itself. But I think we need to keep a route on downtown-John-to-23rd. I’m nervous about the 8 being sufficient there because it doesn’t go downtown.

        Having the 8 and 11 overlap between Summit and MLK does seem like overservice, but not egregiously. It’s better than breaking a Pine-John-to-23rd corridor that may be more important than Metro is estimating.

        It’s not so much about people who could take Link from Capitol Hill Station to Westlake Station. It’s about people going to places between those two. There are a lot of destinations and residents around East Olive Way, Pine & Bellevue, and the Convention Center.

      16. William,

        Thank you for your comments. You say “But I think we need to keep a route on downtown-John-to-23rd. I’m nervous about the 8 being sufficient there because it doesn’t go downtown.” which I believe is answered by CHS at Broadway and John which the 12th Ave East option will still got to, so one we able to transfer to LR or continue on the 11 to Pike/Pine. I think that LR will be faster.

        The current 43 users won’t lose, in fact they will gain by access to places on Madison and vise versa for access to places near CHS.

      17. OK, I was thinking about people at 15th & John and 20th & John who want to go to Capitol Hill Station, but they can use the 8. So that’s not as critical.

      18. Mike,

        Is it possible for at least you, William C and I to agree on an 12th Avenue Alternative? Your support would be most helpful and appreciated by Metro users.

      19. Mike & William C.

        I think that either 12 Ave East or 15th Ave East could work as a right turn point for the 11 headed to CHS. Each has advantages like the 15th ave East already has bus stops and people on 12th Ave East want bus service and access to the developing area there.

        I will repeat either will also drive traffic from the Olive corridor to places on East Madison like the Coop and Trader Joes.

  13. This blog continues to try to justify the June Metro proposal which I listed above by saying the CHS Light Rail is more important, that the places people frequent today,

    First is having the bus on East Madison disproportionate, yes or NO? If the answer is yes, why and isn’t having two buses on East John/Thomas disproportionate too?

    Is it right to ask seniors or the handicapped to transfer or walk from the agencies they frequent today like the Blind-Deaf. So would what is you solution, Access, have the agency more or have then find another agency to service their needs. It’s real easy to oppose the 11 service west of 24th Avenue East until you put yourself in the shoes of those it affects! Try walking in the shoes of a blind person who will have to go back and forth from East John/Thomas. The users of the 2, 12 and 43 have a right to service and the 11 users have a right to service on Madison.

    I’m fine with you attacking me, but are you ready to tell these people that you’re out of luck? What did these people do to deserve to be treated as second class citizens and what are your alternatives for them. Hopefully you and Metro can come up with workable alternatives before they are left out of the future of bus transportation in Seattle.

    1. What about all those seniors and handicapped people that want to get to the Link station, and would have to transfer twice to get there? 11 -> 8 -> Link? This reroute would meet their needs better.

      1. Glenn, thank you, but I’m still looking for an what happens to the agencies on Madison that need the bus for their clientele that are unable to walk distances or transfer due to physical limitations like being blind? Right now the have a bus stop on 18th Ave East and East Madison and please don’t tell me the 12 is the answer, because that won’t work for them.

      2. Man, am I ever glad that I also have a one-seat ride from here in Ballard to 18th East and Madison! What a relief!

        Oh, wait, I don’t? But I go there sometimes! How am I possibly surviving without that one-seat ride.

        We get it, Reg. You think only the 3 other 11 riders you personally know are important, and that all other system users can get bent.

        But the rest of us are under no obligation to agree with you, or to treat your myopia as valid input.

      3. Glenn,

        Given you desire the fix the 11, why not get rid of it on East Madison all together since we have an 8 and 12 that is already there? I sure the 43 users would love to have their route back running on 23rd. Solves the whole problem.

        BTW, traveling East West in Seattle shouldn’t take multiple transfer and walks and you arguments sound like you support moving the BRT idea to John, since there is nothing worth having a bus for on East Madison in yours and other view!

        BTW, you never answer the question about the blind use of the but at 18th Ave East! I and they are waiting for you and the great minds on this blog to come up with an answer other that personal attacks! If attacking me makes you day keep it up, if not please answer my question!

      4. D.P.

        You may continue your personal attacks and name calling, since they reflect on you. Yes I’m near sighted and I can’t drive so what does that have to do with anything on this post. Your are still ignoring my question of how to hand those agencies that service people on East Madison who can not walk or easily transfer like the blind.

        Either answer the question or be honest, this is a problem! In addition, I would like to hear fro the riders of the 43 if they’re happy with an 11 go east on Madison? Would it not be better to just drop that joke and put the 43 back as it is today! Then you can make the decision to have no service on East Madison other that the 8 and 12 for long distances.

      5. You have yet to answer how you think all of the visually impaired people who manage transfers just fine today are somehow less special than you.

      6. And I called you zero names.

        I just delivered to you the facts of the matter — that logical inconsistency and straining for reasons to resist change do not add up to useful input, and are not demanding of respect or deference.

