Yesterday, I decided to pick up the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) for some light bedtime reading. Okay fine, it wasn’t bedtime reading, but I did read it! At least portions of it. For those who are uninitiated, the TCQSM is the authority on standards, metrics, and methods used for the evaluation of public transit service. It is published by the Transportation Research Board’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and a common reference for anyone who works in transit in a technical capacity.
I have been thinking a lot about transit recovery in the post-pandemic world. To sum up my previous thoughts:
- The old peak-centric model of relying on the 9-5 five-day workweek is gone
- Transit agencies can’t rely on employer return-to-office mandates and park-and-rides to save them
- The new transit normal will focus more on decentralization but that doesn’t mean less density: stronger commercial and residential neighborhood centers with more corridor growth is warranted
- Service reliability is key and requires reliable operator staffing and fleet availability
Although the first three points are a direct result from the COVID system shock of the past few years, that last one is not really new. The success of good transit has always meant reliable and quality service, attributes that the TCQSM is directly meant to address.
One other concern that has been on the minds of transit riders and advocates alike, albeit a more sensitive one, is the issue of crime, homelessness, and drug use aboard transit. I concede this can trigger a politically-charged debate, but I think there can be a valuable takeaway that all can agree on, especially as we think about service quality a la the TCQSM.
The TCQSM focuses on a litany of service quality measures, primarily focused on operational standards and service availability, like loading, reliability, etc. Buried in the report is also content related to security, appearance, and comfort, areas that have beleaguered transit systems in recent years.
Transit Security
There should be no debate that public transit should be a safe and secure place for all riders. Crime, whether violent or otherwise, has no place on transit, let alone broader society. As it concerns the topic of security, the TCQSM defines it as such:
Security involves the potential for becoming the victim of a crime while using transit. It also covers irritants, such as encountering unruly passengers or having to listen to someone else’s music, that may not be an actual threat but nevertheless makes passengers uneasy that the system’s code of conduct is not being enforced.
In chapter 5, the report references TCRP Report 88 in suggesting three potential measures:
- Onboard crime rate
- Ratio of security officers to transit vehicles
- Prevalence of safety/security devices on vehicles / at stations
As far as I’m aware, King County Metro does not directly report these metrics publicly although some data to this effect is available through the National Transit Database. Metro does have a dashboard for assaults on operators, which tend be rare, and certainly not inclusive of passenger-to-passenger altercations. More rigorous data collection and broader transparency around security measures can help 1) highlight hot spots to inform resource allocation, 2) give the public a chance to make personal decisions about their transit options.
As it concerns proactive solutions, regardless where people might land on policing more broadly, there are three general deterrents for criminal activity onboard transit: the driver/operator, the presence of security personnel and security devices, and the volume of other passengers (in the vein of the Jacobsian principle of “eyes on the street“).
Although fare enforcement is somewhat making its way back, transit operators should be empowered to request fare payment firmly without provoking an altercation. This was generally the policy prior to COVID and should set the minimum standard moving forward. Operators are also able to directly request security or policing resources via radio, but this means that emergency response protocols have to be able to deploy said resources in an expeditious manner. Until that happens, operators should have latitude to act with discretion so they can protect themselves and passengers as needed.
The presence of security and law enforcement officers can provide a deterrent, but these personnel are more likely to be seen on Link or RapidRide routes. I personally have never witnessed officers riding other fixed routes, but this may obviously be subarea-dependent. As the Seattle Times reported last year, Sound Transit has beefed up unarmed security but armed police officers, who are supplied through the King County Sheriff’s Office, are still well below desired staffing levels.
The TCQSM also speaks to “irritants” or factors that may not present an actual bodily harm, but are nuisances that can make a transit trip unpleasant. This is a gray area because there is no well-tested quantitative measure that can capture the pervasiveness of such irritants. Flagrant offenses, like smoking or using drugs onboard, may violate the passenger code of conduct and can be logged. But other things, like the hygiene of other passengers, are subjective and difficult to track, let alone report.
Passenger Environment
Tracking complaints is also a recommended measure of service quality. Per Metro’s own dashboard, complaints per million boardings have spiked since COVID began. Part of this is the result of the ridership decimation that happened after the pandemic. But I would surmise that complaints simply serve as a good inverse proxy for service quality. The riders that have stuck to transit are the ones who have more intimately experienced its many issues firsthand in recent times.
