All-day Transit Lanes Considered for 3rd Ave

52 Replies to “All-day Transit Lanes Considered for 3rd Ave”

1. Painting 3rd Ave red is awesome news!

   Now, we need to get Metro to leverage that transit-only infrastructure with an end to on-board cash payment on the buses using 3rd Ave. Allowing off-board payment is nice. Mandating it is much better.

   That’s why I’m disappointed that the County Executive did not go along with the county council’s proposal to push for the elimination of the $5 ORCA card fee. That fee, even if reduced to $3, will remain a counterproductive social justice argument against allowing buses to be faster on 3rd Ave (or anywhere else).

   1. I don’t think the $5 ORCA cost is a considerable burden considering that it costs less than a round-trip. Not to mention ORCA Lift, which waves the card fee while also reducing the fare for qualifying riders.

      The bigger issue I see is that there aren’t enough locations to get an ORCA card, or if there are, there is not enough communication about how and where to get one.

      1. Yes, the $5 fee isn’t the only hurdle. But the fee is a central point in various groups’ villainizing the entire ORCA project as being hard on the poor, and it has been going on for over 8 years.

         There is no incentive to get the card, unless you are using a pass or transferring between agencies, since the ride costs the same when paying with the card or cash.

         We can’t raise the cash fare because the card fee is cited as a barrier to the poor (even though we have ORCA LIFT). We can’t get rid of paper transfers for the same reason.

         The ORCA card fee is still the Gordion Knot that has to be sliced out of the way to get faster bus service everywhere.

      2. With you a hundred percent on locations, Andrew. As important as they’re increasingly going to be, public should literally not be able to turn around without seeing one for sale.

         As for the five dollars, isn’t the APP world already doing an end run around any other communications? Aren’t we already headed toward just showing fare inspectors our iPhone screens?

         Though for anything time-consuming, I’m still looking for the golden something-or-other main fact of transit life: What is the cost of one minute operating delay? Because once we know that, a lot of contested calculations get really, really easy.

         Mark

2. For all the talk of major changes this plan once was it has been boiled down to just about nothing… I don’t know if that’s good or bad.

3. Overall I like it. Some questions/thoughts.

   1). The 3rd avenue bus lane needs to completely exclude cars and be enforced.

   2). The 3rd avenue bus lane should be extended to Denny with a bus only left turn from 3rd.

   3). Overall I like the extended contraflow 5th idea, but why the jog to 6th? I know there are construction plans for 5th, but adding two downtown bus turns is non-ideal.

   4). Any plans for OCC need to come with a metrics and enforcement plan. Buses have to keep moving regardless of what is happening cars. There will be major traffic events. We need the city to report on their performance and be bound to an improvement plan.

   1. Re(3) the Marion jog is easy and quick. It gets buses on the ‘correct’ direction on 6th and avoids the most narrow/congested part of 5th (where contra flow bus lane is not practical).

   2. With regards to 3), I think it’s because 6th is overall the better street for it – wider, less congested, more parking areas that can be removed – but northbound 6th doesn’t exist south of Marion.

      North of Spring, 5th narrows to only 3 lanes curb-to-curb, with wide sidewalks and no street parking. Meanwhile, except for curb bulbs at sidewalks, 6th maintains 4-5 lane widths through the planned route, with lots of parking.

      The zig-zag at Marion isn’t bad, it’s all direct turns onto one-way streets, and Marion has basically zero traffic ever. I suspect it compares favorably to making the same eastward path on Olive.

4. Just to clarify, my understanding from the presentation is that this would not be a full ban on cars from 3rd Ave (aka “paint it red”). Instead, the current traffic restrictions we see during rush-hour peak would be extended through the full business day. I believe that means cars would still be able to make right turns onto 3rd for one block with the expectation that they’d immediately turn back off of 3rd.