      7. The answer is that people will learn and appreciate the new and more frequent network, and will adapt even if it means occasionally needing to transfer.

        Just as 99.99999999% of people, including the visually impaired, have no physical problems transferring today.

        Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t make it “not an answer”.

      8. D.P.

        You have to be kidding, I want you to tell that to the blind and deaf on 18th ave East near East Madison. You can contact the manager at (206) 257-2754, but realize that she forced Metro to keep the bus stop at 18th Ave East on East Madison.

        If can convince them, then I will agree that there is no need for any buses on East Madison. I will be waiting for your reply and so will the rest of the blog!

      9. Tell me, Reg. How do people who do not live precisely on the 12 or the 11 get to the Deaf-Blind Services Center today?

        Seriously. Why is the fact that every person in a city can’t live on a single straight line with every place they need to go so hard for you to understand?

      10. I gave you the phone number, call it! This conversation ends now until you talk to them!

      11. It is hilarious how insistent you are about telling people what they “must” think, do, or agree with, or whom they must call.

        Have you tried being enough of an adult to engage in a fairly easy thought experiment? One that involves a visitor to the service center who does not live inches from an existing 11 or 12 stop?

      12. d.p.

        Maybe you didn’t read the last post, this conversation is over and you can continue your insults, which only reflects on you. I will let the owners of the blog to decide what to do, but this ends now! Several others have taken your path and were forced to apologize! So go make the call that I suggested if you dare to tell them where to go!

      13. 18th Ave East! I and they are waiting for you and the great minds on this blog to come up with an answer other that personal attacks! If attacking me makes you day keep it up,

        Me suggesting a different set of route organizations is hardly a personal attack on anyone. Short of a publicly funded taxi system, some set of riders is going to have to transfer to do what they need to do.

        I’ve seen blind people on the bus and MAX for decades. They fo just as well at transferring between routes as anyone else.

        However, based on anecdotal comments I have heard blind passengers make while on the bus, most would probably prefer getting to a light rail station than not having to transfer. The stations are vastly easier to navigate than sidewalks, and sonligjt rail access improves their lives significantly.

        Have you actually asked any of the blind passengers what they think of this route change?

      14. Again, I’ve listed the phone number for the agency that has a problem with this move and you are free to call them. So do you really think they will take this sitting down when the literally forced Metro to keep the bus stop at 18th Ave East and East Madison?

        This is not the only problem on East Madison and since it appears you live in Portland you have to see what the problems are. Given the view that there is not need for a bus west of 24th Ave East because the 12 will sever 3 blocks then the same logic hold for dropping the 11 off of East Madison all together since the 8 is also there for 4 blocks. As you and other claim people adjust to having to walk, transfer or take their care so others in Seattle can have a bus.

        So lets take you logic one step further and that is the Madison BRT. if East Madison is not viable for bus service, then how would it be viable for the BRT. So it appears that you and others on this blog are against the Madison BRT and that you would support one on John since it would go to CHS.

        In my view Metro is Knee Capping SDOT’s BRT plan and I don’t think I wold be happy camper at SDOT since they are facing a 255 cut if Move Settle fails in November! So where do you and you fellow opponents of the 11 on East Madison stand on the BRT. You are not allowed to have it both ways!

      15. Reg,

        I want to point out you are making the very same arguments those in favor of keeping the 42 were making. They said the ACRS clients needed a one seat ride because they were too old, infirm, or did not have good enough English skills to navigate a transfer or walk from the Mt. Baker light rail station.

        They were laughed at by most commenters on this blog, and rightfully so. First ACRS clients were a very small drop in the bucket of SE Seattle transit riders much less city or county wide. Second the insistence on keeping the 42 ignored the fact that a majority of the clients currently arriving is public transit did not in fact have a one seat ride to ACRS’ offices on MLK. Third when Metro was forced by the county council to keep a partial 42 route due to well organized protests by ACRS it had very low ridership and was deleted after a couple of years for not meeting service guidelines.

        The simple fact is given limited resources a transit agency cannot provide one seat rides everywhere nor can it provide front door service for everyone. Current best practice is transit planning is to provide frequent (10 minute) service on a set of limited (every half mile) gridded corridors. Transit tiders need to be prepared to transfer and for up to a quarter mile walk on either end of their trip. Some riders may have difficulty with this and it is unfortunate. However the benefits to the larger community outweigh the cost. Most transit dependent users benefit just as much as choice riders from faster trip times and shorter waits.

        Unfortunately as an artifact of of the auto age some seem to have the mistaken impression that the primary customers public transit should serve is the transit dependent.

      16. Okay, then given the view of the blog and given that Madison is served by the 8 and 12 then there is NO need for an 11 on East Madison, right?

        The blind was just one example, and there are many more, but it appears that this blog has voted to NOT have an 11 E Madison bus and that the 43 should be kept from 23rd Ave East.

