Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 4.54.13 PM

In response to community complaint surrounding the largely rescinded Capitol Hill restructure – in which Route 11 reverted to E Pine Street after SDOT denied Metro’s request for needed improvements to 19th Avenue – Metro is proposing modifying Route 10 to serve Capitol Hill Station via E John Street and Olive Way.

Last week on the blog, David wrote about the merits of this idea, hailing it as an ‘administrative’, zero-cost change Metro could make to atone for the lost connectivity caused by the deletion of the off-peak Route 43 and the failure to move Route 11. Though it does little to help between those losing key frequency east of 15th Avenue, the proposal would do a number of good things:

  • Restores frequent all-day connections between Pike/Pine, Summit, Capitol Hill Station,  and Hilltop
  • Provides a new connection between Link, the 15th Ave E business district, and Volunteer Park
  • Increases service on Olive and John from 5 buses per hour to 9
  • Restores trolley service to the John/Olive corridor

Current ridership data also supports this change. Between Bellevue Avenue and 15th Avenue, Route 43 has double the daily ridership (2,240) compared to Route 10 (1,170). The stop furthest from either John or Pine, at 15th/Howell, currently sees 150 boardings per day. If adopted, those riders will have either a maximum 2-block walk to frequent service on Routes 8/10/11 or a 5-block walk to the south entrance of Capitol Hill Station at Nagle/Denny.

Metro is seeking feedback for six days only, given the need to having everything nailed down before the Christmas holiday. Please take their short 3-question survey and let them know your thoughts.

Full text of Metro’s blog post reprinted after the jump.

The King County Council has approved bus service changes for March 2016 that will integrate Metro buses with new Link light rail service to Capitol Hill and the University of Washington. The adopted changes will make transit service more frequent and reliable, create new connections, and improve mobility for thousands of King County residents. Find details of adopted changes on our project website.

Metro is working with the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and other partners to make sure these changes will be successful. SDOT has agreed to make roadway modifications and other improvements in eight places, but declined to make modifications that would support our approved changes for routes 8 and 11 on Capitol Hill and in the Central Area.

We were planning to revise routes 8 and 11 to operate on E Madison Street and 19th Avenue E, continuing to/from E John Street. The purpose of these changes was to keep frequent east-west service that connects with light rail at the new Capitol Hill Station, to improve transfers with Route 48 at 23rd Avenue E, to maintain service on all parts of E Madison Street, and to serve Route 43 riders after that route becomes a peak-only route.

Metro tested the turns with buses, and our traffic engineers developed a traffic rechannelization plan, which SDOT rejected. So we’ll keep routes 8 and 11 on their current paths, resulting in a gap in frequency for riders along this pathway as well as much less bus service to downtown Seattle for the Summit neighborhood (service that would have been provided by our adopted changes to Route 11).

One solution to this gap is to improve frequency on Route 8 above the levels originally approved by the County Council, to partly replace the planned combined frequency of routes 8 and 11 on E John and E Thomas streets. We will be increasing Route 8 frequency from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., and on Sundays between noon and 7 p.m.

We’re are also considering moving Route 10 to serve E John Street, the Capitol Hill Station, and Olive Way (the same pathway that Route 43 takes today). We did consider this idea during earlier phases of the planning process, including with our inter-agency partners and our Sounding Board, but never brought it to the broader public for feedback. Now that network conditions have changed, we believe it could allow us to better serve Capitol Hill riders.

Please tell us what you think about this idea to change Route 10 via a short survey. The deadline for comment is this Sunday, Dec. 13. Your input will help us more fully understand the implications of this change and decide whether to move forward with it.

Find details of what King County Council adopted on our project website. Stay informed as decisions are made and new information becomes available: sign up for our project email list.