   That’s probably frustrating for transit advocates but if you are hoping for real transit-only operations on 3rd, you need to understand the concerns of the stakeholders fighting against it. Namely:
   * freight/delivery advocates who still want deliveries possible to businesses on 3rd
   * mobility advocates who want to make sure someone with mobility issues/wheelchair can still access businesses on 3rd via a taxi without having to deal with a hill
   * school bus access for dropping of school kids at benaroya hall (don’t know much about this one)
   * general advocates for downtown who already don’t like what current transit-only operations have meant for the character of 3rd Ave (rightly or wrongly) and worry that extending transit-only operations would only make it worse. There is a sense of “don’t talk to us about another transit mall through downtown until you fix 3rd”.

   I want more throughput out of 3rd Ave just as bad as anyone, but these are the issue we need to address if we are going to make it happen.

   1. It would still mean 3rd ave is fully “painted red” every other block, and the biggest backups are from drivers making illegal lefts in those blocks.

      As a former delivery driver, I can tell you that the vast majority of those buildings on 3rd have either alley access or loading docks that you can get to without using 3rd. Making a delivery directly from 3rd usually means parking illegally anyway. This was a solved problem a decade ago, and should still be a non-issue today.

      I don’t know how you deal with ubers/taxis using the bus zones on 3rd as waiting locations, other than ?photo?enforcement?.

      1. >It would still mean 3rd ave is fully “painted red” every other block

         If only. No, it wouldn’t; you could still enter Third at every block, either turning from uphill or downhill.

         > This was a solved problem a decade ago, and should still be a non-issue today.

         Not quite; you’ve still got a few things like the main entrance to Benaroya. IMO, we should open that one block of Third to cars, and nothing else – but I might be forgetting a few other things?

      2. If ya ain’t arrivin’ at Benayora on the train, ya ain’t arrivin’ in style.

      3. Ok, it would mean 3rd, if you’re traveling in a consistent direction, is painted red every other block. or that is it painted red every block, in alternating directions.

         Opening 3rd in front of Benaroya to cars is asking for trouble; there is no legitimate, legal place for them to stop and pick up / drop off passengers and they will (continue to) be practically invited to block one of Seattle’s busiest bus zones. But the entire length of Benaroya’s frontage on 2nd is a white zone for passenger loading, as well as the bit of Union just around the corner from the “front door”.

         School buses frequently use the contraflow transit lane on University for dropoffs, although there’s a designated “charter bus” zone on the far side of 2nd that would be more legally appropriate.

   2. Oh no. That ruins the whole plan.

      Cars turning on Third for one block is exactly what we do not want: they’ll need to turn off, meaning they hold up buses maybe half a light cycle waiting for pedestrians to clear the intersection. Meanwhile, GPS’s will still route cars down Third since it isn’t actually marked as transit-only. And to top it all off, SPD will continue not enforcing the restrictions.

      This plan’s a good improvement for Fourth and Fifth/Sixth, but it doesn’t do anything for Third.

   3. *1) Give the freight deliverers special permits, but limit access to off-peak hours.
      *2) Check out where Access vans pick-drop near 3rd. If there absolutely have to be taxis on 3rd, have a special permit and limit it to the handful of wheelchair-enabled taxis.
      *3) School bus for Benaroya Hall? 2nd Ave has lots of mobility options, including ramps and elevators, to get to 3rd. Special permit if necessary. Or bring the class on light rail, which could be more fun that the Benaroya tour (yeah, probably a logistical and safety nightmare, but not much more so than hearding cats once they are off the bus).
      *4) Those who don’t want more transit malls should let 3rd Ave become a real transit mall, and absorb as much bus traffic as possible. Concentrated presence of bus passengers also enables SPD to staff every corner of 3rd Ave really well, Manhatten-style.

      None of these potential special permit exceptions come close to justifying keeping 3rd Ave an unenforceable woonerf.

      If there are traffic engineering issues, have a test period for painting the lanes red, and see how that impacts surrounding traffic patterns, sooner rather than later.