        Your arguments, don’t hold water since there are ADA rules for the physically impaired, not the language impaired!

      17. BTW, I actually agree with Chris on the 42, but my arguments for an 11 E Madison still hold! There is NO comparison between the two issues.

      18. Nah.

        Your hysterical reaction to (and unfounded fear of) proposed change is totally different from their hysterical reaction to (and unfounded fear of) proposed change!

      19. Reg N,

        There are no ADA requirements for one seat rides. Front door service, or really anything else I’ve seen from you as to why various routes on East Capitol Hill should be frozen in amber.

      20. Glenn,

        I would be willing to bet Metro and KC Council will be forced to give in on continuing the the 11 between 24th Ave East and they won’t want to come across as mean and punitive making the handicapped unable to get to their locations. I also don’t thin that the KC or Metro will be taking advice from Portland on this issue either!

      21. “given the view of the blog”

        The “view of the blog” is the Editorial Board, and the few articles signed by that name. “We” are the commentariat, or the subset of it that reads Page 2.

      22. “I would be willing to bet Metro and KC Council will be forced to give in on continuing the the 11 between 24th Ave East and they won’t want to come across as mean and punitive making the handicapped unable to get to their locations.”

        I have been watching the Council vote on Metro issues for at least eight years. In the 1980s and 90s the council overwhelmingly favored the status quo: it took just one person’s complaint to make the council override Metro’s proposal and micromanage it, restoring one particular route or alignment. If that required more service hours, it was taken out of promised frequency increases or a new route. That made Metro skittish about proposing changes, so Metro would unilaterally withdraw proposals if a few people opposed them. The other factor in that era was the 40/40/20 rule, which said that new service hours had to be given mostly to the suburbs, and cuts had to come mostly out of Seattle. That was an attempt to equalize the service level between Seattle and the suburbs over time. Never mind that cities have more ridership and need of transit.

        So there were a lot “2-like” reorgs that were vetoed, or never proposed because of the assumption of a veto. Some reorgs did go through, such as the “Campus Parkway transfer” for northeast Seattle routes. (The 74-local was broken, and the 65, 67, 68, and 75 were created that didn’t go downtown.) But god forbid anything change on the 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 43, 47 (then 14), or 49 (then 7), Anything beyond splits downtown, that is.

        The 42 was really the last gasp of the zombie-route prop-ups. When Central Link opened, Metro proposed to delete the 43, make the 8 frequent and extend it to Rainier Beach, and improve crosstown service on Othello. The ACLS wanted the 42 kept permanently. That’s what would have happened in past reorgs. But the council had evolved and learned something about transit-network best practices. It kept the 42 for a year (shortened to travel between two ACLS facilities), and ordered Metro to outreach to the non-English-speaking community to prepare them for its deletion and help them find alternatives. That required more service hours, so Metro took it out of the Othello enhancement. Seward Park was promised a semi-frequent route to Link, but it got watered down to a 45-minute route. (Now part of the 50.)

        In 2012, Metro proposed a far-reaching reorg for RapidRide C and D. It would have consolidated both halves of the 2, 3, and 4, and also reorganized Fremont and West Seattle. Route 2 riders hit the roof, and the south tail of the 4 also complained. So Metro withdrew the entire set of changes, and that prevented full-time frequent service on Queen Anne Avenue, East Union Street, and Cherry/34th. In fact, the few people on Seneca Street and 24th Ave S who complained probably didn’t care what happened on Queen Anne, but Metro withdrew the entire proposal rather than implementing part of it. It also withdrew the Fremont changes, but most of the West Seattle changes remained. Still, and this is critical, Metro didn’t promise to never change Queen Anne or the Central District. It just went back to regroup for a few years. So the 2-Madison came back in the cut proposals, and all the 2,3,4 changes will probably eventually be done. The Seneca Street activists have acknowledged that: they told the Council it’s probably inevitable, and they vowed to vote against Metro because of it. So that “damage” to Metro is already done; they can’t do much more.

        In 2008 when Metro first faced cuts and the Council debated a 2-year reprieve (a temporary tax), it ultimately approved the reprieve and simultaneously abolished the Free Ride Area and 40/40/20. That was forward thinking. (Abolishing the Free Ride Area was a “concession to Republicans” because it would lower Metro’s expenses, in return for allowing a new tax.)

        Now in 2015, Metro is proposing some changes in northeast Seattle, 520, and east Seattle. The northeast Seattle changes have been pretty well received. The 520 changes were mostly withdrawn. The Capitol Hill changes remain controversial. I asked Metro at an open house whether the 520 changes would come back, and the rep said the Eastside might have a reorganization next year and they could come back then. In other words, when Metro decides there’s significant opposition, it blanket withdraws entire swaths of proposals, but that doesn’t mean that parts of it won’t come back in the following through years. So don’t think the 12 is “safe” forever, or that defeating the 11 change would be permanent. The council is more supportive of “transit best-practices” changes than it used to be, and Metro has gotten bolder with them. It strategically retreats at times, and tries to rework them into better ideas in a few years, or propose them again in a different context. And the Council is likely to approve Metro’s proposal wholesale. Councilmembers realize they can’t micromanage routes well, and Metro’s funding is so tight that the county can no longer afford to have wasteful zombie routes. (I’m *not* saying the 11 is a zombie. I’m just saying it’s less critical than some other corridors.)