Beyond tracking complaint volume, the TCQSM also emphasizes the need for agencies to conduct passenger environment surveys, which can ask riders to rate different attributes numerically. This gives insight into why complaints may spike or drop. Based on TCRP Report 47, such surveys can ask about presence of graffiti, presence of offensive odors, cleanliness of vehicles and stations, perceived safety from crime, and more.
Both Metro and Sound Transit will conduct rider surveys on a regular basis, and the greater frequency with which this is happening is commendable. From both Sound Transit’s Summer 2022 Passenger Experience Survey and Metro’s 2021 Rider and Non-Rider Survey, safety, comfort, and cleanliness were all major themes from survey respondents.
In addition to the regular inflow of online comment forms, one other data source transit agencies might consider is the vast array of social media comments and messages. Advanced off-the-shelf machine learning and natural language processing tools now exist to process these datapoints at scale, to both detect sentiment and extract themes.
Proactive solutions to improve the passenger environment and experience are known, but difficult to improve upon. Take cleanliness, for example. Transit vehicles are regularly deep-cleaned and operators are supposed to sweep vehicles for litter after each trip. But problem spots can be missed or ignored, particularly at stops and stations where graffiti and litter are more prevalent. In these cases, a streamlined reporting method (via text, app, or QR code) should be built so that the right personnel can respond right away. Air travelers who frequent SEA will be familiar with a good model of this: bathroom placards with simple messaging on how flyers can call the attention of custodial staff right away.
Concluding Thoughts
I have had more than one acquaintance tell me they stopped riding transit because of perceived safety and comfort issues. It’s easy to be hand-wavy with these types of concerns, but they are legitimate issues that create barriers to getting people back on transit. As agencies continue to focus on maintaining service reliability in the short-term and right-sizing service in the long-term, it’s imperative that the passenger experience also remains a focal point of transit recovery.
While I was still in-progress with this piece, I had the chance to skim coverage of Wednesday’s Regional Transit Committee’s meeting, as covered by Ryan Packer at The Urbanist. There was some additional attention on Seattle city councilmember Rob Saka’s particular emphasis on cleanliness as a requisite for transit expansion.
I don’t think we need to risk getting sucked into a false dichotomy here. A clean and safe passenger environment is important to transit growth as is laying track and expanding service hours. Both can be true. At the same time, it’s a virtuous thing to acknowledge the great strides that have been made to improve the passenger experience since the pandemic started. Although we’re not there yet, we’re certainly headed in the right direction. It only behooves us to keep up that momentum.
Is there much evidence that crime on transit matters? Or rather, how much it matters? I’m sure it is a factor, but I would guess it is a fairly small one. Anecdotally, the bus routes that have done the best around here are not in areas known for low-crime. If anything it is the opposite (Aurora, Pacific Highway South, Rainier Valley). I think cleanliness and crime (or more importantly, the perception of crime) are important, but they are like bus stops. It really isn’t an issue unless it is really bad (e. g. you have no place to sit down). Really nice bus stops are worthy in their own right, but has a small influence as to whether someone will ride transit or not. To quote Jarrett Walker: Those things can help, but only if the service is useful.
I would say the biggest weakness in our system right now is that it isn’t especially useful. Link works, but only for a small subset of trips. Trip reliability is way down. Traffic has increased, and a lot of buses are stuck in it. Bus frequency has gotten much worse in many cases (in part because of the driver shortage, but because of funding issues as well). We certainly don’t want things to get worse (and my understanding is that they aren’t) but I think the most important thing (by far) is to focus on the basics (density, linearity, walkability, proximity, reliability).
> Is there much evidence that crime on transit matters? Or rather, how much it matters? I’m sure it is a factor, but I would guess it is a fairly small one.
I’m not sure how to quantify it, but it is definitely at least a moderate factor — I wouldn’t count it above density though.
> If anything it is the opposite (Aurora, Pacific Highway South, Rainier Valley)
It’s alright, but personally sometimes I’ll opt to take the late 8 rather than the 7 even though the latter is faster just since the 7 has more trouble.
Other friends on north beacon hill, while the 36 is quick to chinatown, has too much trouble so they’d opt to walk 15 minutes to the link station even though the overall travel time is slower, almost double.
Of course I’m not sure of any easy fixes. There has generally been more metro fare enforcement officers recently so I guess that’s helped it slightly.
