After 16 months of construction, the Yesler Way Bridge over 4th and 5th avenues has been reopened to traffic on Tuesday. Several bus routes that were affected by the long-term closure have resumed normal operations. Bus stops at Yesler Way & 3rd Avenue and Terrace Street & 5th Avenue have been re-opened.
Although it won’t have trolleywires, as proposed to accommodate Routes 3/4, the new bridge has curb ramps, some bulb outs, and is engineering to modern safety standards while respecting the original 1910 design.
Metro has announced the following changes:
- The RapidRide D Line will use Terrace Street and serve a southbound stop on 5th Avenue before laying over
- Routes 27 and 33 will move back onto Yesler Way between 3rd and 6th avenues
- Routes 304 and 355 will use Terrace Street and serve the Yesler & 3rd and Terrace & 5th stops
- Community Transit has moved commuter routes 412, 413, 416, 421, 425, and 435 back onto Terrace Street, replacing temporary service on South Washington Street.
It’s always been assumed that Yesler is the alternative to James for the 3/4, but I’ve been thinking of alternatives since routing via Yesler is out of the way and long (even if it’s quicker than James).
Since there is currently unused trolley wire on 9th between James and Seneca, could routes 3/4 be moved from James to Seneca/Spring, sharing some stops with the 2 and making use of otherwise unused trolley wire?
Cons: Skips southern part of downtown, and has I-5 queuing in eastbound direction on Spring
Pros: Shorter than Yesler (and probably quicker), no I-5 queueing in westbound direction, and has a bus lane (for route 2 currently) on Spring to alleviate some of the pain of I-5 queueing, and no new trolley wire is needed.
I’ve actually seen buses do this when there was an accident on James street and the 3/4 had to be rerouted to exactly this route. Any thoughts?
Seneca is going away with Madison RapidRide, which will be on Madison/Spring. The 2 is slated to move to Pike/Pine to replace the 11 and 49 in metro’s 2025 plan.
That produces a pretty big hole (bigger than if the bus uses Yesler). More importantly, it does nothing for Yesler, which is under served right now. A big part of the problem is the 27. The tail of the 27 is very low density — it is a coverage route similar to the 19 in Magnolia. Except unlike the 19, it is the only bus that serves a very high density area (the east side of Yesler). Running the 3/4 on Yesler kills two birds with one stone — you make the 3/4 faster, while giving Yesler a lot more service. James loses out, but James is doomed anyway (because of bad traffic).
But it still isn’t great. The central part of Yesler (between 23rd and Broadway) still has weak service (because the 27 is weak). There is another issue, which is that either way, Metro wants to have some service on James (see the Seattle Times article I referenced below). Backing up a bit, there are several goals here:
1) Retain coverage on James, even if it is slow.
2) Retain coverage on the east side of the Central Area (a low density area).
3) Have the frequent buses (that serve the higher density areas) run faster.
Also worth mentioning is that the Judkins Park Link station will be coming on line soon. That changes the dynamic of the 4. While the particulars (running on 24th and 26th) are weird, the overall course is suddenly much better. The tail goes from basically just fizzling out, to one that is outstanding. Now the tail of the 4 is much stronger than the tail of 3 (which wasn’t that strong to begin with).
With all that in mind, here is an idea for a major restructure:
1) Change the 27 into a pure coverage route. From Lakeside Avenue (the eastern end of the route) it would continue on Lake Washington Boulevard and then pick up the tail of the 2 (by following Madrona Drive). Once it rounds the horn, and gets on 34th, it would then pick up the current routing of the 3, and follow the current routing of the 3 to downtown (via James)
2) Run the 3 on Yesler. Try and time these two buses (the new 27 and the 3) so that you have 15 minute service on Jefferson (as you today). This will be difficult but at least attempt it.
3) Change the routing of the 4 substantially. It will use Yesler (like the 3) but not head up north. It will continue on Yesler until 23rd, where it will pick up its current routing (heading south). Ideally the 4 is straightened out (no longer uses 24th and 26th). Likewise, a better turn around point would be close to the Mount Baker Station. Those are minor changes, and not needed right away. Run this new 4 as often as you run the current 3/4. This would require some number changes, but otherwise would improve the reliability of the system.
