New Metro Route 78
New Metro Route 78

King County Metro has a couple northeast Seattle bus routes, 65/67 and 78, that serve both the inner University of Washington campus and UW Station, by having a couplet in which the westbound route runs on Stevens Way and the eastbound route runs on NE Pacific St, NE Pacific Way, and then Montlake Blvd NE, serving UW Station Bay 3, about a block north of the station entrance.

A couple other routes that travel on Stevens Way both ways and serve neighborhoods northeast of campus could conceivably be switched to the Stevens / Pacific couplet. Route 75, which through-routes with routes 31 and 32 is one. The other is route 372, with no through-route.

Looking forward to 2021, when Northgate Link opens, this couplet may continue to make sense for some of these routes. Staying on NE 45th St instead of going into campus may make sense for others.

Metro could administratively move these routes at the time of a service change. The next one will be in September.

Couplets generally degrade service legibility and add complexity to the network. But if direct access to both Stevens Way and UW Station is desirable, and if for ADA reasons it is preferable to have a couple routes that do the clockwise loop, then it may be better for the network as a whole to have all routes serve the split pattern.

So I would like to throw the question open. For those of you who ride the bus routes that pass by UW Station, including on Stevens Way, which paths would you prefer to see your bus route(s) take, both in the immediate future and after 2021?

78 Replies to “Move Eastbound 75 and 372 to Pacific/Montlake?”

  1. I’d love to have the 75 serve UWS (at least until “Brooklyn” station is built. Then maybe it could loop around that stop)

  2. 71 should come down 15th, then down the 45th viaduct, and then Montlake to the station. That’d allow access between north campus/Greek Row, U-Village and Link. And provide the service that Wedgwood/View Ridge/Bryant wants to get to Link.

    1. I don’t think that idea would work. Besides being slower and less direct than the current routing in general, going west to 15th, then back east again along 45th would also subject the bus to a lot more traffic congestion than the current routing. Furthermore, such a route would not be able to serve the U-Village because there is no physical place around the 45th/Montlake interchange where a bus stop could go that would be reachable by a bus making that turn.

      1. 15th is east of the ave… It’s a more direct routing than going down the ave as the 71 currently does. Or follow the old 243 routing down 25th and Montlake

      2. If you look at a map, the total distance traveled increases significantly taking the viaduct east, than the current 71 routing. It’s because Pacific St. is diagonal, and you would have to cross 25th before turning around. And traffic congestion is a lot more unpredictable on the viaduct than on the Ave.

  3. I think it would create unnecessary confusion given the small benefit.

    Until the old stone bridges are torn down are rebuilt to accommodate a transit lane (perhaps switching directions) or better yet 2 lanes, transit on Montlake is best avoided due to delays.

    It’s true that northbound isn’t quite as spectacularly awful as southbound, but it’s getting worse every day.

    The lack of coordination and commitment to transit, bike and ped by the university is really, really frustrating. Until they start working as a committed partner and start compromising and spending real dollars, the whole area is going to continue to be a massive cluster for all modes.

    1. The fact that they subsidize parking, even for students, at a higher level than they do the u-pass pretty much says it all about where their priorities are. The fact that an employee who even rides their bike 2 days a week, but would take the bus the remainder gets no transportation benefit at all from the University is shockingly short-sighted and stupid.

      Most every other major employer in the city provides free bus passes and often additional benefits rewarding their employees for not driving. UW penalizes them.

      1. @biliruben your post is innacurate. A portion of the substantial parking permit fee directly subsidizes the U-PASS program, which is also supported by user fees and the central UW budget. Parking on campus gets no subsidy, aside from the use of campus land (which, over time is being converted to buildings.)

      2. Not sure where you get your subsidy numbers, as it costs $80/quarter for the UPass, and $450/quarter to park in the big lot (E-18), which also includes a UPass…although I agree the passes should be free to students as they were when I was there many years ago. It’s still a benefit when you consider what an actual unsubsidized pass would cost, which for most would be around $90/month if not more, instead of the $25 or so it is now. To say that’s “no transportation benefit at all” is more than a little misleading. What bikes have to do with it is beyond me.