      23. “It kept the 42 for a year (shortened to travel between two ACLS facilities), and ordered Metro to outreach to the non-English-speaking community to prepare them for its deletion and help them find alternatives.”

        Note that these were phantom people. They weren’t riding the 42 in the first place, so they didn’t exist. There are non-English speaking people throughout the valley that find Metro and Link hard to understand and hard to figure out which routes might be useful for them, but that had little to do with the issue of reorganizing the 42; it’s a general outreach issue. Hopefully Metro and ST are better at that outreach now, but I’m not able to evaluate that.

      24. Mike,

        I agree with what you’re saying about the 42, but the 11 between 24th Ave East and Broadway has a lot of traffic. There are a lot of transfer at 23rd Ave East, between 18 and 17 Ave East as well as Broadway for the College. Non of the are phantom riders. We ask Metro if they had rider info on where they get off of the bus and they said they only had ORCA data on where they got on.

        I understood that the Metro outreach was supposed to have surveys on the buses, but they didn’t do that in my area. I ride the 11 all the time and have a pretty good idea where people go and how they use the bus and not just from the east end of the run. I’ve been doing this for too many years to count and I still remember when we had trolleys and the trouble the first diesel had getting up the hills. Again, I can’t drive so this is personal for me and hopefully that explains my passion for have service that meet the needs of the riders and I have compassion for those with handicaps and seniors since I’ve been there myself.

        My hope is the we can help Metro come up with a plan that meets their goals and our needs where the pros out way the cons, which the current alternative (June) fails.

  14. To me it seems like the whole area needs to be rethought, not just the 11.

    I’m thinking of something along the lines of running some of the buses on 520 south to Madison, then to the Capitol Hill Station, then to South Lake Union.

    The Capitol Hill station is a sad replacement for not having a station at Montlake, but with the decent speed between there and the Husky Stadium Station the penalty shouldn’t be too bad.

    This gives Madison a better connection to the east side as well as allows for eastside riders to get to South Lake Union, plus access to Link that doesn’t involve getting north through the mess at the Montlake Bridge.

    To me it seems like a proper restructure of this whole area, stretching well beyond Capitol Hill and Madison, is what is really needed. Changing just one route is why you wind up with people like Reg wanting to know why their trip is no longer possible.

    1. Glenn,

      I concur with your last paragraph “To me it seems like a proper restructure of this whole area, stretching well beyond Capitol Hill and Madison, is what is really needed. Changing just one route is why you wind up with people like Reg wanting to know why their trip is no longer possible.”

      In a previous post on Page 2 I suggested that Metro implement Prop One funding changes, then let the Light Rail go in and then examine the whole design based on the facts on the ground. There is nothing to be gained from forcing change that is not well put together as the current plan is. It is so bad that Metro does not want a public comment period and is going straight to the KC Council with the latest plan!

  15. All this discussion about the 43 replacing the 11 has no feedback that I’ve seen from actual riders of the 43 and what they think about the proposed new routing which Metro has chose not to make public or allow comment other than in front of the KC Council.

    FYI, I have asked the KC Council to insist that this newest plan see the light of day before they vote on it and that means a similar comment and outreach like the two other proposal got! This has gone to every member of the Council. This issue should be decided by open discussion by those affected on the 11 and 43, not by a few bloggers on the STB! If Metro had listened to this blog, then Alt 1 would be implemented.

    In addition, it is not the voices on this blog that should decide whether or if there is an 11 bus on East Madison! I think that this blog would give a thumbs up to just having limited service on East Madison provided by the 8 and 12 as today, but with NO 11 E Madison.

    It appears the Metro had two objectives in the latest plan first to placate the users of thee 43 and to get the 11 to CHS. So have they placated the 43 users who will have only part of their route? Yes, they get the 11 to CHS via John/Thomas, but there a are other routes that would work like 12th Ave East or 15th Ave East and not be as draconian as the current proposal is!

    It is also obvious that blog is not interested in having a BRT on East Madison either and I’m sure that SDOT would be happy to hear that and so would the supports of Move Seattle!

    1. The 43 is dead (or at least damn well should be) at least in the sense of running along 23rd to the university district.

      If I currently use the 43 to travel to anywhere between 23rd & John and Downtown why should I care what the route does past there? If I live in the summit area I really wouldn’t give a flying fig if the 43 goes to Madison park or to the U district.

      Metro’s job in spite of what you may think is not to preserve every single route in the system in perpetuity nor is it to preserve every single one seat ride.