4) Truncate the 2 as needed (the new 27 is the coverage route). Likewise, the 3 can be truncated (as it is now on occasion). As long as the 27 runs every half hour, then the eastern tail of the 2 and 3 have the same coverage as today.
5) Straighten out the 8 (have it just run on MLK the whole way).
OK, now you have several nice things (and some minor weaknesses):
1) 15 minute (or better) service on Yesler, from downtown to Judkins Park (and possibly Mount Baker). That seems like a very popular bus to me, in that it is reasonably fast, runs through densely populated areas and connects to two (and possibly three) Link stations.
2) Retain decent service on Jefferson. As mentioned, it will be difficult to keep the buses in sync, but my guess is they are a mess right now anyway (bad traffic destroys schedules). It is also possible that the new 3 simply gains coverage over time, to match demand. If that happens, then timing the 27 becomes irrelevant. If the new 3 runs every 15 minutes (or better) then it doesn’t matter much when the new 27 runs.
3) New way to connect from Jefferson to Yesler. This would be popular today, and would have been popular fifty years ago, as a way to connect the projects to Garfield.
4) Retain pretty much all the existing coverage. You lose a little bit in between MLK and Lakeside, but actually gain a little on Lake Washington Boulevard..
5) Slower ride for folks along the water to downtown. I can live with that, as at least they have something. It isn’t that different than West Magnolia, in that service takes a very round about route. Like West Magnolia, it will connect them to other parts of the neighborhood (getting from Leschi to Madrona becomes a lot easier). These are relatively low density areas, and so you can’t expect fast, or even direct service.
This just makes a lot more sense to me than our current routing. You make a solid split between buses that serve a lot of people (and serve them well) and buses that are designed to save a handful of people a lot of walking.
Here is a map of what I have in mind:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=18d4_7IU6lDlp0E7YhaW_dVqIVyI&usp=sharing
I agree that Metro has not yet fully considered the role of Judkins Park Station as an anchor for Metro bus demand. Because the additional costs of running electric wire on Yesler are to be incurred and not yet committed, then the appropriate thing to do is to devise a restructure of Routes 3 and 4 and then invest in the wire for the entirety of the routes. It would make so much sense to slightly reroute Route 4 to serve Judkins Park Station as well as extend it to Mt. Baker Station, possibly even extending it to serve the Route 14 tail to Hunter Blvd (and either terminating Route 14 at Mt. Baker Station or even extending it up to Beacon Hill Station).
In time, I also think that one regret will be the lack of a vehicle turn-around at the 23rd Avenue entrance to Judkins Park. There is no turn-around on Rainier Avenue at Judkins Park either. Any buses or private vehicles dropping off or picking up riders there are going to be forced to go around the block onto Massachusetts or Judkins Street and the residents are already quite concerned about more cut-through traffic. The Judkins Park station is the only place south of Downtown Seattle to get to and from the Eastside, and it will only take 9-10 minutes from there to get to Westlake (much faster than the 16 minutes from Mt Baker today). It would seem easy to provide a turn-around like what is found at Forest Hill Station in San Francisco (where two bus routes can terminate because the turn-around is there). I highlight that with this post as the restructuring options for the CD and SE Seattle are somewhat limited simply by the lack of a turn-around at Judkins Park Station.
As to other parts of the suggested restructuring, I would think that several different structures should be developed and honed beginning in the next year or two, so that wires can be budgeted and then installed upon the Judkins Park Station opening. I’m not happy that Metro has only produced one route vision in its long-range plan, and think that multiple visions should be put on the table to compare and contrast. The Capitol Hill restructuring process a few years ago was very politically messy (mixed objectives of Link opening combined with system coverage) and I don’t think that process should ever be repeated.
As far as a turnaround by the Judkins Park station, that is more of an issue for cars, than for buses. It isn’t a dead end, like Northgate. It is more like 145th, or even 130th — there are plenty of destinations on both ends, but not a lot there. It would seem silly to stop a south bound bus at the freeway instead of going to Mount Baker Station. Stopping a north bound bus sounds more reasonable, but the geography doesn’t favor it. Terminating at Mount Baker makes sense because it is where the roads converge. You have three roads to the north, and two to the south (23rd still exists to the south, it just isn’t an arterial). Oh, and there are more people (and a high school) by MBS, while Judkins Park is mainly, well, a park. Mount Baker makes sense as a bus route terminus, but Judkins Park does not.