        The UW gets so little of its funding from the State any more it is nearly a de facto private university; the state’s direct funding of the UW’s budget is 5% of the actual overall budget for fiscal year 2017. This is happening nationwide and is one reason that fees are being charged for things that used to be–and probably should still be–free. The UW has around 58,000 UPass holders, and pays the agency full fare for rides taken on transit (per their transportation website).

      3. Fine, I’ll show my work.

        Market rate for the U-district is somewhere between $15-$24/day, depending on lot. I’ll give you car-storage-defenders the benefit of the doubt and use the low-end.

        $15/day X 60 days = $900/quarter.

        $900-$450-$80=$380 subsidy per semester. A screaming deal.

        The point about bikes is that many people don’t take the bus everyday. Unless you take somewhere near 6 or 7 one-way trips per week, the U-pass is not worth purchasing. So if you bike a couple days a week (or drive), you are receiving no transit subsidy at all. Zero. Zilch.

        So UW is heavily incentivizing you drive.

        Beyond stupid and downright embarrassing for the a supposed leader in environmental stewardship and transit alternatives.

      4. Worse, the lots that are fed by Pend Orielle are the main reason for traffic across the Burke and the millions they are planning on spending to drop the trail under the road. Subsidized lots, which, if they didn’t exist (and man can I think of a dozen better uses for that land than structured parking lots), then there would be no reason to spend all that money burying the Burke, as traffic across the trail would consist of buses and a few handicapped drivers.

      5. I get your point, but you are playing pretty fast and loose with the definitions. It is one thing to say “subsidize”, as in the state is spending money on something. It is another thing to define “subsidize” as charging less than market rates. The UW has an asset (parking) and they aren’t charging what they should charge. I get it. But what if they did? What difference does that make? Either way you would fill the parking lots, you would just get more money. So, at worse, the UW is charging less than they should. Big deal. That really doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

        The big problem is that the UW is not willing to spend money (or in this case, lose money) to better the transit situation. They aren’t willing to piss off big donors, who want to watch a handful of ball games a year. They aren’t willing to lose a few doctors, who want to drive every day. They are more comfortable with a pretty nice balance sheet (even if it isn’t as nice as it should be — as you point out) instead of subsidizing (in every sense of the word) the vast majority of people who want to get to the campus by a means other than driving. That is a problem, and it is a problem all the way up. The UW is a public university — they shouldn’t be allowed to operate like a private company. Or, at the very least, the public (that would be us) should be able to tell them that we are willing to spend a little to get a lot back. In this case, the “lot” is good transit. Or, more specifically, leveraging an enormously expensive transit asset.

      6. “The UW has an asset (parking) and they aren’t charging what they should charge.”

        The UW doesn’t have an obligation to charge what a private operator would, any more than Metro must charge $10 fares because a private bus company would. It’s the UW’s land; it can charge what it wants. If I were the U I’d aim for a balance between cars/transit/bikes, giving enough car access for those who have no other choice while not making it so convenient they turn down a bus. The right level might be market-rate or it might be less: whatever maximizes access to UW’s programs overall.

      7. “Unless you take somewhere near 6 or 7 one-way trips per week, the U-pass is not worth purchasing.”

        That’s $80 per quarter right? Or about $27/month or $7 per week. If you took the bus TWO times a week it’s worth it. If you ride somewhere in the morning and return at night ONE time it’s worth it. Basically it’s worth it for just about everyone except people who would never get on a bus.

      8. Even in the dead of winter I would ride enough that I would only take a bus 50 times or so, and I’m guessing not alone.

        No benefits for you!

      9. Ross – I’m using the term “subsidized” in what I thought was it’s most common and oft-used meaning.

        In fact, I’m using it in exactly the same way as Feit uses it here in discussing the Pacific Place parking structure:

        It’s odd to see “through the windshield” “Parking is a right not a privilege” attitude among a group of folks I assume are traffic advocates. Car companies won the war 80 years ago, and they apparently keep winning battle after battle, routing what assumed were their staunchest enemies, who make the mistake of ceding tp the car advocates choice of battlefield.