82 Replies to “Metro Proposes Moving Route 10 – Take Their Survey”

  1. Pretty sure I’m 100% for this, but for completeness: what’s the grade on the portion of 15th that loses service?

    1. (And that map really drives home how colossal a screwup it was to not build the First Hill station… with that station, we would have avoided this entire predicament by having the inbound 10 turn right onto Madison.)

      1. We must remember that there was severe topographical/engineering issues that prevented ST from connecting First Hill with Link. But First Hill was definitely included in the initial planning stages. Let’s focus on what we have now and the exciting things that lie ahead!

      2. No, Reyes. We should learn from our mistakes withhold money from Sound Transit until they lose their spine myopia.

    2. It’s all flat north-south on 15th from John to Pine. Between 15th and 14th there’s a moderate one-block incline, then the rest of it is a slight incline to downtown, the slightest in the area. The John routing has a similar profile but is steeper, so it’s a place where you want to take a bus more.

  2. DO IT — for trips to the north end of downtown this would be just as fast for me as taking Link. For other trips it would give me an option to get to the Capitol Hill Station without a serious uphill walk (I live at Bellevue and Republican). But having all day regular frequent service on this segment really makes sense irrespective of my personal benefit.

  3. What is going to be done about the crush loads on the 11 if this takes affect? Link isn’t going to do anything about the loads on pine past bellevue. A huge portion of 49 traffic gets off at Broadway and pine. I get passed up at convention place after 7 because of the already anemic frequency.

    I moved away from 23rd and Madison partially because the 11 and the 8 were so crappy.

    1. The 49 will get 50% 25% more service, Metro could choose to prioritize 60-ft buses on the 11, and the loads currently on Pine on the 10 will shift to Link it be on Olive. Peak service between Bellevue Ave and Downtown will stay roughly the same, from 17 buses peak buses per hour, on top of 10 new trains per hour.

      1. Increased service on the 49 could be argued as a net benefit for riders east of Summit as well.

    2. Just a bit of context on this problem…

      The 11 is a Ryerson Base route.

      At some point last year (February if memory serves), Metro decided that it worked better for them to send all of Ryerson’s hybrid 60 foot buses to other bases. That means all of the articulated buses on Ryerson routes are very loud and most have high floors.

      It’s my understanding that the residents near the Madison Park layover complained that the articulated buses are too loud for their residential neighborhood (residents in Magnolia along the 24 & 33 have to deal with the same noise). Apparently they complained louder than the riders on packed buses.

      The situation should get better in late 2016 when Metro gets 85 new hybrid 60 foot buses. Hopefully most (if not all) will be sent to Ryerson.

      1. The artics prevented crush loads on the 11 during peaks. Bringing them back is the least Metro could do if the 10 is moved and the 11 maintained at 15 minute frequency.

  4. This would seem to force the 11 to stay on East Pine, wouldn’t it? Without the 11 on Pine there would be a big loss of service (~8/hour today to 4/hour with only the 11, zero without).

    The only alternatives are to walk to Broadway, CHS, or use the 2/12 which are already crowded and hit downtown several blocks south. The crowding seems to be worse recently. I couldn’t even get on the 12 one morning, and I counted 59 (!) people jammed on the 12 I was riding last week.

      1. How do you figure the 49 is getting 50% more service? Peak and Mid-day service gain 1bph (15 min headways to 12), evening goes from 15-30 to 15 so I suppose you could say that is 50% more? Sort of? Saturday has a solid gain going from 15-30 to 12-15 but Sunday has no change. It’s extra service but I don’t see how you can call that “50% more”.

        As for the change, Metro has to do something. Having the 8 be the only bus for that part of Capitol Hill was never a good idea.

        Really, they should just cancel something and bring back the 43.

      2. You are correct, my apologies, I thought the 49 was still getting 10 minute service. At 12 minute service it’s just 25% more.

    1. “This would seem to force the 11 to stay on East Pine, wouldn’t it?”