It would make so much sense to slightly reroute Route 4 to serve Judkins Park Station as well as extend it to Mt. Baker Station …
I agree. that would make a lot of sense.
… possibly even extending it to serve the Route 14 tail to Hunter Blvd (and either terminating Route 14 at Mt. Baker Station or even extending it up to Beacon Hill Station).
That goes against my basic philosophy on bus service. Coverage routes should be infrequent, and if there is no cheap alternative, slow and indirect. High density areas should be served by fast, frequent buses.
I think that is one of the big problems with our current system. Too often we merge the two, and suffer from mediocre ridership. The 14 is a great example. It is the only bus serving Jackson, east of Rainier Avenue. This is a densely populated part of town. The bus should run every 15 minutes, just because of that. But the bus spends about half its time serving very low density areas. It is hard to justify 15 minute service for a bus that does that. The same is true for the 27.
I would think that several different structures should be developed and honed beginning in the next year or two, so that wires can be budgeted and then installed upon the Judkins Park Station opening. I’m not happy that Metro has only produced one route vision in its long-range plan, and think that multiple visions should be put on the table to compare and contrast.
I agree. The bus routes should go through a major restructure not only because of the Judkins Park Station, but also because of the G Line (Madison BRT). That will cause a reshuffle of the various routes (or at least it should) and we should be able to see lot of competing visions.
I agree – I would expect to see zero buses turn around at Judkins Park. It is the perfect example of a transit node that only exists because it is “on the way” to other, bigger destinations … the Seattle-Bellevue corridor east-west, and UW/District-Mt Baker corridor north-south.
(145th is a bad example – unlike Judkins station, the 145th station is being designed with bus layover/turnaround infrastructure, much to the chagrin of all those who think 522 BRT should continue west of I5)
Ross, why do you have the 4 jogging over to MLK? Once the Judkins Park station opens, seems like it would make more sense to move it to 23rd all the way to Mt Baker.
It’s a bit of a myth that Mt Baker is such a major station. Link boardings there are lower than at Columbia City, Othello or Beacon Hill. It’s barely higher than SODO. The transit center is a well-known pedestrian connection problem and the SDOT proposed changes don’t address that problem.
Judkins Park is an amazing opportunity to connect all of the CD and SE Seattle with a rail trip six minutes faster to Downtown as well as direct Eastside access. Link riders will come to this station from Madrona, Leschi, Mt Baker and North Beacon Hill — bus route or not — to take advantage of these things.
Why would a Link rider after 2023 prefer to get on a Metro bus more at Mt Baker than at Judkins Park? Several routes go by other Link stations; at Columbia City, a Route 106 transfer doesn’t require going down stairs or an elevator. There is only one stop in one direction directly accessible to the escalators that doesn’t require crossing a busy street and many buses don’t stop there. It takes longer to get there from Downtown Seattle. It isn’t served by any direct Eastside transit service. Sure, Mt Baker has some important destinations; it’s just not as strategic for transferring to Metro buses once Eastlink opens.
Finally, as Lyft and Uber are growing in Link access importance, having a turn-around is more practical than before. ST station planning generally ignores Lyft and Uber.
Ross, why do you have the 4 jogging over to MLK? Once the Judkins Park station opens, seems like it would make more sense to move it to 23rd all the way to Mt Baker.
Because that is where it goes now. The basic idea is pretty simple. Run the wire along Yesler and then connect into the existing wire.
Eventually you could move things around. I would extend to Mount Baker Station, and do as you say (run on 23rd). But that doesn’t need to happen at the same time. Even serving MLK (as it does now) gets you awfully close, as it is only a five minute walk from the bus stop to the station.
It’s a bit of a myth that Mt Baker is such a major station.