        I am greatly disappointed.

    2. UW is not a city employer, it is a state employer. You’re saying “that’s not a true statement, they are one of the largest employers in Seattle”, but the state of Washington doesn’t see UW this way, they see UW as an extension of Olympia. So UW is not “the university”. UW has always been an extension of the government of the State of Washington. Unfortunately, what we observe are not decisions made by “the university” but by the state of Washington.

      1. WE are the state of Washington. It is our wasted tax dollars being frittered away on hundreds of millions of dollars of Real Estate being used to store private automobiles instead of, say, investing that money in pedestrian, bike and transit improvements.

        Olympia is full of OUR representatives. It’s not some group evil alien overlords making these decisions. It’s who we voted in. And can vote out.

  4. As a commuter from the 522 corridor to Fremont, I would welcome the change provided both 372 and 31/32 make the change (since that’s my transfer point). It just takes so long on the one-lane Stevens Way—with numerous stop signs and never-ending pedestrian crossings—to get through campus.

    Also, it would be nice if connection to the UW Station did not terminate at 125th on weekends. When there are events downtown, the hourly 522 ends up being the only option since there’s no Link-bound route north of Lake City.

    1. *connection to UW Link terminating at 125th is in reference to 372’s weekend schedule.

    2. I would like this too. Unfortunately, it’s not clear where the service hours to pay for it would come from.

    3. Route 522 runs half-hourly most of the day on weekends, as does route 372 on Sundays.

      Consider what could be done with route 522’s service hours on weekends were used to extend route 372 to its full weekday path on weekends. (I realize they are different agencies, but ST3 contemplates ST subsidizing some RapidRide routes, so precedent will hopefully arrive soon.)

  5. I use the 67 from Maple Leaf to get to ULink. I would prefer to pick up the 67 on Pacific/Montlake instead of walking to Stevens Way when I go northbound. This will reduce transfer times and the trip time.

    Once Link goes to Northgate, I will likely board/detrain Link at Roosevelt or Northgate depending on the bus schedule. In that case, the Stevens Way couplet will be a non-issue for me.

  6. I live near the intersection of 55th/25th, and I would definitely find the 372 more useful with this change. While the Campus Creep isn’t too bad at 10 PM on a Sunday night, doing it in the middle of the day is excruciatingly slow. In fact, by cutting diagonally through campus, one can actually walk from the Campus Parkway bus stop to the HUB bus stop in about the same amount of time as it takes the bus to drive that stretch.

    With respect to the 31/32/75, the change would be even more beneficial, since the 31/32 are already on Pacific St. anyway as they head east underneath the U-Bridge. If the bus could just stay on Pacific all the way, rather than meander through campus, and wait for all those left turns and Burke-Gilman Trail crossings, it would be a much smoother ride.

  7. BTW, one exception to the “one-way splits is bad” rule would be a loop at the end of the line where there are only residences and zero destinations. In that case, everyone is going the same way and no one needs access to both directions.

    Not that this applies to anything at UW.

    1. It may apply to Laurelhurst. A loop is probably in order, even if it is not as big as the 25 loop.

    2. The E Line has a couplet west of Green Lake, with the northbound (PM peak outbound) path being uphill from the southbound (AM peak inbound) path. It means walking downhill to catch the E Line for those who live inside the couplet and commute toward downtown. (It also helps avoid crossing a rather dangerous, speedy stretch of Aurora Ave.)

      The Stevens/Pacific couplet has a similar effect, with downtown commuters walking a quarter mile downhill to UW Station in the morning, and a much shorter distance in the evening. For those just going to UW, the couplet helps most of those who are coming from south of Stevens Way in the afternoon/evening avoid an uphill climb. Most north of Stevens Way have to walk a little further, but it is downhill.

