Page Two articles are from our reader community. Sign up for an account.

In September 2016, Route 106 was taken out of Georgetown, Route 107 was “rerouted” to Georgetown, and Route 124 got a frequency boost. These changes got mixed reactions, with some people liking the combined corridor and others disliking the lost service during peak, night, and Sundays. However, the frequent service on Route 124 is not expected to last much longer. Metro plans to increase the frequency sometime between 2025 and 2040, but there should be another solution to Georgetown service in the meantime.

Proposal

Routes 60 and 124 will run via Corson Ave instead of Carleton and Ellis.

Route 101 will exit I-5 at Georgetown instead of SODO, and run like Route 124 between Georgetown and Downtown. Routes 101 and 124 will each run at 30-minute frequency, providing combined 15-minute frequency along Airport Way S between Georgetown and Downtown. Route 124 will be through-routed with Route 24, and Route 101 will be through-routed with Route 33.

7 Replies to “Improving Transit in Georgetown”

  1. The problem of having the 60 and 124 operate south on Corson is that there is a NO LEFT sign from WB Bailey/Michigan to SB Corson. and during most daylight times, traffic is heavy in the EB direction, thus even if left turns were allowed, it may take awhile for a bus to take that turn.

    Also, having route 33 thru-routed with 101, would mean putting artic buses on a route that does not really warrant artics. What would you do with the companion 102 route? Would that be an essentially a 101 express route. What will 101 riders think about the Georgetown reroute?

    Of course, if I-947 passes, this is all for naught, as there will be massive service cuts, I-947 is likely to affect the extra $60 MVET fee that Seattle residents pay for added Seattle area Metro transit service.

    1. My 60 and 124 would not go on Bailey or Michigan. Route 124 would go straight on Corson until Airport Way, and Route 60 would cross the Lucile St bridge.

      Route 33 currently already has artics because it is through-routed with Route 124, which often uses artics. I was just thinking Route 33 because when Route 124 gets reduced to 30-minute frequency, it will probably remain connected to Route 24 only, so through-routing my 101 with the 33 would keep a similar service that the current 33/124 provides.

      Yeah, Route 102 will basically be unchanged from what it is now. I know 101 riders would not like the Georgetown reroute too much, but things will change when the Boeing Access Road station opens. I would leave the 102 alone so that those Renton riders can still have a fast ride to Downtown Seattle during peak periods.

    1. I haven’t heard that either. The 124 corridor has long been underserved, and the only reason Metro didn’t boost it earlier is it didn’t have the money (same as the 5, 8, 10, 11, 49, etc). The 106 reorg freed up enough hours for 15-minue service on the 124. I haven’t heard that it’s going away. As for a recession or the Eyman initiative, that would affect a lot more than the 124 and need to be considered in the context of the whole network.

    2. I have seen it in numerous articles around the internet. Also, the frequent 124 does not appear on Metro’s 2025 plan, and the 2040 plan shows a completely different route on that corridor. Route 124 should also be boosted to 15-minute frequency on Sundays, too.

    3. “Frequent” in Metro’s LRP means RapidRide frequent: 15 minutes till 10pm every day. Metro may not have wanted to make that commitment on East Marginal Way, but that doesn’t mean it will downgrade the 124, which is frequent only weekday and Saturday daytime. The types of routes are more minimums than maximums; e.g., some Local and Express routes will have greater than 30-minute frequency depending on the demand in the particular corridor and the time of day. That gives enough leeway to keep the 124 as is. And the fact that Metro didn’t renumber the route in 2025 also suggests it will keep today’s frequency.

      What and where have you heard specifically that the 124 will be downgraded? What is Metro’s motivation for it? Is it part of another restructure?

  2. Problems with Carleton northbound route:

    –The buses tend to drive faster then conditions will safely allow, breaking the city-wide 20mph limit that is now the law on all residential streets
    –The weight continues to destroy the pavement (recent damage to sewer and intersection on the corner of Eddy finally repaired after 3+ years)
    –The vibration shakes most of the homes along the route
    –Lack of visibility and the design of the street (traffic circles with accoutrements) give a false impression of safety, lots of kids on this street
    –Communications to Metro over the years has not resulted in even incremental improvements
    –street overall is residential in design and function

    Benefits of Corson northbound route:

    –Removed from the Freight Master Plan, so added street capacity over time
    –New pavement, curb bulbs, rechannelization, design is arterial
    –Is densifying with the new row houses, and new construction is less susceptible to vibration
    –Adjacent to SCCC campus, more accessible to commercially zoned NW Geogetown/”Benaroya” strip mall (eg FedEx, SBUX, etc)
    –Intersection of Michigan/Corson is more conducive to large vehicles then the new Carleton/Bailey design

    The Southbound routes to not use the intersection at Corson, nor would they. They are already routed down Ellis and will stay as a component of the street calming/rechannelization. The “right turn” off Corson is s better design for large vehicles, as trucks have been using it for over 10 years.

Comments are closed.