      It’s the other way around. The restructures on Madison didn’t succeed so that forced the 11 and 12 back to their existing routes. That with the loss of the all-day 43 is what caused the hole on Olive/John. So moving the 10 complements the decision that was already made on the 11.

  5. Proponents of this move keep focusing on maintenance of coverage in the area, but it’s the loss of frequency that’s the difficult thing to swallow for riders east of Broadway. During morning rush, 15th and Pine loses 8 minute + 15 minute headways (and generally full buses) on the 10 and 11, respectively, and keeps only the 15 minute headways of the 11. This route change would be a lot more palatable if Metro could add some rush service to the 11 (10-12 minute frequency), especially in the morning, at least until the new service patterns shake out.

    1. Yes! The Capitol Hill blog just posted about this so hopefully other people who actually ride the (very full, busy, well used) 10/11 from 15th and Pine will chime in vs. just Seattle Transit Blog people.

  6. Any idea what Metro is talking about when they blame SDOT for not modifying the 19th & Madison intersection? If they’re telling the whole story, this’s a travesty on SDOT’s part.

    1. I made same mistake, to some length, a few days ago. Look at a map, and notice the very sharp angle that a westbound bus would have to turn from westbound Madison to northbound 19th. Change would require a very large bulldozer and a large piece torn out of a building. Of course, for a lot of recent construction, the building part would be worth doing, buses or not.

      Mark Dublin

    2. The change would have required some combination of removing parking on 19th and moving the stop bar for southbound 19th at Madison back to allow enough room for a bus to make the turn. Depending on the turning radius of a 40 foot coach, the stop bar would have to be pretty far back which could impact a parking garage entrance and the intersection with Howell. They would probably also have to move the bus stop on 19th at Madison further north to far side Howell. However I don’t know the specific reason or reasons SDOT didn’t want to make the change.

    3. The travesty would have been SDOT allowing the changes. The 8 and 11 shouldn’t be zig-zagging around trying to provide 1-seat rides to everywhere. If they’re going to run on John/Thomas they should just make the easy turn onto it from Madison at 24th (as the 8 does today).

    4. There is an excellent example of how to design a trolley bus route in a way so that the bus can almost make a U-turn with a tight radius. The example: Market and Clayton in San Francisco.

      At this location, the 33-Stanyan has signal preemption to allow buses in either direction make the turn. Of course, in San Francisco, the City operates the transit system as well as operates the signals so they can make it happen. The signal preemption at this location has been operating for at least 30 years..

      As far as 19th and Madison goes, there are really only two possible answers:
      1. The signal designers at SDOT and/or Metro are too naïve and arrogant to know that there are places where it’s done and did not ask anyone for examples.
      2. It’s political.

      1. I’d add that the system also works for diesel buses. The technology is about as sophisticated as a garage door opener.

  7. This would be a big loss for Pike/Pine especially between Broadway and 15th. There are many HUGE apartment buildings that just opened in this area (with hundreds more apartments on the way). Additionally, now instead of providing a reasonable connection to Trader Joe’s, Central Co-Op, Safeway and QFC, the 10 would only get you to (2) QFCs and a Safeway. Maybe it makes some sense for downtown only commuting, but for daily life on Capitol Hill, it’s a loss.

    1. The 11 will still be there, albeit at its current frequency, and the 12 may also be a convenient option if you are closer to Madison. The 11/12 serve the same stop near TJs on westbound Madison just west of 17th (which the 10 doesn’t, of course).

      I’d miss the 10/11 frequency to downtown for Link connections and shopping, but I’ll probably move away before this even takes effect.

    2. The problem is the zero-sum gain philosophy. The area needs a net addition of transit. Not transit removed one place to make way for more transit someplace else.

  8. Could somebody- and I’m not being sarcastic- tell me what the problem is about bringing back the Route 43 exactly like it was? One important benefit currently left out of discussion is that the 43 itself could handle the “bus bridge” advisable for any part of LINK.