I’m not sure how to quantify it, but it is definitely at least a moderate factor
But what evidence is there? In contrast, there are lots of studies showing that frequency, speed and density are important. Same is true of linearity (with routes). It is quite possible it is a factor, but a very tiny one compared to factors that have been proven to be important. With all the talk about Link being unsafe, ridership actually went up since before the pandemic. That is because it went to more places. Safety and nuisance crime gets way too much press relative to its importance.
> But what evidence is there? In contrast, there are lots of studies showing that frequency, speed and density are important.
I’m not sure about the other routes, but at least for rapidride R there’s some survey data. Note this is from active bus riders. If it is so unsafe that they don’t use it at all it’s unlikely they’d be in this survey, but still I feel a useful place to ground the discussion.
From the pdf:
About half of the survey respondents who ride the Route 7 (53 percent) were satisfied with the overall service on Route 7.
* Some people suggested that Metro and SDOT could improve safety by prioritizing bus and/or pedestrian traffic flow over single-occupancy vehicles
* Many respondents shared they do not take the Route 7 at night because they feel unsafe. Some noted better lighting would help them feel safer at night.
* Many survey respondents also expressed concerns about personal safety while walking to and waiting for the bus. Some of these people said they choose ridesharing services (e.g., Lyft, Uber) because they do not feel safe using the bus.
Almost half of survey respondents (42 percent) experience a barrier to accessing transit
or using the Route 7 bus.
1) Respondents’ most common barrier to taking the Route 7 (22 percent) was how long it takes to get to their destination. Many riders who said the time it takes to reach their destination was not a barrier were still dissatisfied with how long it takes to get to places on the Route 7 bus (40 percent).
2) The second-most common barrier to taking the Route 7 was how often the bus comes. Some Route 7 riders (16 percent) identified this as a barrier. Many riders who did not experience timeliness as a barrier were still dissatisfied with bus frequency (42 percent).
3) The third-most common barriers to taking the Route 7 were safety while waiting for the bus and safety on the bus. Some Route 7 riders (14 percent) identified these factors as barriers. About a quarter (25 percent) of riders who did not experience safety as a barrier were still dissatisfied with how safe they feel on the Route 7 bus.
https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs-projects/rapidride/r-line-phase-1-engagement-summary.pdf
I will highlight though, that there seemed to be as much safety concerns over being run over by a car trying to access to bus stop than crime.
> respondents also suggested pedestrian infrastructure improvements such as increasing crosswalk timing or installing curb bulbs for pedestrians to have enough time to cross the street while remaining visible to motorists.
I’ve mentioned this several times, but the thick tree canopy on Rainier Ave blocks streetlights from reaching the sidewalk or crosswalk in various places. Plus the thick trunks block visibility of people preparing to cross the street.
As far as the Rainier RapidRide plans go, I’ll be interested to see if opening Judkins Park changes things. Taking into account the extra time to get across Rainier at Mt Baker, I could see northbound riders staying on until Judkins Park. That’s not an issue heading southbound at Mt Baker.
I could see northbound riders staying on until Judkins Park.
To the extend that people transfer, yes. It is unpleasant, but the transfer at Mount Baker Station is difficult. I see several trip combinations and only one of them make sense with the main line:
1) Rainier Valley to East Side (and reverse) — Transfer at Judkins
2) Rainier Valley to Downtown — Either take the 7 or the main Link line the whole way.
3) Rainier Valley to Capitol Hill — Transfer at Judkins or walk and take Link. Could also transfer to the 60 if both the 7 and 60 were faster.
4) Rainier Valley to UW — 7 + 48, 48 alone, 7 + Link at Judkins.
5) Rainier Valley to Beacon Hill. Either take Link the whole way or transfer at Mount Baker.
I will highlight though, that there seemed to be as much safety concerns over being run over by a car trying to access to bus stop than crime.
Yes, this is part of what Walker mentioned when it comes to an area being “walkable”. If you can’t cross the street without getting run over, it isn’t very walkable. Fortunately, the city is working on it. Like so many things in the city, it will take some time though.
WL: It is very interesting that the greater danger of traffic violence versus other crimes is coming out in a survey of, more or less, the general public. Not STB readers. Not pedestrian advocates. Just regular bus riders. In a neighborhood that is often considered as high crime. Food for thought!
