Photo by the Author
Photo by the Author

A standing-room only crowd of 300 people turned up last night at the Mountaineers to testify before the County Council on the proposed University Link bus restructure. We and Transportation Choices Coalition live-tweeted the event, and you can read our threads here and here. (You can also follow the #Bus2Link hashtag). Councilmembers Dembowski, Gossett, and McDermott deserve praise for staying throughout the full 3 hours, and the meeting was also partially attended by Councilmembers Phillips, Hague, and Lambert.)

There were impassioned, detailed pleas to Councilmembers both in support and opposition. Opponents largely praised the concepts behind the restructure while strongly opposing changes to their particular route. While some of the opposing testimony was predictably absurd and entitled – like the two Tangletown residents upset about higher bus frequency shaking their Craftsmans or the Jackson Park resident saying buses are unsafe to operate near his condo – most of the opposing testimony was detailed, on point, and grounded in legitimate complaints.

Route 43 riders in Montlake expressed particular skepticism that their proposed access to Link (via the 48) will not be a practical option until the SR 520 bridge project is finished and/or there is transit priority in Montlake. And you know what? They have a point. While the first proposal (Alternative 1) had a solid 10-minute to 10-minute transfer via the 8/48 and the second proposal had direct access to Link via Route 12 on 19th/Thomas/John, the final proposal had neither, with the 12 retaining its current routing, the 8 cut back to 12 minutes, and the transfer lengthened to Madison St. The result is that none of the three north-south routes in NE Capitol Hill (10, 12, 48) will have access to Capitol Hill Station under the proposal, and though 43 riders will have 2-seat ride to Downtown via a frequent transfer from the 48 to the 2, 3, 4, 8, or 11, riders on 23rd Ave E will require two transfers to connect to Capitol Hill Station. Even frequent network purists should have a hard time swallowing a 3-seat ride to travel the 3 miles to the stadiums, Pioneer Square, etc. If the best access upper Montlake has to Link is the day before it opens, that’s not a good network.

The 16/62 proposal proved to be fairly polarizing, with strong opposition from Route 16 riders who ride between Northgate and Wallingford who do not want to ride the extended 26X instead. Several of them asked for the tails to be flipped, with the full-time 26X going to Sand Point via NE 65th, and the 16 retaining its current routing. Several also voiced support for the new connections it would enable, particularly between Fremont/Wallingford/Green Lake and Roosevelt/Ravenna/Wedgwood, areas with no direct connection today.

There were moments of levity early in the meeting – when comments were still running strongly negative –with two Laurelhurst residents praising the 78 and supporting the cancellation of the 25, saying “I’m one of like 3 people who ride that bus, and we’d like to thank Metro for our own private limo service all these years.”

Supportive institutional comment came from Futurewise, UW, Transportation Choices, and Solid Ground. As the meeting wore on and more transit riders arrived at the far-flung Mountaineers, public testimony started breaking more in favor of the restructure:

  • A Route 75 rider complained that her route wasn’t changing, wishing it to directly connect to the station via Montlake Blvd instead of Stevens Way, and other speakers similarly blasted WSDOT and SDOT for failing to have any plans for transit priority on Montlake.
  • A KOMO engineer said that “even more pitchforks would be here” if the situation were reversed and Council were proposing our current network, cutting service in half throughout NE Seattle.
  • Another speaker said, “Sure I have a one-seat ride now, but it’s terrible. It’s unreliable, crowded, and only runs every half hour.”
  • A man who commutes from Wedgwood to Sodo praised the restructure, saying he “can’t wait” to trade the 64+131 for the 65+Link.
  • A Methodist reverend “affirmed” the restructure as part of a needed transition to climate-friendly electric transit.
  • A Maple Leaf resident praised Metro for proposing 15-minute service and a Link connection for Route 67 (while also rightly criticizing Sound Transit for the underprovision of bike parking at UW Station).
  • Seattle Subway showed up in force as usual,  with Political Director Jonathan Hopkins asking Metro not to “lock us in a 1970s transit system that serves fewer people and does so relatively poorly. Please give us frequent reliable transit that serves more people.”
  • Rounding out the public comment, Andrew Austin from Transportation Choices noted the generational gap in testimony, with younger voices strongly in support and older voices in opposition, and asked us all to look for ways to bridge that gap.

So where do we go from here? The Council and Metro will use the feedback as ammo to negotiate behind the scenes, informing the content of revisions and amendments likely to be offered by Councilmembers as it goes to full council possibly as soon as October 20. There will be a special TrEE committee meeting October 14, and we’ll have a better idea of the proposal’s fate at that time. But it seems clear that the 43 (and likely also the 71) are headed for some sort of partial restoration, with possible other network changes as well. Stay tuned.

105 Replies to “300 Turn Out for ULink Restructure Hearing”

  1. For the folks who complained about bus noise and pollution: rally your neighbors to have the city run more trolley wire or get more battery operated buses.

    Quiet and environmentally friendly.

    Don’t oppose bus service for selfish reasons.

    1. I just experienced a 43 losing its trolley connection at an intersection. We had to wait for a tow truck to push it back on course. Talk about a “log jam”. We definitely need Proterra buses.

      1. Or just wait another 6 or so months until King County Metro gets its new 60-foot trolleybuses from New Flyer… they have battery packs so the driver can move back under the wire.

    2. The 26 route that is likely the issue does run some loud artics. Anyways, trolley wire is unsightly… NIMFY!

      1. The 26 and 28 are often run with Metro’s oldest diesel articulated coaches. The situation will likely get better over the next year as Metro takes delivery of 85 new hybrid articulated coaches that will likely replace those buses (unless Metro needs to use those buses to expand the fleet).

      2. I’m in the neighborhood and my understanding is that the people with noise concerns are on the current 16 line and are complaining about the increased frequency. The 16 uses some of the older buses during peak times but they typically use the smaller, newer, and significantly quieter buses.

        Can’t keep everybody happy.

    3. I think this is an unfair criticism. As an urbanist, one of my criticisms of car-centric planning is the fact that cars are noisy and dirty. I would be upset if the street in front of my house were turned into a freeway, and along the same lines, it’s understandable that some people would be upset to find out that 2-3x as many buses will pass by their house.

      Of course, the other extreme — don’t run any buses because they’re loud and noisy — is both excessive and counterproductive (since people will just drive, and cars are noisy too). But that doesn’t mean that we have to hand-wave away these concerns. There are many minor tweaks that Metro could make to the network that would shift noise away from residential streets and towards commercial ones, where noise is less of a problem.