    If this is about expense, approximately how much money is it going to cost just to keep the 43, same route, except terminating the north end at UW? I really can’t believe that something so easy and useful is causing this much effort to avoid?

    To me, it’s worth whatever fight is necessary to get it back. 42-backers got what they wanted. Why won’t 43 riders do the same? If it’s really because its riders don’t think it’s worth the effort to keep it…Metro is absolutely right to agree.

    Mark Dublin

    1. Because the 43 has 47,000 annual service hours. For Seattle buses looked at in the restructure only the 8, 16, and 48 have more hours. For context it is about as many as the 10 and 11 combined. Service hours is a zero sum game. If you want to increase service in North Seattle or Rainier Valley you need to cut from somewhere and Metro decided to cut the 43. I also think Metro could have done more to reach out directly to affected riders. Signs at bus stops just announcing nebulous “Changes” should have said ominously “Your bus is going to die if you tell us not to cut it”.

      I still don’t understand how waiting 6-9 months after CHS opens to do these changes would have hurt anyone. Then you have real ridership data and can point to reductions or increases and make your case. This always seemed like Metro using CHS as an excuse to execute whims of politically connected groups.

      1. I agree, Petey. The restructure should be done fully when it’s adopted. Tweaking routes should be done after a restructure and not before.

        If the 43 is so expensive, why not run a short 43 on this alignment and alternate it with Route 10 but leave Route 10 alone (perhaps less frequency) until support for a major restructure is overwhelming?

      2. I think the politically connected groups had a large hand in this. There is no reason that 3 blocks of Madison had to have service. With all the stop diets Metro has done over the years, suddenly asking people to walk 2 blocks is too much? We need to start making more friends at the KC Council (or start to be seen by Councilmembers as able to deliver votes)

  9. After spending ten minutes taking the survey, as happens more or less a hundred percent of the time, the process just “locks up”. This time, without even the courtesy of the usual incomprehensible demand for unspecific information I didn’t include.

    The “Monkey” reference is an insult to an extremely intelligent animal- including the idea that any self-respecting vervet or rhesus would waste any time at all on any effort they can neither eat or steal. Would like to rub whoever is responsible with coconut, pineapples, and bananas, and lock them in a room full of monkeys, and and go get lunch.

    Mark Dublin

    1. “Could somebody- and I’m not being sarcastic-” [Dublin 2015]
      .
      I’m assuming you’re back to regular sarcastic mode. No? :)

      1. Be fair, Mic. Henry Fonda did just fine starring as a bad guy for one movie. Though it’s true that Jimmy Stewart never could have “played against type” for the same part. “Now just you hold on a minute, Mr. Potter! Don’t you try to tell me I can’t rob trains and shoot innocent people!”

        Just doesn’t scan. But neither does Zach when he sounds like somebody really sarcastic, like Sam Goldwyn, has forced him by contract into taking the part of one of the cowardly towns-people who wouldn’t help Gary Cooper in “High Noon”, just cause the outlaws’ train has already left the station! Talk about really playing against type!

        Mark

      2. “Henry Fonda did just fine starring as a bad guy for one movie.”

        LOL. ‘Frank’, in Once Upon a Time in the West, worked for the 1880s version of Sound Transit – get that train line built by any means necessary with no pesky owners and stations in the way.

        And Frank’s boss had problems with his spine too.

  10. I agree with Mark – why are we cutting service to anyone right now? Why is the deletion of the 43 so important?

    1. I personally agree, but that ship has sailed and this change to the 10 helps make a bad situation less bad overall.

      1. Come on, Zach. The 42 had sailed itself over the end of the world and got eaten by sea-monsters. So give me one good reason why transit stand here crying and waving a wet handkerchief while we lose a route that already exists and works just fine.

        Incidentally, for expressing unworthy political resignation, transit term is : “That train has already left the station” Though ST bulletin is usually: “That train is stuck at Auburn due to a medical-mechanical- cow on the tracks issue.” What’s the issue here?