      1. “bring the class on light rail, which could be more fun that the Benaroya tour (yeah, probably a logistical and safety nightmare,”

         Groups of elementary-school kids take the 62 and former 30 to Magnuson Park and other places on 65th.

      2. “Or bring the class on light rail, which could be more fun that the Benaroya tour (yeah, probably a logistical and safety nightmare, but not much more so than herding cats once they are off the bus).”

         Brent, have you ever seen anything like you’re describing? Because every large group of children I’ve seen on LINK since it opened has been a full 180 degrees the opposite. Well behaved. Well supervised. And intensively rail-positive.

         When I was driving, probably the our ridership’s best behaved general group of passengers.
         But in addition, especially the ones riding LINK-every one of them a lifelong pro-transit voter starting in about ten years.

         Accompanying parents told me that the children liked their LINK ride many times more than whatever they were going to. And I’ve seen babies in strollers start pointing and insisting when they heard a train bell down the escalator they were being pushed past.

         So I think LINK should go a long way out of its way to introduce children to our trains, teach them about LINK and its history, and in all ways make them feel extremely welcome.This is one form of public transportation with nearly a hundred percent positive first impression.

         For transit’s own future, let’s leave all the poop-heads in the opposition camp.

         Mark

      3. Children have a natural affinity for Transit and construction equipment. They’re the urban equivalent of megafauna, which we’ve evolved to heed or hunt since descending from the trees.

5. Brian, what people will or won’t put up with regarding transit is about to collide pedal-down with a permanently changed reality. Third Avenue or anyplace of similar importance, nobody in a private automobile will be able to move at all. Pretty much like I-5 between Centralia and Marysville, getting longer by the rush-hour day.

   Exactly like for homes, stores, and all buildings these last thirty years or so, a lot of building entrances will have to be modified. There’s been a retail tunnel under Fifth Avenue – part of the Rainier Tower- for decades. We can dig and structure a lot faster now. If delivery schedules have to be adjusted- surprised if the industry isn’t already ‘way ahead of us for plans.

   The War on Horses wasn’t won in a day, but not many months. Significant they still don’t call it The Trucksters’ Union. But my own guess is that a lot of Third Avenue stakeholders, read the Chamber of Commerce, already have plans to get their orders delivered and their customers increasingly aging customers accommodated. And instructions to the City Council a key-click way from no cars on Third 24-7-365.

   Mark

6. I heard that the restriction on 3rd was all day as in 6am to 7pm or something along that. Am I completely missing this?

   Personally I hope it means 24/7 but it would be nice for clarification. Does anyone have a clear yes/no answer yet?

   Thanks!

   1. Correct. What was suggested was “all-day” but not 24/7. So status quo on nights and weekends.

      Hopefully, this means later in the evening than today. Late night auto access isn’t the biggest deal (except that it removes the clarity of a simple 24/7 rule), but 6.30pm is too early to be giving up the street to cars. Still a lot of buses moving at that hour.

      1. And also, the weekend daytime can have a whole lot of cars; we should at the very least have standard hours every day of the week.

   2. What would be gained by allowing cars to access 3rd Ave at night and on weekends, that is worth not putting down the red paint?

      1. The argument for going 24/7 rather than all-day (perhaps including weekend day as William C suggests) is about clarity, right? As David Lawson wrote, the current rules are very confusing to drivers.

         The traffic conflicts aren’t great, so the costs to transit of having cars during those hours aren’t large. But the cost to drivers of having to use some alternative route are similarly small.

         So for the sake of clarity, I’d say yes to 24/7. But the stakes are certainly lower.

7. I generally think that it’s a bad idea to call out consultants by name and firm when their work is led by a committee. Most blog posts here don’t do this so blatantly. Even many staff remain anonymous in posts unless they are very senior.

   1. I don’t think we should hide the name of consultants – in fact, as an employee of another professional services firm, I think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. It’s helpful to know what other companies have been doing, or to know whose work is good and whose is bad.