      The 26 is probably the most egregious example. I have no doubt that Metro buses are by far the largest and loudest vehicles that regularly travel on Latona/Thackeray. Could the 26’s unique riders instead be accommodated by modifying the 31/32 to terminate at UW Station, like the new 45? That would give them the choice of several high-frequency trips to downtown (either the 31/32 or the 44 to UW Station).

      I’m not demanding any concrete changes… just pointing out that we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss concerns that we agree are legitimate when the frame is different.

      1. I proposed legitimate solutions to the concern. Saying “don’t put the bus near my house” is not one of them.

      2. Why isn’t it? If you buy a house on a one-lane, one-way street that’s zoned for single-family use and whose speed limit is 20, isn’t it reasonable to expect that your street will have relatively low traffic noise?

        I mean, 100 years ago, people were saying the exact same things about cars — that they were loud and noisy and ruining neighborhoods. And they were absolutely right, and we didn’t listen to them, and we should have.

        Yes, trolley wires and electric buses are great improvements, and we should be pushing for their broad use/expansion. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to observe that buses aren’t exactly harmonious with the street design and land use of Latona/Thackeray.

      3. The precedent is more important than the specific alignment. If the alignment changes, it should be for other reasons than “noisy” and “ugly” or we will get other wealthy folks complaining and having more important routes removed and pointing to this one as an example.

        If there’s a better street to run it on, we should run it on that street. If there isn’t we should improve the street to make it capable of handling these buses.

  2. I was able to make it to meeting and speak up for the restructure. Of all the complaints I heard, the Montlake area’s seemed the most legitimate. Northbound traffic along Montlake is frequently backed up a long way – enough to make the 48->Link connection to go downtown potentially slower than the already-crawling route 43.

    The problem is that, in reality, route 43 is a popular route today, not because of people in Montlake, but because of people along Olive Way and John Street – people who switch to Link the a heartbeat, the day it opens, without the need for a transfer. Along 23rd, route 43 usually breezes by with very few stops – maybe 2-3 off/ons all the way from Aloha to SR-520. 2-3 off/ons is hardly enough riders to sustain a route in and of itself.

    That said, we are are painfully aware of what happened with the 42, and perhaps something similar is going to end up happening with the 43 – the council will insist on retaining it over Metro’s wishes – it won’t meet ridership standards, and when the next recession hits, it will be axed.

    As ugly as is, if this is the bone required in order to allow the rest of the restructure to make it through the political process, I say, just suck it up and do it. A few extra years of running route 43 at token frequency is not going to break Metro’s budget, especially, if it’s the first to get cut in the next recession. The main thing is to not allow the badly-needed northeast Seattle changes to get scuttled over this.

    1. Creative idea: Chop off the last three blocks of the 12 and extend it over Aloha to 23rd and the rest of the 43 route. It keeps the connection to (some part of) downtown while making some use of the 12’s tail. The downside is that it doesn’t go to Capitol Hill, and it’d get the 12 into Montlake congestion. And, what’s more, four blocks of Aloha would need to be wired or the whole route would go to diesel.

      And, it’s almost certainly too late in the process for Metro to do this.

      1. It probably is too late, but I don’t think a delay is a bad idea. I’m sure Metro, and some representatives expected a different meeting. I’m sure they expected much of the opposition to come from “single seaters”, folks who don’t want to see the 71, 72, 73 ride go away. But there is a lot of reasonable opposition of a different nature. It appears that despite the best efforts of Metro, it is very difficult to get a system that is clearly better overall. I personally think it is, but I really have a hard time defending my position. I feel like I’m looking at two big jars full of jelly beans and saying the one on the left is bigger — but I certainly wouldn’t put money on it.

        Since there is no clear consensus, and plenty of opportunity to make improvements that might not have been considered (like the one you suggest) then maybe the best thing to do is wait on the changes. There is another decent argument for that. We don’t know how many people will flock to particular Link stations. Much of the opposition in some areas is because in some cases (Capitol Hill) bus connections to Link will go away. But how many people will make that connection? If you are headed downtown, maybe you just stay on the bus. If you are headed to the U-District, maybe you take a different route (or maybe there aren’t that many headed to the U-District). The delay would give us a bit more data, and might be a good idea.

      2. In Capitol Hill, I can definitely see your point. But in northeast Seattle, the change is clearly and indisputably superior.

        I remember someone explaining once how the changes were linked to each other, so one couldn’t happen without another, but I don’t remember why. Was it the split of the 48? What’s the least Capitol Hill change necessitated by the Northeast Seattle change?

      3. I would think that the 71/72/73-downtown have to be cancelled to drive the rest of the changes because they’re providing so many of the service hours for other additions.

        It’s also like pulling off a bandaid, quick is less painful. If Link opens and the 71-72-73 are still running all day to downtown, then many people won’t switch to Link. If Link has lower ridership than expected, that will give ammunition to people opposed to expanding Link within Seattle. And if people stay on the 71/72/73, that will make those buses appear more indispensable if people are riding them even while the buses are in direct competition with Link. It might also make people wonder why some NE Seattle buses like the 65 got double frequency if people aren’t taking the 65 to Link.

        That being said, if there is opposition to axing the 71, why not do what the 30/74 do? Peak only service between Wedgwood and downtown on the 76. Daytime shuttle service between Wedgwood and UW via the Ave on a short-71. Or maybe have the new 62 split at 65th/15th. Half the buses turn south down 15th towards the Ave and UW. The other half go west to Wallingford and downtown.

      4. @Larry — If that is the case — if service hour savings come from truncating the 71/72/73, then the proposal that has been suggested over and over makes sense. Take the savings, apply it to the north end, and leave the Central Area alone. In fact, it would mean that the north end would be better off. It no longer has to share its savings with the Central Area. But my guess is that isn’t the case. If anything it is the other way around. Or, as William suggests, it is something like the change to the 48.

        I really don’t buy the argument laid out in your second paragraph. If you go back to the discussions a few months ago, almost everyone assumed that Metro would keep all 7X buses, just because the transfer at Husky Stadium is so bad. The assumption was that those buses would be truncated when Link got to the U-District. In other words, keep the band-aid on a little while longer, and make the big change when Link gets to Northgate. I really don’t think our goal should be to puff up Link ridership so that people have a better view of the system. By all means, Metro should fully take advantage of the light rail and deliver a better system as a result of it. But if Sound Transit gave it nothing to work with, then Metro should simply wait until it does.