One major incoming fix is that the mlk way / rainier ave intersection is getting the two missing crosswalks on the south side.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/BikeProgram/MLK_PBL/06_MLK_Rainier_Diagram.pdf
> To the extend that people transfer, yes. It is unpleasant, but the transfer at Mount Baker Station is difficult. I see several trip combinations and only one of them make sense with the main line:
I generally agree with you, but I think you’re overstating the judkins park advantages. it just partially depends on what frequency the east link gets. Secondly while judkins park station north bound is easier to reach than mt baker not needing to cross the street; it is also farther away the platform. if you look on google maps the station isn’t next to rainier but actually more on the 23rd avenue side.
It’s not “that” far away, but if one was complaining about the walk from mount baker transit center to the mount baker link station — the judkins park one is a bit longer not shorter.
it just partially depends on what frequency the east link gets
It should be the same as the main line.
Secondly while judkins park station north bound is easier to reach than mt baker not needing to cross the street; it is also farther away the platform.
Good point. But I think the edge still goes to Judkins Park. It will save about five minutes on the train, but the main thing is you don’t have cross the street. It is the up and down thing that makes going northbound irritating. You have to go up and over, then walk a ways and then back up again. (If and when SDOT fixes that intersection could make a difference.) It isn’t as bad the other direction, but that brings up something I forgot to add: going the other direction it may come down to which train arrives first. You could wait another five minutes for the other train, but I doubt it.
Just to be clear: I don’t think there will be *more* transfers to Link. The folks who tend to stay on the bus (or transfer to a different bus) will continue to do so. I just think people who do transfer (from say, Rainier Valley to Northgate) will transfer at Judkins instead of Mount Baker Station (or CID).
Al S: definitely. SDOT and Metro should reconsider the network with Judkins Link. Link should carry most of the radial load. The trolley bus routes provide different connections. This network consideration should come before any letter with the FTA and branding. The electric trolleybus overhead on South Henderson Street will greatly improve Link connectivity. At Judkins station, the connection with 23rd Avenue South is much better than that with Rainier Avenue South (closer and less grade difference). Route 7 = R Line is not optimal.
@Ross
I also kinda meant like I (and I assume others) will probably just transfer at CID since it has double the frequency. The travel time on rainier with the 7 is about the same time from mt baker to cid off peak most of the time. If you’re on the 7 bus at Judkins park it’s pretty close reaching cid already.
And if one is just a couple bus stops away from Judkins park station probably just walk there.
Eddiew: I’ve suggested several times that the Mt Baker Transit Center should be moved to the space inside the freeway loop ramp next to Judkins Park, redesigned to also drop off and pick up Link riders. Then a second layover spot can be created near Rainier Beach or Othello.
Mt Baker TC would then make a great spot for a TOD.
Of course, the ultimate value is how the layover accommodates different bus routes. Moving the TC would lead to a profound structural change to the bus network. I’m not going to play master fantasy route planner — but it would be interesting to see what Metro would propose. In particular, I feel that Judkins Park should have better direct access to First Hill and Capitol Hill than just the few bus trips that make this connection today. It would even make a good terminal for an extended and reconfigured north-south “crosstown” FHSC to Capitol Hill Link, and the east-west Jackson St part of the FHSC being extended into the CD or Cherry Hill.
It’s not talked about, but it’s not convenient to end a bus route at Judkins Park today because there are no good streets for buses to turn around. If Judkins Park is designated as a layover end point for any temporary service across I-90, that could change.
I’ve suggested several times that the Mt Baker Transit Center should be moved to the space inside the freeway loop ramp next to Judkins Park.
Except then the transfer between the 48 and 8 would be a lot more difficult. Right now they have a same-stop transfer (the ideal transfer). I’m not sure what you have in mind, but I know it would be worse. It would also mean that the 48 wouldn’t connect with the other Link Line. Beacon Hill to the Central District would require going downtown first, and probably taking a less frequent (or much slower) bus.
The existing transit center is where the buses converge. It is in a good location — it is just a shame that Link doesn’t connect to it better.
@Ross:
Why will someone even want to transfer between Routes 8 and 48 at Mt Baker TC? It’s the southern terminus of both routes and they are only a few blocks apart until John St much further north. They also overlap between Yesler and Jackson today, and will overlap between Yesler and Massachusetts when Judkins Park Station opens. I doubt any more than a few people make that transfer at MBTC today, and it may actually be zero.