        Mark

      2. Ok, Zach, my low-snide alarm demands I better hit my own personal crap-cutting switch.
        I also know I’m coming into this discussion a long time after you began working on it.

        The three years since I could vote in any Seattle or King County election also give me both excuse and good reasons to just stick to Sounder and ST Express- and the region-length I-5 lanes and the Southern Swedish Sounder of the future.

        But since I’ve also got several “no-choice-about it” regular visits to Seattle, with strict time constraints, cab fares are taking enough skin off of me to give me some in the transit game. Every one of them on major routes.

        In a city network that as a whole doesn’t work very well, Capitol Hill station will give the 43 as is some considerable regional potential So its loss is will soon be a signature embarrassment affecting a transit grid that in a few months will extend ‘way beyond the city limits.

        Though it was long ago, I drove this line over enough years to know what a bad mistake its loss will be. Which will be worth some effort to prevent. Any thing you can tell me, including both the contrary forces and positive chances- much appreciated.

        Mark

    2. I agree. After the 11 couldn’t make the turn, it was time to just scrap the whole thing. It is bizarre, really. Gather public input, have all these meetings, agree on a plan and then basically do something quite a bit different. This would make it even more different. If the agreed upon new design didn’t work (and it didn’t, the cancellation of the turn made things quite a bit different) then you should go back to the current structure. Does anyone think the current set of changes is great (with or without this little change) and worth all of the upheaval?

  11. If they make this change then they should move the tail end of the 12 over to 15th. That would mean a slight loss of coverage (on 19th) but you would gain back coverage — and a connection — on 15th. 15th is way more important than 19th.

    1. Can trolleybuses turn at every intersection that has wires on both streets, or do they need a turning wire?

      1. Having missed the turning wire, Mike, I once (definitely against rules and risking tearing pole out of its socket) swung the poles by hand from straight wire to left- bound wire. Got away with it because the left wire had a shallow enough angle.

        Also, an MAN 4000 artic, being basically a short standard bus with a trailer, could take turns that a standard bus couldn’t. MAN’s also had the advantage that trailer wheels “steered”- rotated their axle so that as the front section straightened into the turn, the trailer moved outward, so that the bus came into the turn straight.

        Since their trailers don’tt steer, the Breda buses have to be turned like a 40′ bus- meaning that on a right turn, the driver has to the right trailer wheel at the curb- effectively and critically blocking the lane beside the coach. And then angle the whole coach as far as necessary for the right wheel not to cross the corner- where there’s often a light pole.

        The steered trailer had one dangerous disadvantage. As the bus entered the curve, the outside of the trailer- including a car or a fireplug would only announce its presence with a suitable Mad Magazine Don Martin sound effect. So driver had to “split lanes” before turning, effectively blocking lanes on both sides.

        Backing through the switch I’d already missed would have risked either damaging the switch or pulling down the wire, dropping weight equivalent of a truckload of metal into Rainier at rush hour. So would’ve had to call a supervisor, who would’ve had to call a tow-truck and also called me a former employee.

        So answer is that it’s physically possible to change wires that cross each other. New trolleybuses with auxiliary motor can drop poles, from the dashboard I think, and motor around the corner, whereupon the driver gets out and re-wires. Though likely never allowed in passenger service, let alone included in a route.

        Short answer: turn requires curved wire. But still, to turn from westbound Madison to northbound 19th, supervisors would likely have to block possibly the whole width of Madison so the bus would swing out far enough to go straight into 19th.

        Excellent question, though. Thanks.

        Mark

    2. Metro would have to add some trolley wire to make this possible (or dieselize the 12). There is no wire to make the left from Madison onto 15th, and no northbound wire on 15th from Madison to Pine. The wire eastbound Pine to southbound 15th is a uni-directional turnback to facilitate the former short-turn 12s, back when the 10 and 12 were interlined. Trolleys can’t actually continue straight south on 15th at Pine; the wire is set up solely for the 10 and 12 turnback.