      5. Aloha is too narrow around there to be able to accommodate the artics. Microsoft used to have their much shorter Connector busses turn onto Aloha there, but they switched to a different street because a number of cars were getting hit at 23rd & Aloha.

      6. But in northeast Seattle, the change is clearly and indisputably superior.

        I’m not so sure. As I said, I think it is superior, but I think a lot of people would dispute that. A lot depends on the transfer. For example, right now someone in the Roosevelt neighborhood has a very good transit experience. You can get just about everywhere from there, including downtown. Bus service is fairly frequent, since the 71/72/73 buses converge there (and the 66 is close). Getting to downtown will probably involve more frequency, but depending on the time of day, take longer. If the express lanes are in your favor, then the bus ride to downtown is fairly quick. The transfer at Husky Stadium will not be. For those in Roosevelt, getting to other parts of town aren’t much better. Getting to the U-District is just fine, but getting to the Northgate Transit Center is slower, but more frequent (although not that much more frequent). Depending on the timing, it might be better, but it might be worse. It also depends on where you are headed. if you are going to the mall, then it is better; but if you are headed to another bus, then it will be worse (again, because it is significantly slower). I’m guessing a lot more people are heading to another bus, which makes the current system better in terms of speed (but not frequency).

        Roosevelt may be one of those areas that sacrifices a little so that places like Wedgewood and Sand Point get much better service (and Lake City gets a bit better service to the UW). I am OK with that, but I don’t think it makes for an obvious win.

        On the other hand, all of those issues disappear once Link gets to Northgate. When Link gets to Northgate, Roosevelt is much better off with these changes (or similar ones). Getting to the U-District, Northgate or downtown is no longer an issue. A bus that complements it by going to Maple Leaf is just fine. That is my bigger point. The Husky Stadium station is so problematic that most of the people here didn’t expect these sorts of changes. The trade-offs were too big. I don’t think things have changed since Metro did the dirty work. Sound Transit and the UW haven’t made the transfer much better. While I support these changes, they will make lives a bit better for some, and a bit worse for others. Once Link gets to Northgate, the quality of the stations in the north end from a bus transfer perspective increases dramatically, and Metro can devise a plan that has a lot more winners and very few losers. Something like this:

      7. If they only do north Seattle, then you’d need more service hours to restore the 43, so the 48 would have to be rejoined and its frequency increases cancelled.

        It’s not clear that “restoring the 71” really means going all the way to downtown or going to UW Station. But then does it go to the station entrance or to Stevens Way? One speaker didn’t like the 372 stations because Stevens Way is so far from the station, and asked that it be routed to the station entrance. But if you did that, then wouldn’t people be asking that for all the Stevens Way routes? If you do it for one route, it gives them an extraordinary privilege over others. You can’t do it for all routes because Pacific Street is already almost full and there’s not enough layover space.

      8. Keep in mind that the Montlake community will also lose access to the current Montlake freeway stations when WS-DOT continues the 520 construction. The stations on the lid are designed for U-District service. While it’s possible that off-peak buses headed downtown could stop on the lid, I would not count on it. And in addition to congestion at the Montlake Bridge, off-peak you also have bridge openings.

        There’s much more potential riders along 23rd/24th Aves than along 19th which retained its bus downtown. And it’s a bitter pill to swallow for residents who supported Prop 1. While the 48 passes through, the Montlake residents are headed downtown not to Mount Baker.

    2. That said, we are are painfully aware of what happened with the 42, and perhaps something similar is going to end up happening with the 43 – the council will insist on retaining it over Metro’s wishes – it won’t meet ridership standards, and when the next recession hits, it will be axed.

      Yep, exactly what I was thinking. Hopefully it won’t take a recession. A bunch of service hours wasted for several years, because of Dembowski’s unwillingness to trust professional planners, and lack of common sense and political courage.

    3. The thing with Montlake is, when congestion hinders people from getting to UW Station, that same congestion hinders the 43 from getting from Pacific Street to 24th. So keeping the 43 because it will be “better” sounds like an odd comment. If there’s congestion the 43 will be slow getting to UW Station, but the 43 going the other way to Capitol Hill will also be slow!

      1. If you board the 43 to downtown south of Roanoke, there really is no congestion to speak of. You may mean it is unreliable, but when it comes it will move. Similarly, leaving downtown it will reach most destinations on 23rd/24th before it gets bogged down.

    1. I was pleased to see the amount of support, given the tone of the actual blog post. And of course I use the same name there :)

  3. I get the desire for bringing back the 43 – after all, we have Link shadow routes in far less populated places that have much closer stop spacing (eg Rapidride A between Angle lake and TIBS, 8/38 in Rainier valley). Cap hill being one of the densest areas and with patently absurd distance between Link stations deserves decent connections. That being said such a route would be pretty short. Would they instead consider extending one of the routes that truncate in the vicinity of the Link station to Cap hill? There are quite a few that could open up some interesting one seat rides, rather than a new super short shuttle.

    1. It could turn left at Broadway and follow the 60’s route to First Hill and then on to Yesler Terrace. Supposedly the wire for the new 3/4 route is supposed to be hung “sometime soon”. Then you’d have direct service between the two health care centers in the city. I don’t know how important that might be.

      Of course, it would be one more duplication to the FHSC between John and Madison.

      But a short shuttle might be just fine; it would be pretty reliable.

  4. I support the idea of bringing back the 43 and/or having the 12 go to 23rd Ave East since this would allow Metro to have 11 go further west to either 12th or 15th Ave East on E Pine and then turn north to Light Rail.

  5. Interesting article about an interesting meeting. I have mixed feelings about the changes, and have trouble getting too worked up about them either way. Compared to a lot of decisions that have been made and considered, this is a close call. The changes are better in my estimation, but not obviously better.

    Unfortunately, the changes made by this round of Link are not huge, despite the fact that it includes the most important section. There are only two stops, after all, and neither one is very good from a bus transfer standpoint. Even adding one more stop would make a big difference. Compounding problems is that the Central Area is a very tough nut to crack. Blame Arthur Denny and Carson Boren for that problem (they should have listened to Doc Maynard, who wanted a straight east-west-north-south street grid).

    The obvious answer to the problem is to just throw money at it. Unfortunately, the service hours saved by this round of changes aren’t big enough. The 7X buses (71, 72, 73) spend a lot of time going from the U-District to downtown, but they will spend a lot of time getting to Husky Stadium instead. The savings from the obvious truncations are big, but not big enough to create the kind of service that would be acceptable to everyone in the Central Area. Something like this ( is better, but probably not possible with this round of changes.