   2. I don’t really understand why this would be a problem. The consultant is often tasked with developing and analyzing options that meet the more general direction provided by the client and any advisory groups the client has engaged.

   3. I didn’t say it was unethical. I said it was generally a bad idea. Here are some reasons why:

      1. When you publish a name of a consultant in a blog, it invites people opposing the ideas to personally harass the consultant! When a professional has work to do, the last thing that any consultant needs is to have several interested parties who read the item calling them up, especially if it is out of anger! It’s hard to work if you get calls from unknown angry people because they saw your name in the paper saying something that they don’t like! Some people can even be aggressive enough to hunt you down at home!

      2. The recommendations made by the consultant here were not uniquely the consultant’s but were instead the latest incarnation after lots of committee work and prior alternatives. Shining a spotlight on the consultant actually diminishes the value of the committee’s prior discussions and direction — good or bad — by focusing the content on the consultant as if it was about new ideas. (Even the use of the word “recommendation” is probably premature here because these items are mere “proposed recommendations” until the committee actually makes it.)

      3. When a consultant’s name appears in the press, it can reflect badly on that consultant later. Other prospective clients may read into this that the consultant is a publicity hound, and won’t trust that consultant in detailing with future controversial assignments, for example. It may signal to future clients that a consultant could be too outspoken, and could undermine the relationship an agency or agency head has with the press; in fact, lots of agency heads make it quite clear to a consultant that the agency must be in charge of any publicity about their work no matter what the profession is. It may be misread that a consultant isn’t objective, and having a recorded bias can really damage a consultant’s ability to sell their objectivity. When a consultant’s name is online in a blog, the record becomes permanent and searchable, and can affect their future work opportunities for years to come — not only for the consultant personally, but also for the company that the consultant represents especially if the firm has other lines of work.

      For celebrities and often for public officials. the adage is that any publicity is good publicity (except anything dealing with illicit money or sex, of course). In the consulting world, the opposite is generally the case.

      I’ll add that I too am an employee of a professional services firm who has made dozens if not hundreds of presentations to public committees. I have always breathed a sigh of relief when the press accounts of those meetings don’t refer to me by name and firm (instead just calling me “the consultant”) because it could damage the ability of me as well as others in my firm to obtain work. I think it’s generally best to avoid any publicity because I first and foremost want my client’s trust — and I don’t want the stress and time when dealing with angry citizens.

8. Seattle Times headline: “Bike lane could put squeeze on Fourth Avenue: One car lane would go to parking, left turns: Some Metro buses would move to Fifth and Sixth”

   Note the priority: 1. Moving cars. 2. Parking. 3. Buses.

   Maybe we could suggest some alternate headlines.

   “Downtown bus realignment promises to make the majority of commutes faster. Interim step due to construction projects through 2024. Two-way bike lane on 4th Avenue fulfills Vision Zero promise of safer streets.”

9. I’m all for protected bike lanes, having had an accident on my bike in downtime about 10 years ago, but given the light traffic on the 2nd avenue I see at pretty much all hours (my desk looks at it) I question the need for a second one and spending our relatively small amount of bike related funds on it. I have to seriously wonder if there is something elsewhere in the city that needs a bike lane more?

   After the waste that was tearing up Westlake and building the massive parking lot then tearing up Dexter to put in mediocre lanes and bus stops and then tearing up Westlake again to put in bike lanes which caused most people to stop using Dexter, I sometimes wonder if there is actually any coherent plan for the when/where/why of cycle lanes in Seattle or if there are so many different special interests involved that we are taking a dart board approach of trying to please everyone, while not actually achieving near as much as we could if we told some people “no for now”.

   1. In the business-y core of downtown where the hills running “east-west” are steepest, 4th is pretty vital.

      Dexter wasn’t torn up to build bike lanes and bus stops; it needed to be re-paved, so it got a new layout (including some of the best damn bus stops in the city). That sort of thing doesn’t make for particularly coherent bike route planning, but the blame for that can’t be laid at the feet of “special interests”, it’s mostly about the paving schedule. If we said, “No,” more often we’d just perpetuate auto-dominance.