  8. U of W street trivia … Many roads on campus are named after Washington state counties. Stevens Way after Stevens County, which was named after the first governor of Washington State, Isaac Stevens. Stevens wrote the book Report of Explorations for a Route for the Pacific Railroad near the 47th and 49th Parallels of North Latitude, from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Puget Sound. Pend Oreille Road NW was named after Pend Oreille County. Pend Oreille is a french word meaning hangs from ear. This name was given to the Salishan Indians who wore ear pendants. Both counties are in the upper NE corner of the state!

    Feel free to use this info at the next party you go to if things start to get boring.

    1. There’s also Walla Walla Ave. which runs East of the IMA and Husky Stadium which could become an alternate route for any bus or shuttle service when Montlake turns into a parking lot, especially if the buses had a AVI tag to enter the E-1 lot from 44th Pl. NE just West of the golf driving range.

  9. I think moving the EB 75/372 would be a very bad change. Look at ridership. Which stops are more crowded, 75/372 stops on Stevens Way or 65/78 stops on Pacific/Montlake? From my personal experience working at UW and during rush hour usually taking the 372, but sometimes taking the 65, the Stevens Way stops are much, much more crowded.

    It also means that people on NE campus, say from the HUB and beyond, would have no easy means to get to U Village without riding all the way through campus and back around UW Station.

    If anything, Metro should be shifting buses from Pacific to Stevens, perhaps the rarely used 78.

    1. There are two different groups of people with different needs. UW students and those coming from campus are best served by buses on Stevens Way. But people who are transferring from Link to a bus are best served by stops at the station, and they only come into campus because the current bus routes force them to.

      “people on NE campus, say from the HUB and beyond, would have no easy means to get to U Village”

      They could walk to the station. That’s exactly what people who transfer from Link to the 75 or 372 have to do every time. A 5-minute walk is to be expected at the beginning and end of a trip. It’s not expected when you’re transferring in the middle.

      1. You hit it right on the nose because the only reason I have to be on the campus is because Metro forces me to do so because to get to downtown I have to transfer to Light Rail because the # 372 is the only bus I can catch from my home since the # 72 was deleted. .

    2. “Which stops are more crowded, 75/372 stops on Stevens Way or 65/78 stops on Pacific/Montlake?”

      Does that mean the stop is more popular or more people take the 75 and 372 than take the 65 and 78? A lot of people take the 372 to Blakeley St, 65th, Lake City, and Bothell, especially since it’s the only express in the area. If the bus stop moved they’d move with it; they wouldn’t switch to the 65 or 78 which go nowhere near where they’re going.

      1. I meant that literally. Which stops have more people waiting. And there are more people waiting at the Stevens Way stops.

        During peak travel times, relatively few people are using the Rainier Vista stops. I ride the bus every day. Compared to how many people get on or off by the HUB or Pend Oreille or other stops, relatively few are exiting WB buses at Rainier Vista, and relatively few are boarding EB buses at Rainier Vista. Changing the 75/372 routing would give a small minority a better bus trip, but it would hinder the large majority.

        Someone going from HUB–>U Village (and there’s a lot of people that do that) currently has a 4 minute ride on the 75/372. Should that be turned into a 12 minute ride all around campus? Or an extra 6 minute walk from HUB & Stevens to Pacific and Pacific? Either way, you’re inconveniencing a lot of people.

        Oh, and the 372 isn’t an express bus. It literally can’t be an express bus because there’s no local bus to compare it to.

      2. There are a lot of people who get on/off at campus, and that’s probably why Metro will continue to privilege Stevens Way in spite of this article. But take a thought of the plight of people in northeast Seattle, who are cut off from the rest of the city except for the slow circuitous routes through campus, the 5-minute walk to Link, and the 62 a mile further north. These are the ones who have to go through the campus crawl every single time, like Jeff Pittman above. That bottleneck may be depressing ridership, or making people go another way around it. When RapidRide 44 comes to U Village that will provide a significant alternative. But when you say “the 4 minute bus ride from the HUB to U Village”, when I went to the U there was no 65 or 372 or campus shuttles and the 75 was half-hourly. If you wanted to go to U Village you walked. It seems a bit lazy to expect a frequent bus to an area adjacent to campus when other people are depending on the bus for trips of one, two, or five miles where it’s a significantly greater burden to walk. Perhaps there should be a Stevens Way – U Village shuttle for that transit market.