    I can’t help but think that the answer is what has been suggested before: keep the north end changes, but leave the Central Area alone. I’m not sure if that pencils out, of course. It is possible that service hours have shifted around (from one part of town to the other). But I think in general, there is a fair amount of support (or at least acceptance) for the north end changes, but quite reasonable opposition to the changes to the south. If it turns out that we can’t have the north end changes by themselves because we took a few hours from the Central Area to pay for them, then I think people need to know that.

    Like a lot of people — including strong supporters of restructuring our routes to be more of a grid — these changes aren’t that great and should maybe wait until Link gets to Northgate. Making similar changes sooner seems like a good idea (and I support these changes) but it is obviously difficult to do so in a way that clearly leads to a better overall system.

    1. I am not exactly clear on what you are trying to say here… do you mean to say we should allow the north restructure to happen and wait until 2021 for the central portion, or wait for both until 2021?

      Your last paragraph looks like it contradicts the first one.

      As someone who lives in North Seattle, I don’t want to wait five more years for a restructure. We need better ways to get around now, and we absolutely need more reliable ways to get to husky stadium for the next 5 years for the (now frequent!) times where the system goes into completely gridlock because of a collision, tipped salmon truck or visiting dignitary has one of the few crossings of the canal shut down.

      To wait 5 years to make good use of this billion dollar investment is just foolish. :-/

      1. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Partly it is because I’m torn. But that is my first point. I don’t think it is that much better in the north end, let alone the Central Area. The Husky Stadium station is terrible from a transfer standpoint, especially for buses coming from the northeast (where most of the people are). It is hard to push for a change when a lot of people will have a worse experience. I think the overall number of trips will be better, but not by much.

        But I think the consensus of many is that the north end changes are clearly better than the central ones. That being the case, then I think we should implement the north end ones alone. Despite the flaws, I think it is a bit better in the north end than the current system. A lot depends on the time of day. When the express lanes are in your favor, an express bus will beat the bus/Link transfer 90% of the time. But in the evening, it is the opposite.

      2. Ross, I get what you’re saying. It does vary by neighborhood. U District – Lake City loses 2x 72 buses an hour, but it gains 2x each of the 65, 75, and 372. Northgate-U District loses 2x 66 and 2x 68, but it gains 2x 67 and 2x 75 an hour, so that’s a wash. From UW along NE 25th Ave gains 2x 372, but loses 2x 68, so it’s also a wash. U District – Children’s Hospital loses 1x 25, but gains 2x 65, 2x 75, and 1x 78. You can do this sort of analysis for various neighborhood pairings, but overall there’s more gains than losses.

        I live in Ravenna and don’t own a car. If there’s more frequent service, I’m happy because it means I go grocery shopping at U Village and not panic if I’m carrying ice cream and just missed a bus, because there will be another bus coming soon. And yes, I will be losing my 1 seat ride to Northgate, but if the 67 and 62 are each every 15 minutes then not too hard to get back home after dinner and a movie at the mall.

      3. @Larry Likewise I (in Northgate) lose my one seat ride to Green Lake and Wallingford.

        I would be willing to lose that though if it meant I had more access to the rest of the city. Transfers that I could actually consider taking because I don’t have to wait 30+ minutes between buses.

        I also want as many different frequent routes to get folks to UW station as possible until Link opens to Northgate.

        The city shouldn’t be paralyzed when one of the N/S arterials gets plugged up by an event or a collision. Resiliency in adversity is one of the single best features of the restructure.

    2. “Unfortunately, the changes made by this round of Link are not huge, despite the fact that it includes the most important section.”

      That’s because it includes only half of the most important section. It goes to the very, very, very furthest corner of the U-District. UW and U-District Stations are probably both higher volume than Capitol Hill Station, but we’re getting CH and UW first without U-District.

      1. I agree completely. I should have been more clear. I said if they added one more station then these changes would be a lot easier. That includes the U-District It really is a shame that we have to wait five years for such a key station. I think if you built the absolute smallest, cheapest light rail line for Seattle, it would go from the U-District to the south end of downtown. Just that gets us so much (especially if we added stations along the way).

    3. As I said above, restoring Capitol Hill to status quo ante would require rejoining the 48 and cancelling its frequency increases, to get the 43 back up to 15 minutes daytime.

      1. That’d be regrettable, but it wouldn’t stop the biggest and best parts of the Northeast Seattle restructure.

      2. So where did the hours from the 43 go and what is the baseline comparison for hours before or after Prop One funding. This is real strange when hours disappear with not visible destination. I also believe that some of the current Prop One fund of hours is over kill and that 20 minute service could work where we previously has only 30 minute service.

      3. 20 minute service is not the way to make a network competitive with driving. It’s better than 30 minutes if there’s not enough money for 15 minutes, but it’s still a compromise and should be raised to 15 minutes as soon as feasable. I think Metro looks at it that way, and all 20 minute segments are ‘We wanted to make them 15 minutes but can’t right now.”

        Right that Metro should tell us what the baseline network is, what the Prop 1 hours would be propping up, and where the 43’s hours went to. But it’s pretty clear where the 43’s hours went: the 48/45 split (overlapping), the 8/38 split (four layover points instead of two), and 49 increases. It’s possible that some of the hours went into the 10 and 11 evenings to replace Prop 1, so that they wouldn’t evaporate if Prop 1 isn’t renewed. But I’m not sure about that. I don’t quite understand why Metro is saying the 10 would get more evening service when it seems it has already gotten the evening service: is Metro saying core hours would replace Prop 1 hours on the 10, or is there some other increase I’m not noticing, does the statement really not make sense?

      4. 20 minute service is not the way to make a network competitive with driving. It’s better than 30 minutes if there’s not enough money for 15 minutes, but it’s still a compromise and should be raised to 15 minutes as soon as feasable. I think Metro looks at it that way, and all 20 minute segments are ‘We wanted to make them 15 minutes but can’t right now.”

        I maintain that 20-minute service with timed connections is actually better than 15-minute service for routes that originate at Link stations, where a significant portion of passengers board at the origin. If there’s a bus waiting for every other Link train, then your wait time is either 0 minutes or 10 minutes — an average of 5. If buses come every 15 minutes without timing, then your expected wait time is 7.5 minutes.

        But I admit that this is a special case. It might apply to the 45, but it definitely doesn’t apply to routes like the 8, where CHS is just another stop.