The bigger bus transfers there are between routes from the north to the two routes that go south from there — Routes 7 and 106. Those routes don’t use the transit center. And the southbound transfer from Route 48 is easier and faster at the same 47/7/106 Bayview stop or the 23rd stop on Rainier than at MBTC (after Route 48 buses make a left and two rights to enter the TC).
I guess one could include Route 14 as a concern but few riders are on Route 14 anywhere south of the top of the I-90 tunnel.
And there is no bus service east of the station up McClellan to Beacon Hill.
The Rainier Ave commercial and activity district runs from 23rd to Columbia City. Because only Route 7 goes further south than MLK, there are many destinations from Safeway and TJ Maxx to Walgreens to the Rainier Medical Clinic that require a transfer to reach (at least a half mile walk from Mt Baker Transit Center) for anyone on Routes 14, 8 and 48.
Before Metro assigned Route 106 to shadow Link on the MLK segment, alternatively Route 8 and 48 served that segment. That went away about a decade ago. In the past, it was an important transfer — but not today.
Admittedly, Metro needs places that have driver break layover points with restrooms. And admittedly moving the transit center would require route restructuring. That’s why I put it out there merely as an idea to explore.
Finally, Mt Baker Link does not appear to gain a huge ridership boost from bus transfers even today. It generates fewer boardings than Beacon Hill and an Othello do on an average weekday. (Of course, ST never gives info on how riders get to a station.)
To be clear, I wouldn’t be opposed to moving the transit center to be west of Rainier and next to Link. Only Routes 48 and 8 end there these days and those driver break spots could be placed right under the Link station platforms. (Route 14 needs to be reconsidered too, but that opens a whole other logistical discussion.) Bluntly put, MBTC is a relic from a prior era.
The perception of crime is significant. My niece undergoes the annoying drive from her Bellevue home to her University District job instead of transit because “the bus is too sketchy”. She might be overstating it, but given society nowadays I can’t blame a woman in her 20s for being overly careful about personal safety.
And I keep seeing those horror stories about unsavory characters on busses and drug being traded and used on Link. Again, those may be exaggerations, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those stories germinated from actual events. Perceptions matter more than reality, in many cases.
I do think it’s perception more than reality in many cases, but how can we counter this perception? I ride Link regularly, often getting out at Pioneer Square. This is a station that often indisputably has issues with cleanliness (especially urine in the elevators) due to nearby homeless shelters, lack of public restrooms, and poor people hanging out in the vicinity.
When I’m on the train it’s usually 99% people just trying to get from Point A to Point B, and 1% (likely poor/homeless) taking a nap in the back seat but otherwise not bothering anybody. I don’t feel any safety concerns when I’m on the vehicle itself. And yet, I’ve had conversations with folks who are convinced that people are openly smoking illegal drugs on trains a fairly high percentage of the time, and transit is too unsafe to use for people who have any other option.
It’s like we live in two separate worlds. I don’t perceive any real danger at all on transit trains or buses anywhere in Seattle. I feel much more endangered on the bike ride from my affluent neighborhood to Roosevelt Station than I feel in or around any transit vehicle.
@ Michael Ligot,
The perception of crime on the buses is a real problem, and it has measurable impacts on bus use in Seattle.
My wife works downtown and currently works a hybrid schedule. Normally she works 2 days per week in the office and 3 at home. One of those days I drive her to work and she takes transit home, so normally she makes 3 trips per week on transit for work.
During the recent Link single tracking one of her options for coming home was to take RR E and then transfer to a different bus for the final leg. When her boss heard that she was contemplating riding RR E they forbid her from taking it in the evening because of crime and their concern for her safety. Instead they had her increase her WFH to 4 days per week.
So her transit use for work during Link single tracking went from 3 trips per week to 1 trips per week — a 67% reduction in transit use.
And again, crime is just one of several factors that produce rail bias, and some of those factors are much less subjective.
crime is just one of several factors that produce rail bias
Wait, what??? If you were ask someone for an example of a scary transit system, they would probably mention the New York City Subway. Of course that information is outdated, but it was famously known — throughout the country — for being dangerous. Since the pandemic you can find various cases of people afraid to ride Link. One of the reasons folks want fare gates is because they feel it will make things safer (which is nonsense when you think about it, but people feel that is the reasoning). I think a lot of it is BS, but the idea that rail is somehow immune to crime — or more importantly the perception of crime — is ridiculous.