        “Oh, and the 372 isn’t an express bus. It literally can’t be an express bus because there’s no local bus to compare it to.”

        It is because it stops every half mile on 25th. Metro’s local standard is every quarter mile, and some unreformed streets like 65th have stops every two blocks. So if you take the 65 or 75 there are twice as many stops. Metro muddied the waters by removing the 68 and its stops, so does the 372 skip any stops? But whether it’s called express or not, it has express-level stop spacing, as the 7X did.

      3. I live on 60th St. I’m already annoyed with Metro for closing the stop at 60th St (and all the other 68/72 stops that were closed). Ravenna deserves better than 1/2 mile spacing. That alone adds an extra 6 minutes of walking each direction of my commute.

        But I will be actively angry if Metro removes all EB service from Stevens Way. That would add another 5 minute walk just to get to the bus stop.

        My evening commute would be:
        Walk 5 minutes to 372 stop.
        Wait ~5 minutes for 372, assuming it’s not crush-loaded.
        Take bus ~8 minutes to 65th St
        Walk 7 minutes home.

        Not awesomely competitive with a 30 minute walk.

      4. “Express” to Metro means only one thing: the bus skips at least one stop. It doesn’t mean there is a local to compare to, and it doesn’t say anything about overall stop spacing or speed of service.

    3. I think there is something to be said for having buses on both Stevens Way and Pacific/Montlake, at least during peak hours, simply because there are large numbers of people getting on the bus at the stops over by the HUB during those times. So, I could moving the 78 to Stevens if the 75 moves to Montlake, while, if the 372 moves to Montlake, converting select peak-hour trips of the 372 into a new route that would continue to use Stevens (identical to the present-day 372).

      Off-peak, however, the campus stops are much more lightly used, and it’s the Link connection that matters proportionally more – especially when routes like the 64 and 76 aren’t running.

  10. I’m happy with the 372 where it is – but I could see a real benefit to this loop if we can always know that it’s the same physical bus starting back east after the Campus Parkway stop. Coming from the north, it would be effectively an extension of the route – an extra leg going several more blocks and getting you directly to light rail.

    I’d probably still get off on Stevens and walk to the train most of the time – but for ADA purposes and similar it strikes me as sensible. And if I was carrying a lot or something, idk. I could see it.

    As per others on here, I really, really want 372 service extended past Lake City on weekends. I’ve been bugging Metro about that for years, and now we at least have Lake City on weekends, so it’s a start. Getting that extended to the whole route length would be brilliant.

    1. That would require a live loop, which would mean no layover at Campus Parkway. It might be possible for trips that only go to Lake City, but certainly not for trips going all the way to Bothell. It would be too long without a driver break.

  11. Should the Metro restructure dialog begin now? I felt that the U-Link restructure had some timing problems – oddly too rushed yet too early at the same time.

    1. Metro’s already provided the first discussion points for that process, via the 2025 scenario in its Long-Range Plan. That’s a planner’s dream free of political factors, but it shows what the planners are thinking.

    1. 1) Speed up trips from Link to destinations along routes 75 and 372
      2) Speed up trips from Wallingford to Link on routes 31 and 32

      By “speed up”, this means both faster buses and less walking for those connecting to/from Link.

      1. Which is why I was thinking about Mason. It’s a bit shorter walk between Link and there, but it means routing the buses down something that has some sharp corners.

      2. The walking distance that would saved for Link transfers by going down Mason would be negligible (~500 feet, nearly flat). However, do so would introduce a significant vertical gap for those headed to central campus near the other stops, while making the Campus Creep even slower than it is today. Even if it were possible, I would not recommend it.