      5. People on the 45 go from the U-District to Greenlake, 65th to Aurora, Aurora to Greenwood, etc.

  6. I really hope this restructure doesn’t get held off until the Northgate Extension happens! The restructure plan for NE Seattle is amazing compared to what we have today. As a rider of the 71 said (quoted in the article above), the 71/72/73 routes are one-seat, but slow. So very slow. And so infrequent, especially during nights and on weekends (60-minute frequency, I tell you….). I can’t make it clear enough how much I’d rather transfer (including the walk, and I have to use a cane sometimes) and have good frequency and the light rail than continue to have horrible frequency and be stuck in traffic with 100 other people on the same bus.

    I visited Portland over the weekend, and I found their transit system very easy to use. The grid network made it easy to get around even though I didn’t know the area at all. It is a much better design than what NE Seattle currently has.

    If anyone from King County Council is reading this, Please, please don’t push to wait until Northgate Extension for this restructure to occur! There will be minor growing pains, but that always happens with restructures because people don’t like change at first. But, the system will be better for it, and many more people served way better. Also, consider the amount of pollution that will be saved when all of those who currently ride between the U-district and downtown on diesel buses take light rail instead.

    1. I had a 72 stop right outside my front door when I lived in Wedgwood. Unpredictable, infrequent, meandering and slow. Same with the 372 a block away. Got frustrated, so I just drove to work in Fremont or biked most of the time. I now live on the 65 a little to the North and work in Eastlake and it’s a little better, but the transfers at Campus Drive (or alternately at Lake City via 41 or 522) are still very unreliable. Prop 1 helped a lot making transfers into SLU/Downtown work from NE Seattle and getting back to the U district or NorthGate, but the transfer needed to complete the trip back to NE Seattle is just as unreliable as ever. Short trips within NE Seattle to Sand Point, 35th, U-Village, Lake City are barely even worth it by bus today. The U Link changes are absolutely necessary today, not to drive Link ridership, but to have the most bus ridership given the bus capacity we have. Not to mention the new plan provides a great frequent East-West connection in the new 62 route to Wallingford and Fremont.

    2. Those 71/72/73s are so full heading north that by the time they get to the Convention Center there is no remaining space (seats, isles, laps and etc) left. One is forced to venture to ID to ensure a seat. And I think the time and convenience afforded by Link will make up for any potential 1-seat trip losses. However I think it is critical the Stadium station offers extreme convenience otherwise public will sour on Link real fast.

      A side note: I’m curious to how the 74x got spared the 71/72/73 fate.

      1. I was surprised at the 74X because I didn’t think it was high ridership (the 30 certainly isn’t). But Metro has shown over the past three years of restructure proposals that it thinks the 74X is one of the highest-volume routes. It’s not considered to be like the 71/72/73 but like the 76, which Metro is also increasing. From 45th in the proposal you can take a bus every three minutes to UW Station, but from 55th or 65th there’s only the 45 and 67 at different stops (and infrequent 73).

      2. Keeping (and expanding) the 74 doesn’t surprise me. The 71 and 73 to downtown are deleted, but the 76 and 77 still provide peak hour service to downtown from Wedgwood and Jackson Park. The 72 is deleted, but there’s still extra peak service via the 41. If the 74 is deleted, then there’s no direct peak service from Sand Point to downtown. Also, from STB’s chart on the recent post, the 74 has ~25% more ridership than the 76 or 77.

        I think part of the reason the 30 has low ridership is because Metro gave it a horrible schedule. From my experience, the 30 towards Sand Point frequently seemed to come just after the 74 or 71 (which serves the same general area between 55th-65th). Who would be waiting for the 30 at Campus Parkway or the Ave if the 74 or 71 had just been by?

      3. If the proposed 62 were to head for the freeway at Green Lake Park and Ride instead of detouring via Wallingford and Fremont, it might help many of the 71 folks who want their one-seat ride. Those who want to go to Wallingford and Fremont could transfer there to the 26. Green Lake P&R could in fact be a mini-transit center since to many routes would intersect there.

      4. If the proposed 62 were to head for the freeway at Green Lake Park and Ride instead of detouring via Wallingford and Fremont, it might help many of the 71 folks who want their one-seat ride. Those who want to go to Wallingford and Fremont could transfer there to the 26

        NO NO NO. Crosstown service in North Seattle has been a disaster for far too long, and this part of the restructure finally begins to address this gruesome state of affairs. Abandoning a key piece of functional crosstown service to grease a few squeaky wheels. I can’t for the life of me figure out which 71 trips don’t have an equal or better replacement under the restructure anyway. (Catering to never change a one-seat ride ever no matter what demands essentially ensures no useful restructures, ever.)

      5. Then it would be the 76. There have been suggestions for an all-day 76 (by asdf2), but Metro has not acknowledged them, although it has proposed shoulder runs which is a partial acknowledgement.

    3. I guess I’m having a hard time understanding which former 71 riders are going to be inconvenienced by the restructure. People on NE 65th will have the new 16. People close to 35th NE will have frequent service on the 65, which will also take them to the U-District. The 76 is still there in peak. Perhaps there are more riders out there on 75th and 50th than I remember from way back? Is it people missing the one-seat-ride from Wedgwood to the North end of U Way? Who are these riders? Are they peak or mid-day riders? And more importantly, how many hundred of them are there?

      1. I was at the meeting. The general feeling I got was “no transfers, ever! I want a ride from my front door to downtown without having to get off.”

        Most folks cited disability or age as reasons they should never have to transfer, either that or indicated that the their transfers were in “unsafe” parts of town. Not sure which specific parts they were talking about.

      2. Charles,

        I am a senior and visually handicapped and I fully agree with people not being to transfer at hours of day or night in parts of Capitol Hill. Some transfer points don’t have shelters, seats or even lighting. If you play your cards right you may be a senior someday and understand what we are saying.

        BTW, Metro is telling us to take Access or the Hyde Shuttle and that is not available for all. If you don’t want us on your buses say so, but these buses are ADA complaint and we have a right to use them as much as you!

      3. I was on a weekday 2pm 71 this summer, and rode it all the way to its tail on 35th/85th? There was a meandering section with some lovely glimpses of Lake Washington, but alas, there was just me, two other riders, and the driver.

        Low hundreds/day for that stretch.

      4. @Charles – I can kind of understand the logic about unsafe transfer points. I was verbally attacked by a crazy man once while transferring from the E to the 48. A few times I’ve gone from Ravenna to Northgate by transferring from the 372 to the 41 at Lake City Way and 125th. But that intersection has seemed a bit … sketchy sometimes. I wouldn’t really want to make that transfer alone after dark.