Who said it was such a major station? We simply said that it makes way more sense as a turnaround spot than Judkins Park. There are a number of reasons, but one of the big ones is the street layout. It is essentially a convergence. 23rd merges into Rainier, and is then no longer an arterial. This means you have more buses coming from the north than from the south, making it a good choice as the southern end of a bus route (like the 8 or 48). It is also a worthy destination in its own right, with the high school nearby. While the connection to the Mount Baker Station is awful, terminating south bound buses about a mile before they got there would make it worse.
Terminating a north bound bus at Judkins Park sounds reasonable in comparison, but there is no good reason to do so. You could truncate the 106, but doing so would be silly. The riders who simply don’t want to bother with a transfer would lose out. Some of those are headed downtown, but some are just headed up the valley. From MLK and Orcas to Rainier and Dearborn, for example, is now a two seat ride. If you wanted to deviate from Rainier (which is reasonable) then there are plenty of choices, and again, it is about the geography. The areas to the south are well served, while the areas to the north are not. Jackson and Yesler have only 30 minute service right now, which is messed up. If you are going to send the 106 up 23rd, then it would be nuts to end it by the freeway. Just keep going, then take a left, and follow Yesler to downtown.
It doesn’t make sense to stop at Judkins Park Station, because Judkins Park is in *the middle* of a a couple corridors. It isn’t at the end. This is a good thing, and it means the buses keep going, which means that overall connectivity is much better. There will be lots of buses connecting to Judkins Park. It is just that all of those buses will keep going, and some of them with terminate at Mount Baker Station.
(145th is a bad example – unlike Judkins station, the 145th station is being designed with bus layover/turnaround infrastructure, much to the chagrin of all those who think 522 BRT should continue west of I5)
ST’s failure to address what is obvious to most of the people on this blog (and anyone who has looked at a map) does not mean it is a bad example. It just means that ST is designing the station poorly. There is very little close to 145th, and there will always be very little. It is next to the freeway and kitty corner to a golf course. By pushing the station to the north (148th), they mitigate the influence of the golf course, but simultaneously reduce the walkshed from the west. When all is said and done, there will be very few walk up riders.
Most will come from buses. The buses should, of course, just go east-west, and connect Bitter Lake with Lake Forest Park, Kenmore and Bothell, while simultaneously connecting all those communities with Link. Doing so would save a lot of service hours (for the buses) and lots of time for the riders.
Treating Judkins Park the same way as 145th would be just as bad. Pretending this is a dead end (like Northgate Transit Center) or worse yet, creating a dead end (like 148th Street Station) just doesn’t make sense. We blew it with 145th, there is no reason to blow it with Judkins Park.
I wouldn’t compare Judkins Park with 145th Shoreline South on several fronts:
1. Judkins Park Station is a better design. Riders can exit in two different directions — to 23rd or to Rainier.
2. Judkins Park is a much more urban and more walkable station area. Rainier exits are being planned with access to both sides of the street. The typical Seattle street grid there is pretty much in tact except for the I-90 disruption — and even with that, pedestrians can walk across the lid to make small block connections. The station area also includes a number of non-residential attractions and it frankly is somewhat walkable from areas anywhere south of Jackson Street or north of Bayview Street.
3. The turn-around for drop-off and pick-up as well as the transit center at 145th are both in the cul-de-sac design. That means that vehicles and buses using it must enter and leave at the same place! That creates conflicts with entering and exiting vehicles as well as pedestrians! In contrast, the Forest Hill turn-around that I mention is not a cul-de-sac like 145h/148th; it’s basically almost a one-way, one-block frontage road that doubles as a place where a broad U-turn can be allowed. It’s very similar to concept to what ST has proposed for 8th Ave NE at the 185 St Shorline North Station.
I would expect that a turn-around won’t be built when Judkins Park Station opens in 2023. The design review process is finished. Instead, I think the neighbors and users will complain and Metro will be frustrated that it can’t turn around any route at the station, regardless of where it’s going. Just like ST and the larger public didn’t fully understand the benefits of center platforms until Central Link opened with mostly side platforms at elevated stations, I think that they will come to realize the mistake of omitting a frontage road that can be a turn-around here. Luckily, the apparent cost of adding it will be much more negligible than fixing a platform.
9th Avenue was the historic route path of the 12 E. Cherry/12 26th Ave. S. routes (equivalent to today’s 3S/4S) from the 1940s-1970s and again during the bus tunnel construction years in the 1980s.