      1. “It’s mostly about the paving schedule” <– This is largely what enabled the installation of the protected bike lane on Roosevelt as well. A group of neighbors working with their local Seattle Neighborhood Greenways group spent a lot of time convincing SDOT to make the street better for people walking, biking, and taking transit instead of just putting back the same lane lines that were there before the repaving project.

10. I don’t think diesel buses are going to get up Marion Street between Fifth and Sixth very easily. Even if they did, standing riders are going to howl!

    1. The 12 already does when it’s diesel-substituted on weekends. But still, good point. Can we move it two more blocks and put it into the bus-only lane on Spring?

       1. I believe that articulated buses may really have a problem on Marion.

          I’m not sure how much scrutiny the committee or consultant gave this issue.

       2. I’m not sure about that, Al – several times, the evening or weekend 545’s diverted down a block from 4th to 3rd for construction, and then back up again, and I’ve never seen a problem there.

       3. I checked the maps, and I see that the intersections are 40 feet in height different and are spaced about 250 feet from crosswalk to crosswalk. That puts the grade at 16 percent
          .
          Here is a report from San Francisco last year, reporting that the articulated electric New Flyer buses are barely making 10 percent. (http://www.sfexaminer.com/munis-brand-new-buses-struggle-with-sfs-hills-test-results-show/)

          Hopefully, Metro has tested the buses before agreeing to this proposal to move them. Some of us remember what happened two years ago when the 19th/Madison corner test wasn’t done.

       4. Oof, very good point. Where’re you seeing those maps? How’s the grade on Spring between Third and Fourth, since I’ve been on an articulated ST 545 heading up that on reroute?

    2. Most if not all of what’s being planned for the 5th/6th route uses hybrid equipment. It does just fine on hills, albeit at the cost of some extra wear. They climb James Street from time to time, which is steeper than that block of Marion.

    3. Representatives from Metro said they did some test runs on something approximating the turn to verify that the turn was possible. They didn’t seem concerned.

    4. Just like riders on the 120 love the Seneca climb with an inbound rush hour crush load.

11. Dexter wasn’t a repave, it was a full roadbed rebuild. It needed it but it didn’t in my view need it more urgently than the proper Westlake bike lane, an overlay to give a better riding surface with the old lanes and selective elimination of parking would have helped quite a bit. Then we could well have had the far superior Westlake bike lane 6 to 7 years earlier had we devoted the funds to that. That’s what I am getting at, I am not saying no or fewer projects, I am saying we need to say no to or deprioritize particular projects and focus our dollars better over the long term.

    Regarding the quality of the Dexter changes I have to somewhat disagree, for 12 years I lived on Dexter and that/Westlake was my bike route and bus route too. Dexter’s commute traffic far far exceeds that of it’s residents so most people’s experience with it is as a commuter, and those who pass through love it! But those who live on it, not so much.

    Those bus stops look great but half of them are poorly positioned, they are on curves meaning that barriers/curbs at the ends do not actually protect you. The stops by the Swedish Cultural center routinely have cars sideswipe and enter the waiting area. Visit them and you’ll likely see the skid marks.

    The structure of parked cars protecting the cyclists obstructs sight lines up and down the street for turning vehicles, but especially at the curves. Works great where it’s straight though! Additionally buildings in the area lack alley’s sufficient unload areas/alleys so off commute hours the bike lane is often partially (or entirely) blocked. Something SPD obviously can’t devote a ton of resources too. That’s led to angry, well pretty much everybody.

    There has been some tweaking but it will likely need more, and may not be completely fixable until it comes up for major rework again someday.

