Supporters of new route 106 take a victory lap
Supporters of new route 106

The King County Council unanimously approved Metro’s September service change at its meeting Monday afternoon.

Public testimony is from 36:17-51:35 of the video. Debate and action on the item is at 1:07-1:10 in the video.

A line-up of eight speakers from various Asian immigrant communities testified in favor of proposed route 106, which creates a one-seat ride between Renton, Skyway, MLK Way, Rainier, and Jackson. Among their concerns and reasons for wanting a one-seat ride were the lack of sufficient shelter at transfer bus stops, safety, and avoiding jay-running to catch connections.

A couple points they raised were outside what the restructure accomplishes. One speaker mentioned Harborview Medical Center as a desired destination. Another talked about having more frequency along MLK Way.

Bruce Kelly, Principal of Raisbeck Aviation High School, testified on the utility of more frequency on route 124, which will be upgraded to 15-minute headway during weekdays. The school has 10 students and one staffer who ride route 124, and some of them have tardiness problems resulting from taking the bus.

County Councilmember Dave Upthegrove said, “I was particularly struck [by testimony from Tukwila] about the value of increasing the frequency of route 124.” Route 124 has been toward the top of the list of routes needing frequency investment in Metro’s annual Service Guidelines reports.

Councilmember Claudia Balducci said “It was really important to do all the updates that the community had been asking for.”

The council then passed the service change unanimously.

16 Replies to “County Council Approves September Service Change”

  1. Yes, make route 9 peak-only, eliminating an interesting cross-town connection, so that we don’t just have a freaking train from Rainier Valley to the I.D., but a bus as well.

    And you thought that Link restructures was about reducing duplication and creating new cross-town connections.

    I can’t wait until 2023, when metro will cave to political pressure in capital hill and NE Seattle, too, and undo the U-Link restructure. At least there’s some hope there because new stations opening just two years earlier might convince metro to go against the political tide and refine the restructure rather than undo it.

    Maybe.

    But if Metro will undo any restructure if people just yell loud enough, then let’s see if we can bring back the 194. Not because we need to, but because I just bet that Metro would.

    1. Let’s aim bigger, and try to undo the restructure that transformed most of Seattle’s streetcar lines into bus routes. ;)

    2. The 71/72/73X are absolutely gone, unless Link has a massive breakdown or that idea to renovate the DSTT stations gets approved. But an anti-restructure could roll back the changes in north Seattle within the limitation of the 71/72/73 not crossing the Ship Canal. The 71 and 73 are already there; they would just revert to full-time. The 72 would be reinstated and the 372 reverted to peak-only. the 62 would go away, the 66 and 68 would return. The 75 would go back to half-hourly mid-day. The 30 would come back peak-only, and since it no longer has a 71/72/73X to connect to it would have to be extended on Pacific Street to UW Station. That would make somebody happy (Lazarus?). The 45/48 would be rejoined, and that would free up some service hours for the legacy routes. The crosstown experiment on 65th would be a failure, and that might set back the whole concept of a complete grid in north Seattle, which would disappoint the people who have been glad about the new crosstown connections.

    1. But isn’t Boren even more hospital like than Broadway? I think Broadway makes more sense, because it serves both the hospitals and two colleges.

      I think the drunk path of route 60 where it deviates to 9th, and runs on Madison kinda sorta trying to serve everyone makes very little sense. Just run the route on Broadway.

    2. I ride the 9 occasionally between Rainier Valley, Goodwill, and upper Broadway. It’s not just for the hospitals.

  2. Wow, talk about not taking responsibility for one’s life! <blockquote?"Oh, if I have to transfer I just can't stop myself from running in front of cars to catch the bus! Oh save me from dying by running a direct bus from my house to everywhere I go! Please. I want to live!”

    1. Not to mention exactly zero of the transfers required today require crossing a street! If going from the northbound 38 towards the ID, and crossing the street to Link is too difficult, the 7 serves the same stop at Mt Baker. This argument has no merit.

      1. Riders on route 38 currently do not have to cross Rainier. They just stay on the bus, and it continues immediately over to the east side of Mt Baker Station. Route 38 does not lay over at the transit center.

        What riders on new route 106 gained is not having to get off one bus and onto another at Mt Baker TC northbound and at Mt Baker Station southbound.

    2. I could have been clearer. The speaker said he has witnessed people running across the street, against a red light, to catch a connection, not that he did it.

      The restructure, as passed, will reduce street crossings to make transfers at Rainier Beach Station for some riders, and increase them for other riders.

      It will not reduce street crossings at Mt Baker TC and Station, but will introduce new ones.

      Like the expressed desire for more frequency on MLK, and the desire to spend less time standing in the rain, it was one of several points speakers brought up that happen to have been made worse by the restructure.

  3. The King County Council has made it abundantly clear that the “service revision guidelines” are meaningless. What a joke.

    Seriously, what dark secrets/magical does the ARCS have? I’m sure there are lots of social service agencies that would love to be able to compel Metro to create routes to serve them, but only one has the power to do it. What gives?

    1. The Service Guidelines aren’t in the trash yet. ACRS is just a compelling public interest that overrides them, supposedly. The Guidelines were further weakened by the resurrection of the 71 and 78, but those are milder cases. Still that leaves 99% of the Guidelines’ power in place. They may get eroded further, but we can’t say definitely until it happens. If the Council adheres to the Service Guidelines 95% of the time, that’s better than 0% or 30%.

  4. Well I heard Adolph Zimmermann got e-jec-ted! Oh yeah!!! He got warned NOT to use the King County Council to speak for Donald Trump, but oh no the Donald’s pet Adolph had to be escorted out.

    I would like it if the Sound Transit Board did the exact same. Enough of this. Enough. It’s out of order, it’s disrespectful and talk that would NEVER be tolerated in any sane household.

    Now as to why my anger? There are people who take time out of their lives to attend a transit meeting to talk about… transit not go into circular rants about “mafia” or “crooks” or try to make themselves and Donald Drumpf messiahs. Don’t waste my 2 June time with Adolph’s love affair with The Donald any more than any of you want me blowing air kisses at Sound Transit planner geeks or requesting SeaGals at transit parties for my two minutes. I won’t do that to you and I won’t let you down.

    After all, I don’t want to hear THIS sound effect of booing in conjuction with my speeches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5rme1GnL3I

    1. All comments that are not about transit and specifically about the agency and proposal under consideration should be rejected. They can demonstrate outside if they want to speak up about anything else. If there’s a concern that there needs to be a time for unrestricted speech to the council, then the council can set up separate sessions for that.

Comments are closed.