I’d like to see what happens once Yesler Terrace is rebuilt before any major re-routes happen. If YT does become a bustling urban node the 3/4 on Yesler would be very important part of the community’s mobility.
The chronic and almost certainly unfixable delays on James are reason enough to move to Yesler.
The Seattle Times article mentioned some interesting tidbits of information (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/rebuilt-yesler-way-bridge-to-reopen-tuesday-after-16-month-face-lift/).
King County Metro Transit has considered the new Yesler bridge as a future corridor for its Route 3 and 4 electric trolley buses, which are powered by overhead lines. A change to Yesler would get trolley buses off James Street, which is crowded by cars reaching Interstate 5. Some other bus route would be adapted for James.
The new bridge lacks overhead wires, a choice that may require spending for trolley- bus upgrades later. However, the new streetlight poles are engineered so transit equipment can be added to draw power from them, said spokeswoman Mafara Hobson, of the Seattle Department of Transportation.
Bill Bryant, Metro’s director of service development, said Monday the agency will take “one last look” at improving James through lane or signal changes, while studying preliminary design and cost estimates at Yesler, before the county makes a decision.
Also, a scenario in the One Center City plan might move hybrid-diesel buses arriving on Metro’s peak-only West Seattle and Burien routes up Yesler to reach First Hill hospitals, getting them off crowded Third Avenue.
Lots of options there. Metro hasn’t ruled out running the 3/4 on Yesler. If they do, then they will send other buses on James (which ones, I wonder?). But it is also possible they can make some changes so that the 3/4 run faster (on James).
Meanwhile, there might be buses running up Yesler because of the One Center City plan. Would that be a temporary thing, or long term?
There are a lot of possibilities here, none of them strike me as being obviously better.
Three years ago, I proposed laying over the 40 on First Hill, in a new off-street layover to be included as part of the new juvie:
https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2014/04/11/better-connecting-harborview-and-downtown/
Of course, that facility hasn’t yet been built. Still, I think there’s merit in the idea of running north-end routes that currently lay over at the SODO bases up Yesler to a layover on First Hill. A couple of frequent routes, plus the 27, plus (eventually) the 3/4 would be, for many people, a much better connection to First Hill than the streetcar.
Sounds good to me. I had a more radical proposal up above: https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2017/10/12/yesler-way-bridge-reopens-ending-transit-detours/#comment-786149
My proposal involves a lot of hand waving in terms of connecting with the existing system. I would focus all of the existing 3/4 service to the new 4 (which would use Yesler from 3rd to 23rd). But I still have a 3, which would be exactly as you envision it. This begs the question — how do you connect the 3 to the rest of the system? As you point out, that is really no problem. There is an abundance of buses coming from the north, and this will continue to be the case.
If Metro is going to wire Yesler for trolley service I’d like to study moving the 7 to Yesler. The trip times between Rainier & Jackson to downtown would be much faster. If the 106 is going to continue to run on Rainier and Jackson, the 7 could be moved to Yesler and run as a limited stop express (or RR) between downtown and Mt. Baker with the 106 doing the local hauling on Rainier Ave and Jackson St. That would preclude creating the 7/48 connection and would require continuing the 106 north of Mt. Baker (both STB heresies, I know).
I would do the following instead:
1) Run a bus from 3rd and Yesler to MLK and Yesler, then south, to Mount Baker Station. This would run by three Link stations and densely populated areas. It would be fast, frequent and popular. That is what I propose (more or less) above, as the new 4. The routing on my proposal above follows the current tail of the 4, but that could change (although the current tail isn’t the end of the world).
2) Fix Jackson for the 7, as part of the RapidRide project. This is essential, given the benefits. To quote the RapidRide+ rundown (https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/):
The TMP also includes this nugget: “evaluate tradeoffs of converting First Hill Streetcar running way on Jackson Street to center-running transit-only lanes to allow for shared RapidRide/streetcar operations and Japantown, Chinatown, and Little Saigon center-platform stations.” The result would be an impressive 33% travel time savings through the corridor.
Now you have two frequent buses, one on Yesler and one on Jackson. They are close together where it matter most — close to downtown. They diverge as they head east, but the new 4 gives you very good coverage on Yesler, where it is needed most.