      1. Chris,

        Are you a user of the 43 or just a blogger commenting for the 43 users?

        Would you care if the 43 just went to 12 Ave East and then to East Madison going east?

        So should Metro preserve any portion of the current 11?

      2. I ride the 43 on occasion. With LINK the primary use for me is more or less mooted.

        A route between 12th and Madison park along John wouldn’t really be the 43 and wouldn’t serve the primary reason Metro has proposed keeping the 43 between downtown and either 19th or 23rd. I believe metro’s primary concern is service along Bellevue/Olive/John to/from downtown West of Broadway.

        I think all portions of the current 11 route as well as Madison shore to shore should have transit service within 1/4 mile. This does not necessarily mean preserving the 11 as-is.

      3. You stated “A route between 12th and Madison park along John wouldn’t really be the 43 and wouldn’t serve the primary reason Metro has proposed keeping the 43 between downtown and either 19th or 23rd. I believe metro’s primary concern is service along Bellevue/Olive/John to/from downtown West of Broadway.

        So the riders of the 43 can still easily access 23rd Ave East transfer point from 23rd and East Madison. My idea would keep the 11 on East Madison between 24th Ave East and 12th Ave East (or possible 15th Ave East) with no loss of service since the but would be back on East John to CHS and then on the current 43 routing. This change would not hurt the riders of the 11 or 43.

        What do you mean within 1/4 mile and are you talking east or west of MLK? So would it be better to keep the 43 as is and bag the 11 given that there is service via the 8 and 12 on portions? If 12 is good enough for the portion west of 24th Ave East, then the 8 should work for the portion east of MLK, right?

      4. Reg N,

        When I say service within 1/4 mile (5 blocks) I mean it. From MLK to the lake this clearly means something on the current Far East Madison routing. What we are really debating is between John and Broadway. The ‘hole’ left by the current Metro proposal between 19th and John all has service within a 1/4 mile between the 8, 12, 11/43, and 48.

      1. Yes, I think we all know that, but do you know the they read the blog all the time and I know SDOT reads ti too!

    2. “I have asked the KC Council to insist that this newest plan see the light of day before they vote on it and that means a similar comment and outreach like the two other proposal got!”

      That was always going to happen. It’s part of the council’s public-meetings/public-records policies. Seattle, Metro and ST do the same. Every Metro proposal that goes before the council is published and has a public hearing before the council votes on it.

      1. I was told by Metro last month, no dice this goes to KC with NO public discussion other that to the Council. This is why I ask the Council for a similar period for discussion that we had on the first two alternatives earlier this year.

        It seems there is some kind of disconnect at Metro and an unwillingness to get more feedback, but know that they have been given all the feedback from people comment on Nextdoor to their newest proposal.

      2. The rounds have to end somewhere, and the other changes need to get through. Finishing this process will give Metro time to work on other things, including the next Capitol Hill restructure.

        There will be a council hearing. It would be against policy and maybe illegal not to. There won’t be “outreach” or multiple hearings. It’s up to people to attend the hearing or write to the Council, the same as all the other hearings.

    3. “actual riders of the 43 and what they think about the proposed new routing”

      That’s not the issue! We can’t be straightjacketed by what the current 43 or 11 or 2 or 12 riders want. What’s critical is what serves the most people in the district, bother current and future ones, and the widest cross-section of the population. What you see are current 43 riders complaining about losing their one-seat ride, and current 11 and 2 riders complaining that they might have to walk a couple more blocks. What you don’t see are people who are driving because the current network doesn’t work for them. You also don’t see the non-drivers who forego trips or waste hours of their month conforming to the current network. You don’t see the future residents who have no expectations of the legacy network and will happily live along the new network. You don’t see the people who avoid living in or going to the neighborhood because the buses are so scattered and infrequent. Those are a lot of people, and they’re more than the current riders who might be inconvenienced by a reorg.

      The reason to listen to current riders is not to yield to their every wish, but because they may have insights on the best overall network that the planners overlooked. So we need to consider those going east-west on John, or east-west on Madison-Pine, or from 23rd to John/Olive/Pine. But we have to weigh those factors against how many people they affect, how big the impact is, and all the other riders and requirements for the transit network. We can’t just listen to what current 43 riders want and treat that as absolute.

      As for disabled people, there are disabled people everywhere. For some of them the current network works, for others it doesn’t. For some of them the changes are a detriment, for others an improvement. The quality of the changes is whether they’re an improvement to more people than they’re a detriment to.

      1. I think the 12th/15 Ave East fix would give the least amount of complaints to the KC Council and more of a win win for bus riders and meet Metro objectives of getting people to Light Rail and reduce service duplication.

        And yes “The quality of the changes is whether they’re an improvement to more people than they’re a detriment to.”

  16. I suppose one solution would be to just piss everyone off equally, and split the 11 into two separate routes. One would stay on Madison the whole way, and the other would offer a connection to Link. This would increase the inconvenience to everyone, but do so equally.