    1. I lived just off Dexter and rode there a lot, not for 12 years though. There’s no place that has both curves and parked cars “protecting” the bike lane — the “protected” lane is only south of Mercer, where the road runs straight. I dislike a bunch of stuff about the design south of Mercer.

       I really would be pretty pissed off if they were going to prioritize 4th over the route in from Dearborn. Other than that… but I don’t think there’s much missing from the part of town this covers that I’d put ahead of doing something on 4th or 5th. There’s some stuff elsewhere that I’d put ahead of the northern parts of 4th… but we aren’t staring at a pot of bike money, we’re staring at a pot of downtown money.

    2. North of Mercer, Dexter is really nice & has good bike lanes, IMO. If you haven’t been there in a dozen years, it’s changed significantly.

12. You are correct, and I always felt the least safe south of Mercer with vehicles turning left.

    You’ll find vehicles parked right up to the curves at the northern end still. This used to also be the case @ Howe but several spots were eliminated (plus two townhomes got built there resulting in a new driveway eliminating more) not long after the road finished.

    The root cause is a few places where the cycle lane is moving “outside to inside” for some of the stops and that drivers are not looking at the street markings. This notably happens at Howe and Galer. Howe is worst as it’s also on a curve, drivers (unfamiliar ones) will pull out to the intersection assuming the cyclist is going to cross in front of them and continue straight, when in reality it is angling in to go behind the island to the south, putting the cyclist quickly about 10ft further west than the driver expects. By the time either party realizes what’s going on the cyclist is on the other side of the hood of the car or clipped the bumper. If your lucky you just end up with the cyclist being pissed off/scared and the driver confused. :-)

    The lack of real estate on 5th to work with is reflected in the jog, it’s simply to tight in a few places. Similar to the situation with 4th between Spring and Seneca by the W. I wonder if we’d do better with a more solidly protected single bike lane on each street going with it’s traffic flow. I’ve found almost universally you are better off putting buses with bikers than cars, Metro drivers are simply more respectful and cautious, despite the size of their vehicles.

    1. I never had that problem at Howe or Galer, but then I ride more defensively than most…

       1. Yeah, not looking for my 2nd cycling ER related visit. Yet I nearly had it happen to me once, part of why I will ride with traffic if I have enough speed and save space between vehicles around two of those islands. I’ve noticed a lot of the speedier road bikers doing it also but I think it’s because the turn in is just quick enough there to make some of them uncomfortable.

13. A bit off topic: has there ever been consideration for a bus running down Boren? So say you change the 4 so that it goes east on Denny, south on Boren, and then takes the current route to Mount Baker.

    We need more non-downtown oriented options for getting around the inner sections of the city, it’s annoying to have to go Downtown to go anywhere else.

    1. It will probably never happen, but from grid perspective, having the 7 take 12th and Boren to SLU, would be an improvement. Slogging it out on the 7 from Mt. Baker to downtown is not really any faster than hopping on Link, and in 6 more years, hopping on Link to downtown at I-90 will be faster, still.

       1. Wouldn’t rerouting the 106 make more sense from that perspective? The 106 parallels the Link for way more than the 7 does.

       2. Either 106 or 7 would work great. You still want to leave one running on Jackson to provide service on the ID (and one-seat ride between RV & ID)

          As Henry says, the 106 might be better because most riders will have multiple opportunities to transfer to Link to head downtown, whereas the 7 only has a mediocre transfer at Mt Baker for downtown-bound rider (and a Judkins Park transfer in the future).

          Metro might not be keen to extend the 106 given it would go all the way from Renton to SLU. But from a grid standpoint, I agree that would be great.

          Looking at the LRP, Metro has a “frequent” route (a step down from RR) 1074 that runs along MLK & Boren from Rainier Beach all the way to Denny, before turning on Denny to serve LQA. So I think that aligns closest with Henry’s suggestion.

          (there is a separate RR that serves Rainer Beach to Renton via Skyway)

14. Pingback: News Roundup: Frequency in Tri-Cities

Comments are closed.