  12. They need to move all buses off campus and then run a free campus circulator to move people around campus and the periphery, kinda like dt Denver does. This way 75 and other buses don’t have to run on campus and deal with the campus crunch.

  13. While I’d benefit somewhat from having the 75 do the loop, I don’t think it would make a huge difference either way. Some pro- arguments are that it’s known that the 75 and 65 are “similar” so both routes using the couplet isn’t that confusing. The 65 does get crowded or delayed at the ULink station fairly often around rush hour, so some relief from the 75 would help. Perhaps if the 75 was my main bus and 65 the backup I’d feel more strongly. On the con side is there are a lot of riders from campus who aren’t necessarily making the transfer from Link.

    Living in far NE Seattle I was hoping for a better option than the stadium station by 2021. Something like the 64 being turned into an all-day frequent route serving Roosevelt station would be pretty great (and the 75 would continue to serve Northgate). I guess I was also hoping the 372 RapidRide (I think the Metro Long Range Vision plan listed it as a RapidRide route by 2025) might serve the U District station, but now that I look at the geography, that’s probably not practical.

    On a side note, a second shelter or something even bigger is needed at the EB 65 stop. It’s fine now, but during the rainy season it’s miserable. When the transfer was at Campus Parkway there were blocks of awnings for waiting out any delays.

    1. Tim’s experience most mirrors my own. I can take either the 65, 75, or 372. I take them for different reasons, and while I am getting used to the split, I find I have to think which bus do I really want to take and decide on the walk.

      The Leni Riefenstahl-inspired march up and down Rainier Vista is somewhat annoying, but I am healthy, the sun is shining, and when its nice out it is okay. I’ve lost a couple pounds due to the extra cardio.

      Personally, though, I’d like to see Pacific Pl turn entirely into bus only with bus shelters all along it. Not only would you combine the 65, 75, 372 (65 first stop is there), those stops would be relatively close to the Pacific Ave stops like the 45, 48, 73, 373.

      If the Stevens Way stops are kept, please bulk up the stop east of Rainier Vista heading east. Its little more than a pole.

      What is the snow route going to be? I can see that climb on Pend Oreille with a little bit of ice ain’t gonna work.

  14. If there are already routes running this couplet, would it make more sense to have the changed routes run the couplet the opposite direction, that is, eastbound on Stevens and westbound on Pacific? That would avoid congestion at stops and make for a lot fewer left turns for those routes.

    Or better yet, if the point is just to have the bus feed the light rail, why not leave the routes remain on Stevens, but extend them around to Pacific, to terminate at Montlake Triangle? This terminus could move to Brooklyn when that station comes online.

    Just imagine…had the Link station been built at the school of forestry site, it would have had Stevens Way, Pacific Street and UW Medical within its accessible walkshed, and still be close enough to the stadium for the handful of yearly dates it needs service. Or had the Link alignment gone under Pacific and 15th, all these bus routes would be serving an intermodal station at Campus Parkway. Serves us right for letting UW manage its master plan without the city getting veto power on decisions that affect our urban mobility.

    1. We don’t “let” UW manage its master plan, unless you mean the state legislature lets it. The UW is a higher level of government than the city, so what it says goes.

  15. I had always figured the reason for the couplet split was to keep buses out of the Montlake car sewer in the PM commute. Its a less than ideal solution, but I don’t see a better one that we’ll be able to get SDOT to let us have.

    I’ve been frustrated that the 372 and the 65 NB stop at different stops around UW station as they run parallel for quite a ways, and for at least two of my destinations from UW station either will do. (Yeah I’m reasonably able bodied.)

    I’ve had a couple of times when I’ve opted for the 65, and its been delayed and then crush loaded, and I would’ve been willing to take the 372 and walk farther to my destination.