    Wasn’t one of the reorganization proposals to make some significant changes to the 12, because it goes through a much more residential area than the 10 and therefore really doesn’t get that good ridership? It means shuffling trolley wire around, but I’m wondering if maybe moving that to provide a longer area of service on Madison to replace part of the diverted 11, or divert it to a route that connects Madison to Link, might work instead?

    1. Glenn,.

      That was my second proposal after Metro said no to the all Madison run with a notch for a seamless transfer at Broadway and Pine. This would work very well for users of the 11 east of Broadway and is similar to the two bus solution out of Madtrona.

      So are you for this option and if not why not? BTW, the all Madison run could be an express as a precursor for the BRT!

      Metro was presented this option, but they claimed that there were not enough hours, despite the fact that Prop One funding was giving 15 minute service 6 days a week on the 11 and there should have been hours from the 11 taking over the 43. Metro has been has shown no transparency on the loss of hours in the March 2016 change. Maybe the hours are going to the county as suggested in prior STB.

      1. Reg N,

        Turns greatly slow down bus routes. Your proposal for routing via the current 11 route, then 12th/15th, then John has way too many route slowing turns in it.

      2. Chris,

        Did you see what metro proposed in Alt 1 for the 38 on Capitol Hill? It was a maze and my proposal has a turn on 12th ave East (a wash) with one extra turn to East John!

      3. So, Metro has enough hours to run the 12 through an area where it doesn’t get that much ridership, but it doesn’t have enough hours to run it through an area where there is a lot more activity and thus potential ridership?

        It sounds to me like they just don’t want to move the trolley wire or something.

        I’m not sure I necessarily support moving the 12, but I support making changes that put those hours and trolley wire someplace useful. I’ve spent enough time in that area of Madison to know that there is a fair amount of commercial activity along Madison. It’s no International District but it certainly has more activity along it than the outer reaches of the 12.

        Will there be more riders needing to go from outer Madison to the light rail station, or directly to downtown Seattle along Madison? To me it seems like there will be more passengers wanting to go to the light rail station, so have the 11 be the route that gets cut short halfway out to the end of Madison, and have the 12 operate on extended trolley wire all the way out to the end?

        I know that means more trolley wire and more service hours on the trolley wire, but the fact is the King County Metro statistics say that the trolley buses cost less per service hour than the diesel buses do. Thus, the trolley buses need to go to those places where the use is heaviest. If more Madison riders are going to the light rail station than straight down Madison, then that is where the electric hours need to go.

        TriMet now has a plan for what bus routes will change when MAX Orange Line opens. To make those changes, they actually did quite a number of neighborhood surveys as well as have community meetings. Community meetings really don’t work that well because all they do is prove who can take time off work to yell the loudest. The vast blanket survey (via newspaper ads giving the web site to take the survey, e-mail campaigns, survey takers riding the bus routes in question, etc.) doesn’t just hit those that don’t want their route changed, but it hits the many, many people that currently don’t take transit.

        Among other things, before making changes here it would be really useful to know just how many people along eastern Madison are going to want to get to the light rail station once it opens. That has to be a guiding factor in the service change. Sure, you can leave things the way they are and see what happens, but if you do that then it discourages those that could have their needs met by transit but can’t with the old service pattern. The new service pattern has to be based on the actual new travel patterns, which will probably not be met by the old route structure.

      4. As has been explained to you, routes like you propose are simply too indirect, too slow, too convoluted.

        You’re offering such a slow trip to (and via) everywhere that it would remain useless to all but the most intensively transit-dependent. It would also be more expensive, thus come less frequently, thus be even less useful to people.

        This is not an improvement.

      5. @Glenn, the cost of moving trolley wire is almost certainly the problem. I don’t have any figures, but it’s enough that Metro was forced to permanently shelve a number of small but significant reroutes elsewhere.

      6. Yes, the cost of moving wire is an issue, but so is talking buses off of wires like they are doing with the 43/11 combination. Why does Metro want to replace the current 43 trolley with a diesels on the 11. Is this cost effective and good for the environment.

        One must question where Metro is going, they are getting new electric couches, but reverting routes back to diesel like they are doing now! I question if Metro really knows what it wants to do with the trolley fleet.

      7. The problem is that replacing trolleybuses with diesel doesn’t show up as an immediate capital cost. ;)

        But I agree with you that Metro needs a long-range plan for the trolley fleet, which should include a budget to regularly wire new streets at restructure time.

      8. My first comment on your new 11 would be, what routes would you run on Thomas-John instead? Currently, they have two fifteen-minute routes there, both with high ridership; if the one that’s actually reliable is taken away, they’d have as much right as anyone to complain of loss of service.

        My second comment would be similar to d.p.’s – why send it south to Pine and then north to CHS again, at the cost of time, unless Pine is a significantly greater destination than Thomas-John?

      9. Glenn,

        This would only leave the 8 with it’s increased frequency on John/Thomas.