I’ve ridden a 1 from one end of downtown to the other on battery power only. You might not need to put wire up just to try a route change.
The black hole on the 7 route is between 3rd & Yesler and Union Station. Center running on Jackson Street would make up some lost time–and it’s a great idea for the other buses on Jackson–but it doesn’t fix what I perceive to be the biggest problem for route 7. Moving to Yesler would fix that problem but it would require some riders to alter their existing patterns.
I’ve always been an advocate for a straighter 4S that connects Mt. Baker with First Hill in order to provide a connection to the hospitals without having to transfer in downtown.
Center running on Jackson Street would make up some lost time–and it’s a great idea for the other buses on Jackson–but it doesn’t fix what I perceive to be the biggest problem for route 7. [between 3rd & Yesler and Union Station]
Keep in mind, the current plan is to add transit lanes the entire way. So that means the section you are talking about would have BAT lanes. My guess is that would eliminate the worst of it, as the problem is not due to lots of cars turning right, but lots of cars trying to head south (or East) out of town.
Center running is actually just a bonus and would be added where it is needed most (where lots of people turn right)..
As far as a turnaround by the Judkins Park station, that is more of an issue for cars, than for buses. It isn’t a dead end, like Northgate. It is more like 145th, or even 130th — there are plenty of destinations from both ends, but not a lot there. It would seem silly to stop a south bound bus at the freeway instead of going to Mount Baker Station. Stopping a north bound bus sounds more reasonable, but the geography doesn’t favor it. Terminating at Mount Baker makes sense because it is where the roads converge. You have three roads to the north, and two to the south (23rd still exists to the south, it just isn’t an arterial). Oh, and there are more people (and a high school) by MBS, while Judkins Park is mainly, well, a park. Mount Baker makes sense as a bus route terminus, but Judkins Park does not.
Keep the Route 27 on Yesler- it’d make an excellent trolley route all the way over to the lake. Steep enough. Also pretty sure we can find a use for the wire on 9th. We diverted there while DSTT was under construction.
But If I either worked at Harborview or was a patient or visitor there, I’d think of the 3 and the 4 as the hospital’s main elevator. With Pioneer Square Station its main lobby.
Seattle is probably second only to San Francisco in route maps that have to be modeled in three dimensions. In the United States, anyhow.
Mark Dublin
And now that I think of it, an escalator from the First Avenue end of the Colman Dock footbridge. South on First, East on Cherry, South on Second, East on Yesler either to Courthouse or following 3-4 wire uphill.
Or, anyhow, pieces of it still hanging from utility poles. Perfect 27 year old (1990+10+17, right?) to Metro’s signature habit. Leaving fortune’s worth or hardware to rust. Check out Waterfront Streetcar remains too. Colman Dock to Harborview.
Just (expletive in the chamber) do it.
Mark
As more and more of the Yesler Terrace development apartments open up, frequent service on Yesler will definitely be welcome. However, my beef with this is that the downhill bike lane ends (in a poor visibility situation for cars and bikes!) just before the bridge over I-5, and then it’s riding in mixed traffic alongside car doors. With stop signs and red lights on a significant downhill grade. Sure, one could take the lane in the downhill part, but on Yesler that means bikes having to stop (stop signs/signals) directly in front or behind cars and busses and quite possibly have to swerve to avoid doors. Yikes! And there’s also that expressway exit ramp–very hectic at peak hours and game days. All to save a few street parking spots on the north side meanwhile there is a garage a block away! Once again, the transit improvements are welcome, but bikes are kind of getting the shaft here.
When people say “So many urbanists don’t have an equity lens”, the 3&4 restructure is a perfect example of how you can prove them wrong.
If Routes 3 and 4 are rerouted to Yesler, I think Route 27 can be moved to Jackson, at least during off-peak. I would renumber the Jackson 27 as 25, and run the Yesler 27 during peak hours. I would then have Routes 14 and 25 each running at 30-minute frequency, providing combined 15-minute frequency on Jackson between 3rd Ave and 31st Ave. 31st Ave S is slightly overserved, while Jackson is underserved, and Leschi needs all-day service, so I would put the frequent corridor on Jackson.