        I’ve also done the trip by walking across Ravenna Park and catching the 67 at 12th and 61st. That’s an okay walk during the day, but I don’t really want to walk across Ravenna Park at night. And the return trip, getting off at Roosevelt and 63rd had me walking by some desolate buildings which creeped me out. At present when the 68 doesn’t run, I take the 75 between Northgate and U Village and walk up 25th Ave. It’s a longer walk, but it’s safer and I trust it more. With the new system I might transfer between the frequent 67 and 62 at Roosevelt/65th.

        @baselle I’ve taken the 71 to and from its Wedgwood off peak evening and weekends. It gets practically no ridership east of 35th Ave. And the 75 has better views of Lake Washington.

      5. I know lots of people, especially women and elderly people, who will go out of their way to avoid transferring at 3rd and Pike/Pine.

        Many people with mobility devices (e.g. wheelchairs, scooters, walkers) will also try to avoid transferring in general. Frankly, waiting for the lift and for the operator to strap you in/out is humiliating. I’m not projecting — several people with mobility disabilities have told me that they feel embarrassed every time they have to use the lift. You often can’t predict which buses will have ramps, and even the ramps aren’t ideal.

        The thing is, these are not hard problems to solve! As part of rebuilding the stops along 3rd Ave, it would not have been hard at all to build raised platforms so that passengers could wheel on/off of buses without needing ramps. Metro could do the same at key connection points above-ground, like 23rd/John/Madison. We should be demanding a system that is frequent *and* accessible, not insisting that one concern is more important than the other.

      6. To the folks who think I am simply dismissing their concerns on the transfer issue:

        If your transfer is uncomfortable or feels unsafe, lets’s discuss how to solve these problems, not end the discussion at “no transfers, ever”

        Keeping a system where nearly every bus goes downtown is one in which we may never have realistic transfers of any sort, and where it will forever be extremely time consuming and difficult to go anywhere that isn’t on your local bus route.

        Many of us are trying to help build a system where anyone can go just about anywhere in town in a reasonable amount of time.

        I hope some of those out there with concerns about transfers have some interest in discussing how to make them better to the point they would consider a transfer rather than just shutting down the conversation.

      7. Our transfer concerns are real and not imagined! I don’t trust that Metro is listening and I’ve seen them stumble once to often since March when explaining how to get from point A to B. BTW, do you work for Metro?

  7. Maybe to mitigate the 23rd to downtown problem, they could replace the 43 with a simple loop route from Capital Hill station to 23rd along E. John street, then Cherry street to Broadway and back to Capital Hill station. It shouldn’t be too hard to run this route every half hour (frequency purists, not all routes need run every 10 minutes), and it creates a convent connection for first hill as well. The downside is that this route would not be able to be electrified. Since connecting 23rd (and I guess first hill as well) to Link would be this route’s one and only primary purpose, a loop would suit this route well unless there is a lot of demand.

    1. “frequency purists, not all routes need run every 10 minutes), and it creates a convent connection for first hill as well”

      Not all routes need to run every 10 minutes, but if they don’t then they’re not convenient. A 30-minute route does not facilitate spontaneous trips, and doesn’t compete well with driving where you can leave anytime.

      1. Do we really want 10 minute service with the congestion we already have on our roads today? If more buses would help, then why didn’t Metro increase the frequency on the Route 8?

      2. Do we really want 10 minute service with the congestion we already have on our roads today?

        You can’t be serious, can you? Yes, because frequent routes reduce congestion by providing an appealing alternative to driving, whereas 30 minute headways do not. If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand anything about how to build a successful transit system.

      3. If more frequent buses are the solution for Metro, then why isn’t adding frequency to the route 8?

        I am a bus rider since I can’t drive and I’ve been stuck in traffic with wall to wall buses, have your?

      4. Yes, because frequent routes reduce congestion by providing an appealing alternative to driving, whereas 30 minute headways do not.

        The evidence I’ve seen suggests that transit does not, in fact, reduce congestion. Instead, it increases mobility at a fixed level of congestion. (And, when transit is grade-separated, it provides a way to bypass congestion.) The additional capacity freed up by some people switching from cars to transit is just filled up by other drivers. It’s induced demand in action, just the same as building new roads.

        The only effective way to reduce congestion is to stop giving away road capacity for free. Road pricing works everywhere it’s been tried. But that’s a whole different can of worms…

      5. “If more frequent buses are the solution for Metro, then why isn’t adding frequency to the route 8?”

        That’s easy. It doesn’t have enough hours after distributing them to what it considers higher-priority needs. There’s no way Metro thinks a 30-minute 8 is adequate or a good idea. It’s just that making the 8 15 minutes means taking hours away from the 10, 11, or 49.

      6. Why did Seattle approve Prop One given that the funding is not spread to the routes that need it like the 8. Why can’t we go to 20 minute service if we don’t have enough hours to go around. 20 minutes would work on Saturday.

      7. I just said: Metro believes the 10 and 49 are higher priority than the 8, that they serve a wider cross-section of the population’s trips. Prop 1 didn’t stipulate “Route 8 must have enhancements”, it just said there should be general enhancements citywide.

      8. Why did Seattle approve Prop One given that the funding is not spread to the routes that need it like the 8.

        Because the Seattle voters didn’t fixate on one route at random, but looked at the systemwide benefits of providing much-needed service upgrades on dozens of other routes?

      9. The voters in Seattle may never pass another Metro tax unless they become accountable for the money we’re giving them. Giving us improved service now only to take it way next March will not go unanswered by the voters of Seattle!

      10. The restructure improves service for wide swathes of Seattle. That it doesn’t do exactly what you want it to isn’t likely to be of interest to most Seattle voters. In the past, restructures that appear controversial at first quickly become popular once the improvements in service kick in. (See Ballard and the 40). Whatever the merit of your objections to restructure, it is silly to project them onto all the voters of Seattle, a reliably pro-transit constituency.

    2. Loop routes are really, truly the worst. One-way loops especially, but two-way are not much better. It turns out that virtually nobody wants to take such a circuitous route to get anywhere, especially when traveling such a short distance. I would sooner keep a half-hourly 43 than add a circulator.

      Though I suppose you could make the argument that a circulator would probably be cancelled sooner… but that’s politics, not policy.

  8. The 43 being restored basically means Capitol Hill is keeping its current network. Bad news.

    1. You mean good news. The proposed changes are a net negative for Capitol Hill. We are essentially trading a full time 15 mins or better route for one bus per hour on the 49 and 11, and ~ 2 buses per hour on the 48. I’d rather keep the 43.