        Why send it to CHS via 12th or 15th, this was kept to satisfy the need for Metro to get the buses to CHS, no matter the inconvenience or cost!

        Yes, I would be happy and so would most on East Madison with keeping the bus as is, since that option still allows a transfer at MLK to the 8 to the to get to CHS or one can get to light rail at Nordstrom.

      10. You didn’t answer either of his questions, and you know it.

        But at least you’ve finally admitted that you’d rather take high-performing service away from others than broach any substantive change to your (relatively low-performing) pet route. I guess “unassailable needs” are for you and no one else.

      11. Also, you don’t care about “the environment”. If you did, you’d want to work toward a transit network that worked better for more people overall.

        All you care about is logical contortions to try to justify your stubborn, flimsy reasons for fearing change.

    2. Alternative 1 deleted the 43 and 12 and 11, and had a 49-Madison and an 8-Madison. Alternative 2 (the minimal one) downgraded the 43 to half-hourly. Alternative 3 had an all-Madison 11, a Pine-John-19th 12, and no 43. Alternative 4 (from Reg’s description) has a Pine-John-Madison 11, a status-quo 12, and no 43.

      1. Mike,

        One clarification, my proposal merges the 11 and 43 at CHS going west to Pike/Pine via Olive/Bellevue.

      2. I’m talking about Metro’s alternative 4. I was going to add a sentence about your modifications but I figured that was already clear enough. I would say that you’ve proposed several modifications that would all bring the 11’s midpoint closer to 16th & Pine in various ways.

  17. I agree with d.p. that much of this is caused by SoundTransit station efforts.

    One thing I noticed about my several brief trips on the Moscow Metro was that they seem to use deep level stations to great advantage there. Long escalators are used to make stations reach quite some distance.

    Rather than the Capitol Hill Steetcar, I can’t help but wonder what this would have looked like with that money invested in multiple station entries in many locations like that.

    At the very least, that type of station entrance arrangement probably could have reached the 11 and the 8 with no route changes.

    It frustrates me at Beacon Hill too. They needed to put in two sets of elevator shafts. Why are both sets on the same side of a busy street, so that southbound 36 riders have a much harder time getting to Link?

    If you are going to have a deep level station, use it to the maximum benefit possible. To not do so, to me, seems like a mistake that should not be repeated in future deep level stations.

    1. Glenn,

      You are so right, like why wasn’t CHS placed between Pike/Pine? Why are they not servicing Convention Place? The UW Link is for Husky stadium, not UWMC.

      You also right, the stations are not close enough except for downtown? When if will Metro and ST work together if ever? Metro has a night on hands trying to route buses to stations that were planned in another world!

    2. While I agree with you agreeing with me (on ST’s thoughtless stop spacing and placement), the answer is not long escalators and intentionally exaggerated lateral distances from platform to street.

      You should note that escalators, and especially Soviet double-speed escalators, are not universally accessible. The arrangement you admire (straight diagonal egress to distant surface points) would require that equally long level passageways be built at either platform or sub-street depth, in order to have elevators meet the escalators at egress points.

      This is no more “universal design” than Reg’s “one-seat for my needs and cumbersome service for everyone else” is universal design.

      Also, Beacon Hill was mined from a surface put located exactly where the station building sits. Additional elevators across the street were never an option. (Nor are they especially vital at a station of that volume or in a neighborhood with Beacon Hill’s built form.)

      1. Diagonal access has been addressed in a few cases, such as the stair climbing machine on the staircase opposite King Street Station. WMATA has their diagonal elevator they put at one station.

        However, you can’t determine what is worthwhile or not if the agency isn’t even willing to consider alternatives.

      2. Stair climbers and in-station funiculars are adaptive/reactive measures for extreme and unavoidable topographic conditions, and carry a significant time penalty. They are no replacement for A) putting stations as close as possible to where they should actually be; and B) reducing platform-to-street distance as much as the situation allows.

        The deep-level Soviet stations could only make such lemonade out of their (partially paranoia-driven) depth because they didn’t give 2 craps about the access rights of non-able-bodied laborforce adults. Those escalator “tunnels” are nearly impossible to retrofit for access, and the access would still be laborious and terrible even if you did.

        Forcing every soul onto a funicular (always slower than a traditional elevator) amounts to lousy “universal design” too. You need to stop pretending the entire world just “loves to ride” the way you do.

      3. d.p.: Have you looked at the station layout at all?

        There were three shafts built into Beacon Hill. The east and west end shafts only contain stairs. It seems to me that once you put the emergency shaft in, you might as well add an elevator or two to it to provide wider access areas. At leas, I see no reason that adding an elevator to the shaft that has to be there anyway add that much to the costs, considering everything else.

        Assuming these is only one shatt, sadly, underestimates the nonsense built into the station.

        Not that you need any more reasons to be pissed off at SoundTransit, but I think this gives you one more.