I do think it’s perception more than reality in many cases, but how can we counter this perception?
That is the million dollar question, isn’t it.
I think it is worth noting: This was not a major problem before the pandemic. Crime rose across the board during the pandemic (despite having a law-and-order president). Just about every type of crime saw an increase, from sea to shining sea. At the same time, we also had the George Floyd murder, and suddenly a lot of white people — I mean a LOT of white people — suddenly understood why Colin Kaepernick took a knee. Just like the Civil Rights movement, it took a long time (and people dying) before a lot of white people figured out that there was a problem. As a result, many cities (including this one) talked reform, and “defunding police”. Few actually replaced their police department though. I believe Camden was the only one. It was highly successful, but no one followed their lead. Some cities cut back on policing, but most of the cuts were minor. In the case of Seattle, the cuts were the result of police leaving. But the perception was clear: crime had gotten worse because the city council had defunded the police. Suddenly the root of the problem had shifted. Instead of the cause being a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic, it was a matter of an extremely left wing city council encouraging criminals to run amuck while they indoctrinate the young in critical race theory. Of course it is all BS. But perceptions matter.
At the same time, we are in the middle of yet another wave of addiction. Back in the day it was alcohol; more recently we’ve had (crack) cocaine, then meth, now it is opiates. As pharmacies have cracked down on opiates, the junkies have moved towards Fentanyl. This tends to be smoked (rather than ingested) which means the use is far more visible and annoying (especially in a closed space). Like graffiti, it is seen as a sign that things are out of control (even though everything else may be exactly the same).
Then of course, there is the local homelessness situation. The evidence is clear: it is caused by the high price of housing. But again, this is seen as some sort of overly liberal city council allowing people to camp out anywhere. This is ironic because the policy makers have been way too conservative when it comes to regulation reform.
I really don’t see a quick way out of it. The mayor has asked for “Space Needle thinking” when it comes to revitalizing downtown, but then he calls for basically an austerity budget. The opioid crisis will likely peak and then slowly wane, but persist in smaller numbers (like every other addiction). It is a public health problem, not a policing problem (although not enough people see it that way). We may make progress on zoning reform and other measures to spur the construction of housing in the city, but it will likely take years before we see prices drop substantially. As far as crime goes, things have slowly gotten better, and so has the perception of crime. Areas that were considered a mess not too long ago are considered “OK”. I think everyone hoped (and many assumed, like me) that the pandemic would be over as quickly as it started. Unfortunately it still has lingering effects that will probably take a while to remedy.
As far as transit is concerned it is always good to make an effort, both because it is worthwhile and it changes the perception of the situation. But the most important thing when it comes to transit is to focus on the fundamentals. For example, imagine we take one of two paths:
1) Improve security and cleanliness on transit. Basically get to the point where it looks like Singapore.
2) Improve the transit system so that it looks like Vancouver.
The first would lead to a tiny increase in transit ridership, while the second would lead to a dramatic increase. Furthermore, the second would reduce crime (and the sense that things are dangerous) for the reason the author mentioned. The first priority when it comes to transit should be to improve the way it operates — we have a lot of work to do.
“When her boss heard that she was contemplating riding RR E they forbid her from taking it in the evening because of crime and their concern for her safety”
Seems kinda disrespectful to a lot of women who ride the bus everyday without issue. Like I get Aurora has a reputation because of being the street for prostitution and sketchy motels in the Seattle section or being “the line for poor people”. But I also know tens of thousands of people ride along that corridor every week without issue. Alongside, from my experience bus riding most people just mind their own business and don’t want to get involved in other’s personal business or do anything to get themselves in trouble.
And before someone says “well aren’t you being dismissive of women’s feelings.” I’m not really tbh. I know plenty of women who ride and are confident in riding it and can take care of themselves alongside other woman who’ve personally decided they won’t ride for safety reasons and I totally respect it. I just get annoyed at people trying to coddle and infantilize women as if they’re weak and incapable of taking care of themselves on transit even though I know who are very capable of taking care of themselves and their safety.
> Wait, what??? If you were ask someone for an example of a scary transit system, they would probably mention the New York City Subway.
I think people also forget that many used to fear elevated rail partly from the views blocked; but also from the negative stigma from Chicago L.