  12. Regardless of Route 10 alignment, how many riders will just walk to the Capitol Hill station rather than wait for the bus? We need to see what routes gain and lose from Link’s opening.

    1. I would guess most able bodied people would walk from 15th downhill – uphill you’d probably see some takers for the bus.

  13. I agree, Metro needs to make this adjustment. I would also like to suggest that they use 60-foot buses during peak hours on the 11 or add buses since potential customers are being left at the curb based on driver comments.

    Yes, we got 15 minute service on th1 11 which is great, but they in effect reduced service during peak hours be reverting back to 40-foot buses.

    1. RegN – apparently it was due to complaints by Madison Park residents that the buses were too loud. (Also, they don’t want trolley wire due to views). Any chance you could write an article for the Madison Valley blog making the case for the artics during rush hour?

      1. Hi RegN – I was being serious – since you have become a de facto voice for Madison Park transit, maybe you could advocate for using the articulated buses on the 11 for more capacity? Seems like the neighbors didn’t like the noise, but maybe the fact it’s only rush hour would change their minds.

      2. Brad,

        I appreciate that you think that I am the de facto voice for Madison Park. That I am not, I have tried to play that role for East Madison users of the 11. If you want to get the opinion of Madison Park you need to contact their self-appointed Comunity Council, who approved the 19th Avenue solution since they drove the run by car. I am not connected with them, and I have not received any support from them in my efforts with Metro and the 11.

        Your comments about MP residents making comments about trolleys and loud buses and more, but they do not represent Madison Park, nor do the feelings of residents and employees who use the 11 East Madison bus.

        BTW, I do support the BRT and voted yes on Move Seattle and the next fight will be to keep some level of service for Madison Park if the BRT end at MLK.

        You ask about my writing an article for the Madison Valley blog, but there is not such thing. I already write articles for the Madison Valley website, Nextdoor and the Madison Park Times.

    2. Reg N, I hope the next bus service decision that affects you negatively is done via administrative fiat. It’s a joke that this proposed re-route doesn’t go through same public process as your bus route.

      1. FYI, this still is a free country and I’m not on any planned deportation lists yet. Know that I would expect other bus riders to do what I did in speaking up for their bus needs. The biggest problem I faced that not enough people spoke up and that was namely the people affected by untested changes like seniors and the handicapped.

        Your sir give me too much credit and remember it was SDOT that put a stop to having the 8 and 11 on 19th and I commend them for stopping Metro in its tracks. And YES, despite the wishes of some on this blog I will keep posting as I have done in the past.

      2. Way to build a straw man with deportation lists. Ridiculous. And I’ve never suggested that anyone not speak-up in a public process, you or anyone else. I’m only pointing out how hypocritical it is of you to post on this board that re-routing the 10 has been a “fair” process or result when it was never considered along with all the other proposed route changes (except for the reversion of the 11, which has led to this mess). Would it be fair if Metro decided to administratively re-route the 11 to follow the 8 up John? I can imagine your reaction.

      3. You are very right if Metro tries to put the 11 up John/Thomas as they tried in June it will be stopped again and I will lead that fight agaIn. Remember, I have been credited with single handily stopping the abortive June proposal to route the 11 up John/Thomas.

        But, if and when the BRT goes in then I would be perfectly fine with the 11 going up John/Thomass since the BRT would be servicing Madison needs for bus service!

      4. Lol Reg. You keep insisting on this board that “You credit me too much!” when it comes to the 11 restructure debacle, but then state categorically “It would be stopped!” regarding any effort to restructure service down John. Which is it?

    3. I would also like to congratulate Metro’s approach in this matters. First they listened to the STB, namely David Lawson and secondly they have gone out to the public asking for their opinion.

      Hopefully, they continue this approach for other bus decisions.

