I personally think the current routing of Route 32 does not make any sense. Though it does make a good connection between SPU, Fremont, Woodlawn, and U District, it serves the already frequent 15th Ave W corridor, which barely has any businesses or homes along it.
I think a new routing is needed for Route 32 between SPU and Downtown Seattle. (Yes, I know it currently does not go to downtown.) I propose that between SPU and Downtown, Route 32 runs like Route 29. This will also provide a connection to the West Queen Anne corridor. Such a routing will allow Metro to merge routes 2 and 13 into a single route, with Route 32 taking over the 6th Ave W corridor.
Though I am heavily against the through-route system, I do understand that Metro uses it to save money. Route 32 could possibly be through-routed with another 30-minute frequency route, such as Route 125.
But next week 3 and 4 will nearly be duplicating that. What service hours are you going to cut to cover for a bunch of hours wasted downtown, which will be very unnecessary and duplicative when the 3/4 routing goes to SPU?
This proposed 32 does not duplicate routes 3/4. It replaces Route 2 along the 6th Ave W corridor. This route will be shorter and more direct compared to the current 32. If Metro doesn’t have enough money to increase frequency on the current 13 corridor, it could split the 2S and 13 in Downtown. The 2S could be through-routed with Route 70, and Route 13 would terminate in Downtown. Another option is to give the 6th Ave W- Downtown portion a new number, and have Route 32 take over Route 13 between SPU and downtown.
No full time diesels on the Counterbalance. It was horrible during the three years that they were re-hanging the overhead in the early ’80’s. Horrible; and it tears the transmissions up.
Anthony,
May I suggest creating one posting for various musings with each route?
I have been looking at restructuring closer to Northgate Link opening and I would be interested to hear about what an all day frequent network would look like in 2021.
Thanks
(first initial, last name @ comcast.net) if you want to email me.
That is a good suggestion, but I feel like it would be too much for people to digest. Plus, I want to see peoples opinions on each service change. I literally have a 5 page document full of proposals for the transit system.
I would at least suggest the following.
1) Maybe post a graphic of your proposal. Google MapMaker has a really good tool that I used to make my guest post last week for the Community Transit Restructure.Visual aids would really be helpful for those of us who aren’t as familiar with every Metro Route.
2) I would look into getting some data on each route and see how many get on and get off at stops. This helps give some insight as to what a route is currently being used for to see if a proposal makes sense.
Did you ever look at a frequent network proposal that Bruce Norish did a few years ago that restructured Metro with the same amount of money with lots more frequency?
Yeah, what Daniel said. A map is much easier to understand. I’ve been working on a proposal for the north end (for Northgate Link) and just need to clean it up a bit. I don’t mind each individual post, but you might consider covering a region this way (with a map). Some of the changes just go together (for example, the 8 and the eastern tail of the 4).
I think the tail of the 31 is worse than the 32. The 31 looks great on paper, but it turns out it is very difficult to get from the D to it. This means that folks who miss the 32 from Lower Queen Anne are hosed. They can take the D, but then then it is a very long walk to catch the next 31. So the first thing I would do is have the 31 use Dravus, instead of Emerson. This means that (21st and Emerson) no longer has any service (by any bus) while a few other places in eastern Magnolia have to rely on the 33. That is a small price to pay for making that connection to the D much better, as well as serving the (now) more densely populated Interbay area.
With that change, the current routing of the 32 makes a lot more sense. You essentially have 15 minute service from Lower Queen to Fremont to the UW. If you miss the 32, take the D to Dravus, and wait for the 31.
But if you want a different tail — something unique — then I would head up Gilman. There is no good way to get from the top of Queen Anne to Ballard. You can head north, and take a three seat ride, or head south (the wrong direction, into bad traffic) for a two seat ride. But a bus that went up Gilman would help that, in that at least it would be going the right direction. It would be forced to go back and forth — Gilman to 10th, then back north to McGraw — but that is the unfortunate lay of the land there (not enough of a grid). Still, it wouldn’t take that long to get over to 3rd, or even all the way to Queen Anne Avenue, providing something of a grid for the area.
I’m not thrilled with that idea, though, as I think it wouldn’t get you nearly as much as a similar bus that went to Ballard. If the 17, for example, didn’t go downtown, but went from 32nd in Ballard to the top of Queen Anne (every half hour all day long) I think it would be popular. You could even have it end where the old 4 ends (at Nob Hill) which is about to go away.
So that is why I think it just makes sense to just leave the tail of the 32 alone. You could simply truncate it, but then I think you would create a big imbalance between it and the 31. I don’t think that would save you any service (although I’m not confident in that assertion).
I remember when the 30 was a much much faster way to get to the Seattle Center from the U-District (until the SLU /Mercer mess started). The 32 Nickerson/Interbay routing seems to take twice as long.