      4. Bizarre. So it looks like they made the “vent shaft” also be an emergency staircase shaft? It looked to me as though the end doors at each end of the staion have emergency staircase symbols on them. If that is the case, then the west end of the station must have its emergency access in that shaft based on that rendering.

        If they had put two full shafts at Capitol Hil Station it would still have been cheaper than an entire second station. That also means that if some emergency situation arises at one shaft (say, a car runs into the head house ) it is still possible to use the other for evacuation or partial service.

        The 8 and 11 really are not that far apart in the area of this station. Link platforms are 400 feet long, and Capitol Hill is fairly transit dense. Two head houses would really have been a good idea there, IMNSHO.

        I guess I was picturing the small funicular combined with Russian style deep escalators, sort of the way the one WMATA station is set up. The escalators are what would move the bulk of the passengers.

      5. Capitol Hill’s entrances are far from one another. Plans suggest that use of the “south” entrance will be strongly discouraged, instead funneling passenger though another couple hundred feet of mezzanine/underpass to the “southwest” entrance before being allowed to reach the surface. The primary station entrances will be roughly 600 feet from one another.

        Really long, convoluted access routes are bugs, not features. In Eastern Europe, that might at least allow the immediate station area to cover multiple blocks. But in Seattle, where a single block can be that long (and also impermeable), diagonal egress is an inconvenience without an upside.

        I guess the only thing that would be worse is ridiculously laborious station access, with the basic bus transfer then bumped back another 3 blocks and thousand-plus feet because [ah]

      6. That’s right. I forgot how monumental the underground part of that thing is. When I look at the photos of that thing I’m reminded of the huge cavern in Chattanooga where Ruby Falls is located. That’s the only thing that I can think of that is comparable.

        São Paulo also has multiple entrance metro stations that help serve larger areas, and they have some vast unpenetrable blocks too, but of course the city density there is vastly different than Capitol Hill. Each of those many entrances are very busy.

        It just seems like if you are going to build a rat maze, you might as well do something useful with it. Building an extra entrance and then telling everyone to ignore that one?

        I hope they at least have signs telling passengers which direction to go to get what bus. Some of the objections to moving stuff around might be because of how difficult it is to get to the right route with so few signs giving directions to what exit goes where.

  18. Maybe I’m naive, but when I go to Metro’s site, they are still touting only Alternative 3 as the definitive restructure design. This is news to me!

    Is this one of those rounds of “secret planning” going on again, where the general public isn’t informed until certain people have decided on an answer? Please will our leaders change the way that Metro and ST do planning outreach? This level of tacit manipulation makes you elected officials look horrible!

    1. Al,

      You are correct, the Metro site says one thing and the information here including the map is for real. Metro does not plan to have an open discussion on the this newest alternative until it is published right before it goes to KC Council for approval. Believe it or not, this is real and you need to voice your opinion to Metro and the KC Council if you don’t like it.

      I published after meetings and telecoms with Metro, my latest telecom was July 16, 2016 last Thursday and the previous meeting was onsite at Metro headquarters. I honestly wish this was not their newest proposal, but it is!

      You are NOT naive!

    2. Al,

      I strongly encourage you to voice your opinion about the proposed change here too and don’t let all the negativity and bullying on the blog blow you away!

    3. I no longer live near Madison so I don’t feel personally invested in any particular routing enough to rattle the cages Downtown. I would note that turning up John is one of those things that looks logical on a map — but it removes direct access to some important mid-Madison community destinations like Safeway and Trader Joes in exchange for a cable-car thrill ride hill between Madison and 23rd highlighted by passengers resting in rocket launch positions waiting for the signal to change at 23rd/John. If reaching Cap Hill Station is the objective, simply turning up 19th or 15th would be only a few blocks more of a ride and greatly improve supermarket access for not only Route 11 folk but for anyone who lives in Capitol Hill that also goes to Trader Joes.

      I dream of the day that service planning staff quit planning things one or two alternatives at a time to please certain elected officials or stakeholders. This approach inherently puts everyone into attack or defensiveness mode! PLEASE METRO STOP DOING THAT! It’s just flatly unhealthy for everyone involved — staff, elected officials, riders, STB bloggers! For an area as rich in travel patterns as Central Seattle, Metro staff should have put out at least six or eight service plan concepts to the public for critical discussion at the outset rather than just two — and subsequent revisions should have had at least two or three versions rather than just one. This restructuring process is a textbook example of how not to do planning in an area with complex transit issues!

      1. Al,

        I’m surprised that the STB attack dogs haven’t gotten after you, but they may be in shock seeing others have the same opinion as mint. Thank you for having the guts to speak truth to power on the STB, it’s a welcome breath of fresh air in this echo chamber!

        Okay guys, who are you going to attach first, Al or myself!? See the bullying didn’t scare him away either!, nor will it stop me from fight Metro’s stupid proposal.

        BTW,if they start attacking you personally, just ignore it, since a response just feeds the bully! Hopefully others will be willing to post like you did!


Comments are closed.