  14. This just in…. Metro has new competition with uber’ new five dollar flat rate service, #uberhop. It launches this Thursday in Seattle.

    1. Alex, I think you’ve just solved the Missing 43 Problem! During off-peak, contract with Uber- though Lyft has advantage of purple mustaches- to be on call to run passengers directly wherever they need to go along the 43 wire. And also going briefly off-route to pick up people at their doors!

      Because of what happens to car rates during heavy-ridership times, the economics work out perfectly for both services. Also if the Mayor and a certain council member prevail, ATU Local 587 will gain thousands of new members. Though having to learn trolleybus driving would probably convince new members to become bicycle-rickshaw drives, after painting their own mustaches purple.

      But worse, transit drivers forced by low seniority into close proximity with passengers would make same choice of work. Traffic police in many countries can tell dreadful stories about massive rush-hour collisions involving that many bikes. Still- fantastic chance for transit in Seattle not to have everybody laugh at it.

      Mark

  15. For those taking the online survey about Route 10, we tackled your concerns about the map and choices and tweaked both. Hopefully that addresses any problems people had. Let us know if others problems with the survey emerge.

    1. Thanks! Visualization helps tremendously in understanding the proposal. Thanks for monitoring the conversation and responding.

  16. Couldn’t the 49 be rerouted using the same logic? There’s duplicate service on Broadway with the streetcar, if it ever opens. Summit area gets service and 15th/Pine keeps current service.

  17. For the past few years Metro has been positioning the 49 as the primary route on Capitol Hill. Every change has steadily increased its frequency, and it also has top ridership. So Metro clearly considers it the most effective route in the Link era. I would have chosen the 43 instead, because it connects all the commercial districts across the hill and the Miller Community Center. But Metro has chosen the 49.

    The overlap with the streetcar is not much. Almost all of the 49’s route and the streetcar’s route are different. It’s only when overlaps get to more than a mile or two that we should consider eliminating them. Otherwise in a worst-case scenario you’ll force two transfers within a mile, and that’s excessive.

  18. The problem with the 43 is the overlap with the 48 along 24th Ave E. Keeping the 43 full time essentially means the 48 cannot be increased in frequency. Basically cutting the 43 allowed the 48 to be increased.

    Also, I sent a comment if the 10 moves to Olive/John, then the 43 should be moved to 15th/Pine. There been many comments on this blog that the 11 cannot accommodate all the passengers along Pine, due to Metro assigning strictly 40 footers. moving the 43 to 15th/Pine would provide additional seating capacity along Pine St and avoiding having too much service on Olive and John (With the 8 and 10 being there).

    Yes, Rt 43 would not have service to CHS, but those along Thomas still has the 8 for that, and those on 24th can ride the 48 backwards to access Husky Stadium Sta or take 43, which most riders are probably just headed to downtown anyway (since it will be peak directional service only).

    1. The idea of moving the 43 to 15tth And Pine is not a bad idea, but it would only give 30-minute service during peak hours with the current level of planned service. This would hardly make anyone happy in my view.

  19. How about routing the 8 and 11 via John/Thomas to and from Madison St (original proposal) and extending the current route 12 down to the Madison Valley to MLK via 27th E/E Arthur Pl? This would make route 12 a true Madison route. (Obviously it would have to be motorized while wire is installed down the hill.) Riders from 19th Ave could use nearby route 10 on 15th E or routes 8 and 11 on John St. That would leave the 10 on 15th to Pine and still keep frequent service to SCC.

    1. Michael,

      Your proposal for removing bus service on 19th East was already rejected by those using the 12 on 19th East. We will have an all Madison bus in several years and it’s called the BRT! A BRT on East Madison makes the possible of the 8 and 11 going up John/Thomas a solid idea.

      Metro is actively working the changes for March 2016, and this is too massive a change and I believe would require KC Council approval.

Comments are closed.