    I had once where I had a 25 minute transfer from Link to the 65 during the 5pm hour. (Measured by my ORCA taps.) The first 65 was late, a 40 foot coach, and crush loaded to the point I couldn’t get on. The next one came, but by then I was late for my appointment. It wasn’t good. I would’ve happily accepted a 372 and walked to my destination (or even grabbed a 62, 64, 71, or 76 if one was coming soon. Yah gridded transit!)

    1. Oh, I’ve also been thinking about comparing the 65 and 372’s walkshed. They’re pretty close much of the way and even cross in Lake City.

      1. They got rid of the 74 crunch loads by moving it off the Ave. It would be so nice if they did the same for the 75. It gets old for commuters having to suffer with the student crunches as well.

    1. The contractor uses the Night Ride vehicles from the SLU-Medical Center Shuttle during the day. They’re not idle.

  16. Metro’s Long Range Plan has most of the service that currently uses Stevens Way still using it… sort of. Instead of doing the complete loop through campus, service would use the north part of Stevens Way, to get to U-District Station as directly as possible. The LRP also shows buses going straight from Stevens Way onto NE 43 St, which would require a bus-only roadway next to the law school where there is now a lawn and concrete walking paths.

  17. I think after 2021, it makes sense to have the 44 continue on NE 45th to U Village/Laurelhurst, and have a small Laurelhurst loop (45th St – 50th Ave – 41st St – Mary Gates). A solid east-west connection is established, Laurelhurst gets one-seat rides to U Village, UW, U-District, Ballard, the zoo (it’s a route full of destinations, which should entice many potential riders at poorly-served, under both the former 25 and current 78, Laurelhurst neighborhood) and so on. Riders heading downtown, to the airport, or to Northgate can transfer at U-District station. Even if it takes another bus, I think it is worth it to serve Laurelhurst, and integration into a well-structured grid system is much more effective and enticing then an infrequent and barely running stub route.

    1. Absolutely…. but would Metro be interested enough to string trolley wire in Laurelhurst, and freeze that loop in stone?

      Though on the other hand, it might make sense to run the 44-RR with hybrid coaches instead of trolleys, since Metro would already need to wire the viaduct and upgrade a lot of the wire already on 45th.

    2. The plan now is to end the 44-Children’s on the west side of Children’s. I don’t think Laurelhurst neighbors would be OK with stringing wire or with an artic running through their neighborhood every 7-8 minutes at peak.

  18. Another thing to consider is that the 31/32 already suffer from unreliability because they cross the Fremont Bridge. To move them as suggested would give them two bridges to deal with.

    The walk from Stevens Way to the station isn’t that long (given that no walk from any bus stop actually to UW station is short, in part because even if you were dropped off at the station itself, you’re still several minutes from the platform).

    1. Getting into the station is faster than getting out. When you are headed toward the platform, there is little competition for an elevator. After departing the train at UW, there is more, and people are expected to take the escalator if able. And then, there is always someones blocking a pathway to walk upward on the escalator.

      In relation to the couplet, I find it pretty quick to jog down from the Rainier Vista / Stevens stop to the bridge floor of the station, tap, get the elevator, and be down at the platform less than a minute later.

    2. I’ve found people at UWS, at least in the afternoon when I’m coming out, pretty good about staying to the right. It rarely takes me more than a minute to reach the surface. Then it can be another 2 minutes to get over to Pacific/Pacific if I miss the light, but to reach Stevens Way you don’t have a light to worry about.

  19. Moving the 372 northbound from Stevens Way to UW Station Bay 3 will save 176 yards of walking.
    The Pacific/Montlake route will add 10 minutes on a good day to 30 minutes on a bad day.
    Not much of an advantage, leave it alone.
    Also the long range plan is to only go to the U district station? No more service to the Medical Center?
    Seems unlikely.

  20. I want to know if the bus stop on Pacific St, off the rotunda area where the new construction is happening, will be coming back? We have a couple of disabled faculty who have great difficulty getting from the link station down to their offices at the west end of Pacific, now that these bus stops are closed off.

    Does anyone know if the stops are coming back? Then the faculty can at least catch a ride from the link station to their bldgs.

Comments are closed.