      1. I fully agree, lets keep Capitol Hill as is until Metro is will to restructure the trolley buses as part of a workable system, not a patch to kill the 43 and get the 11 to the light rail station because some people are unwilling to walk to blocks!

  9. I wish we down here in TriMet land could get that type of turnout for a bus restructure meeting. Sure, people are pissed off about stuff that is ridiculous, but at least they are there and involved.

    I think one of the primary reasons for lackluster TriMet ridership is lackluster interest by citizens during these restructure meetings. Despite the zipcode wide mailings and website surveys and all that, people wait until after the changes to make their complaints known.

    The Seattle process may be frustrating sometimes, but it has many advantages over widespread citizen disinterest.

  10. >>Route 43 riders in Montlake expressed particular skepticism that their proposed access to Link (via the 48) will not be a practical option until the SR 520 bridge project is finished and/or there is transit priority in Montlake. And you know what? They have a point. While the first proposal (Alternative 1) had a solid 10-minute to 10-minute transfer via the 8/48 and the second proposal had direct access to Link via Route 12 on 19th/Thomas/John, the final proposal had neither, with the 12 retaining its current routing, the 8 cut back to 12 minutes, and the transfer lengthened to Madison St. The result is that none of the three north-south routes in NE Capitol Hill (10, 12, 48) will have access to Capitol Hill Station under the proposal, and though 43 riders will have 2-seat ride to Downtown via a frequent transfer from the 48 to the 2, 3, 4, 8, or 11, riders on 23rd Ave E will require two transfers to connect to Capitol Hill Station.’

    Torontos transit system is designed so that 100% of the population is within a one-seat ride of the subway system. Seattles should be designed the same way.

    1. Have you seen how the buses and streetcars go inside the fare paid areas of Toronto’s subway system? Generally you can transfer 100% weather-protected with minimal level changes. Oh, and many of Toronto’s routes run every 5-8 minutes.

      Compare that to the 48, stuck in Montlake bridge traffic, heading the wrong way, and then leaving you across the Montlake triangle.

      It’s a travesty how we design the interface between buses and Link.

      1. Yep. But don’t worry, pretty soon we will have more miles of subway than Toronto. Most of it interfacing with buses as poorly as it does now. Our entire system, of course, will carry a lot fewer people, and the interface is just one reason. But hey, there is no reason why we should copy systems that are more successful than us.

    2. You are so right, but this can’t be done unless Metro is willing to adjust the routing of the trolley buses which they have been unwilling to do so far! No changes should be made on Capitol Hill until the trolley routes are part of the restructure!

      Metro are you listening, you current proposal only adds one bus the the light rail station and that is the 11?

      1. I’m talking about trolley runs 10, 12 and 49. Not changing these routes is making the restructure a mess on Capitol Hill and yes, they should go by Light Rail too! At some point the route 2 and other trolley runs south of Union should also be part of the mix.

        It’s hard enough to design a bus system around the location of the Light Rail which should have been between Pike/Pine rather that at John when 3 of the major routes can’ be part of the restructure.

      2. How do you want to change them though?

        I’ve long wanted the 49 to become a north-south route, and the wire is already there for that. The 12 just needs to die: I don’t see 19th-Madison as very useful. The 10 you can’t really change given Capitol Hill’s geography. People on 15th want to go downtown and the only way to do that is for the bus to turn, and the 10’s current route reaches most of the multifamily parts of Capitol Hill. Metro did suggest making the 10 turn on John a few times, for which the wire exists, but it never made it into the proposals, probably because taking the 10 off lower 15th is as unpopular with some people as taking the 11 off mid Madison is to you.

      3. The change needs to meet the object of reduce duplication and get the buses to the Light Rail station. Metro planned the alternative without touching the 10, 12 and 49 routing. In other words Metro need a clean slate for a proper design like they’ve been able to do in the north en.

        In other words no sacred cows, i.e. trolley runs!

      4. It’s hard enough to design a bus system around the location of the Light Rail which should have been between Pike/Pine rather that at John when 3 of the major routes can’ be part of the restructure.

        A station at Broadway and Pike/Pine would have been better for the 10/11, sure.
        But it wouldn’t have served the 8/43/47, at least not without changes. The 49 is served by either option, and the 12 and 48 by neither.

        Also, the current location, with entrances at John and Denny, is pretty much ideal from a walkshed perspective. It’s within a 10-minute walk of virtually the entire urban village. Pike/Pine is right at the base of First Hill, and few people would be willing to make the trek up/down the hill when they could just as easily walk to University Street Station downtown.

        If you’re going to have one Capitol Hill station, the current choice is pretty much ideal. My next priority for stations (given the existing routing) would be Bellevue/Pine, and somewhere on 15th between John and Mercer. A second station that’s a 3-block level walk from the first doesn’t seem worth the cost or the time penalty.

      5. “Metro planned the alternative without touching the 10, 12 and 49 routing. In other words Metro need a clean slate for a proper design like they’ve been able to do in the north en.”

        The only way to prove that is to show some currently-unwired routing that would be an improvement. You haven’t done so, and nobody else has either. Without that, there’s no evidence that the wires hindered anything.

      6. I see the primary walkshed as Roy Street to Pine Street (or marginally to Union and Madison). The station location is right in the middle, at the crossroads of the commercial district.

        The east-west walkshed is more difficult because of the hill, but the primary walkshed is to at least Summit and 12th, and the secondary walkshed to Melrose and 15th.

    3. Just for the record, riders on 23rd Ave will have a one-seat ride to a subway station. That station is UW Station.

      Riders can also connect to the 2, 3, or 4 if they want to head downtown. (Those also all connect to DSTT stations.)

      Yes, Montlake congestion sucks. And yes, every downtown-bound passenger has to travel in the wrong direction to reach the Link station. But the former is surmountable, and the latter is a theoretical problem that may not matter in practice.

      1. Problem is that every connection off the 48 toward downtown is not really a great connection – many of them are not frequent. If the 48 hit Capitol Hill Link station (like the 43 does!) it would be a non-issue. If there were transit lanes to the UW/Husky station, it would be a non-issue. But it really does leave a large swath of the city without good service to downtown. Still harder in my opinion to justify continuing the 12 along 19th Ave when there is already frequent service on 15th Ave.

      2. The Montlake issue is really only a problem for people that have trouble walking. Those that are able will simply walk to/from either Madison, 19th, or, if they’re just south of 520, Link, or in some cases, Montlake Freeway Station (much uglier, but a few minutes less walking).

        It’s only those living along 23rd with difficulty walking that this change would be an issue for. There are relatively few bus riders along 23rd period (the 43 typically has very few ons or offs between 23rd/John and 520), and disabled riders residing a mere one block off 23rd are already unable to get to the 43, due to the steep hill. It is only disabled riders right on 23rd itself that would be forced into a 48->Link or 48->8 transfer to go downtown. The actual number of people in this situation is quite small, and they can probably deal with it simply by getting in their car and driving a few blocks to a street with service more oriented around where they want to go. And no disabled person in their right mind would ever choose the Montlake neighborhood as a place to live without a car, restructure or no restructure.

    4. “Torontos transit system is designed so that 100% of the population is within a one-seat ride of the subway system.”

      Toronto’s subway system goes across the entire city, and it’s flat with few obstacles so buses can travel in straight lines to the station and continue to the other end of the city. The subway has two north-south lines joined in a U shape centered on downtown, and an east-west line north of downtown. An analogue might be Loyal Heights to Rainier Beach and back up to Jackson Park plus the 45th line, except that Rainier Beach is not downtown. Another analogue might be ST2 Link (interpreted as two lines from downtown) and a 23rd S/15th NE line, but that leaves out Ballard, and both of them leave out West Seattle.

      1. “Torontos transit system is designed so that 100% of the population is within a one-seat ride of the subway system.”

        Be careful what you wish for. The bus service around the suburbs of Washington D.C. is built with this goal. Yes, nearly every home is connected to some subway stop with a one-seat ride, but you’re talking hourly frequency outside of rush hour and, in many cases, a circuitous routing that connects you with a subway station 2-3 stops down the line, rather than the station nearest your home. Add this to the fact that WMATA actually charges for bus->subway transfers and has subway stations with huge parking garages, and it’s not at all a surprise that nearly everybody drives to the subway stations.

        And don’t get me started about cross-town trips that don’t follow the subway lines. At best, it’s a one-seat, albeit very circuitous bus ride. At worst, it’s a 3-seat ride – 20 minutes on the first bus, followed 3 minutes on subway (plus another 10 minutes to wait for it), followed by another 20 minutes on another bus (plus another 20 minutes waiting for that second bus).

      2. Unlike suburban DC, Toronto has a very regular street grid that extends into the suburbs and while transit in the Toronto suburbs isn’t as great as the TTC’s it’s much better than the DC equivalent.

        The TTC surface-subway transfers are unparalleled in North America. The buses drop you inside the paid area often an escalator ride away from the train platform. Even the design of the off-street boarding area is such that a deviation doesn’t cost much in time and the benefit of eliminating fare payment delays more than makes up any cost.

  11. There are a lot of people who seem to be saying the following:

    1. The North Seattle restructure is great, while the Capitol Hill restructure is meh.

    2. We should hold off on anything until 2021, when North Link opens.

    I’m confused about how these two statements go together.

    North Link should not affect Capitol Hill service in any way. I guess it makes a difference in the sense that many 49 riders will switch to Link when U-District Station opens. But the vast majority of the planned changes wouldn’t be any different if North Link was ready.

    So what, exactly, is the point of waiting?

    1. I think those are two separate groups of people.

      Yes, a lot of people are saying the North Seattle restructure will be easier, or better, when North Link opens – but the people who like it want it to be implemented now and tweaked again in five years.

    2. Aleks,

      Ross is divided on NE Seattle changes, so his messaging is unclear.

      There is also a divide between folks in NE Seattle. Those who are talking about 2021 are mostly asking (I believe) for NE Seattle restructure to be delayed until 2021, when many of the bus to bus transfers could be replaced with a bus to rail transfer.

      I am not sure that anyone in Capitol Hill thinks 2021 will make their transfers better unless they think bus hours from NE Seattle will be redistributed to Capitol Hill instead.

      1. Met CharlesB by coincidence at Northgate TC and told him my story. At 9:20am the 41 to downtown is so full it leaves plenty of riders behind. I forgot to stay in line after the first pulled away and finally got on the third 41. I had barely missed the infrequent 66 and no more of those came by (because they’re infrequent). At least one other passenger waited 40 minutes because he made the same mistake I did of not waiting in line. If redundant service hours aren’t redeployed, what is going to provide Northgate capacity until 2021?

      2. our comments about the buses being overcrowded and passengers being passed by also applies to the 11 E Madison, especially since the took away the 60 foot buses, even in peak hours. Yes we got 30 minute service changed to 15, but that did not affect peak hours, but removing the 60 footers is a BIG problem now!

        Metro are you listening to this blog, let alone your passengers and drivers?

      3. A line at a bus stop? How novel. My experience is that everyone just rushes the bus when it arrives. The other day I missed a 372 at 25th and 55th because it was full. The 4 people, including me, who were waiting longest didn’t get on. The 5 people who turned up later and shoved their way to the front of the crowd did get on. Luckily another 372 showed up 5 minutes later.

      4. At Overlake Transit Center and the 520 freeway stops, there’s a line every day for the 545… and another line for bikes, which is even better, since the racks are often near-full.

  12. If the Capitol Hill restructure is cancelled, what happens after that? 2021 won’t bring any meaningful service to Capitol Hill, it will all be in other places. So the inertia not to change may be even stronger. The biggest impact is that the 43, 48, and 49 will reach U-District Station. That may make people more eager to get to Capitol Hill Station to get to U-District Station, but we’d have to wait a couple years after 2021 to see how much the affect is. Will the people in Montlake who oppose deleting the 43 really change their mind when the 520 project is finished, or will they still want a one-seat ride as much as ever?

    The only other changes I see on the horizon are Madison BRT and the Broadway-Beacon corridor in the TMP. Madison BRT will presumably be finished by the 2020s, and that has implications for the 12 in any case, the 11 if it goes to Madison Park, and perhaps the 2 if the 2-Madison idea is revived. Possibly the 49-Madison could come back. It partly depends on whether it’s open BRT or closed BRT, which we don’t know yet. I don’t see how it affects other routes north of Pine.

    The Broadway-Beacon corridor is still unscheduled, so we don’t know when/if it might occur. The TMP has three corridors on Capitol Hill: Broadway-Beacon (U-Dist, Broadway, Beacon Ave, Othello), 23rd-Rainier (U-Dist, 23rd, Rainier Ave, Rainier Beach Station), and Denny Way (Queen Anne to 23rd). Those all, if they occur, would cause changes to the 7, 8, 48, 49, and 60. Although Metro has been positioning the 49 as the primary route on Capitol Hill, so would its commitment to a 49 on downtown-Broadway remain?

Comments are closed.