> And yet, I’ve had conversations with folks who are convinced that people are openly smoking illegal drugs on trains a fairly high percentage of the time
It was definitely a bit worse during the pandemic when there were a lot less commuters.
> It’s like we live in two separate worlds. I don’t perceive any real danger at all on transit trains or buses anywhere in Seattle.
It can be true, but it honestly depends more on the routes you take than whether it is bus or rail.
For instance even with Seattle Link, if one lived in Tukwila (TIBS) and took it to an office job next to Pioneer Square, you’d have high crime rates at both station locations and probably have the impression that it’s unsafe. At the last rider and operational meeting Sound Transit was thinking about ways to deter crime at TIBS. If you don’t get off at TIBS then you might not know about this issue.
Anyways, I’d say the ‘rail’ bias is partially real but a bit misplaced and has nothing to do with the rail. Most likely what Americans are thinking about is really “office worker commuter” bias where the route is heavily office commuters only. Typically the tickets cost more and the fare enforcers are stricter compared to an urban system.
For example in Chicago as Ross noted Metra the commuter rail line was ‘safe’ compared to the L. Even in SF it’s caltrain which is ‘safer’ than BART, and they are both on rail.
It’s the same with buses. For oakland commuters some even prefer the transbay busses over BART since perceived as safer.
@zach b
> “When her boss heard that she was contemplating riding RR E they forbid her from taking it in the evening because of crime and their concern for her safety”
Unfortunately their boss is correct that the rapidride E is one of the highest crime bus routes.
While these stats are from 2016 and are not quite normalized for each bus trip, Rapidride E had the highest number of ‘passenger disturbances’ and the only other route with ‘passenger assaults’ besides Rapidride A.
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/investigation-reveals-metro-bus-assaults-plan-to-improve-safety/302622739/
Unfortunately during the pandemic and up to last year it was especially worse since there were a lot fewer commuters on the bus routes as well. It’s gotten a bit better, though I haven’t used specifically rapidride E in sometime.
If it was say the 550, I don’t think they’d have such worries.
@Zach B,
“ Seems kinda disrespectful to a lot of women who ride the bus everyday without issue”
Not disrespectful at all. My wife and her company have a unique relationship that goes back over 2 decades now. She is very thankful for what her company has done for her, and she knows that the company cares for her beyond just her being an employee.
Plus, my wife was already concerned about taking RR E in the evening. She has taken it before, and now prefers to avoid it. Particularly after dark.
And she viewed the offer to work from home an extra day as a bonus. Even if nothing happened on RR E, it still wouldn’t be as fast nor as reliable as her current Link plus bus commute.
So she was happy at the outcome.
Someone’s boss “forbidding” them to ride the E Line seems… pretty wildly disrespectful and inappropriate to me.
I don’t know what time of day we’re talking about here, but if this is northbound during the evening rush-hour, the E Line’s vibe is as sedate as any other bus heading north out of downtown that time of day. Even later in the evening… I took several different routes heading north out of downtown after 10 PM pretty regularly at the height of concerns about behavior on transit. From that experience I don’t think the E Line is any worse than the D Line at night — I could understand someone feeling unsafe on either route after 10 on some trips but anyone that’s OK with the D isn’t going to see anything worse on the E. Many other routes feel “nicer” at night but it’s hard to compare because they’re mostly empty (i.e. less likely to be actually useful). I should say I had a lot of good experienced and interactions on the D and E Lines during that time, including/especially when my arm was in a sling, but of course there’s a lot of stuff I don’t have to deal with as a man, even when I do have an
“I do think it’s perception more than reality in many cases, but how can we counter this perception?”
Fix the misinformation in the media. Rainier Valley got safer in the late 1990s, yet even in the 2010s and 2020s many people are afraid to live there or go there thinking they’ll get killed in a drive-by shooting. Some aspects of the perception won’t be changed no matter what transit does or the city does.
I have felt unsafe in only two cities: London and Moscow. And in Moscow I told myself, “It’s just family people going home from work; they only look menacing because the culture is unfamiliar.” I have never felt unsafe in New York, LA, Chicago, or Seattle.
Still, we should take some steps to boost the perception of safety, at least back to 2019 levels. And the elevators and graffiti need to be cleaned more, because those are concrete problems that shouldn’t exist and that people are naturally discouraged about. I don’t know how you keep fentanyl smoking out of the elevators (I’ve smelled it a few times), but it should be done. As for people sleeping on trains/buses, we should give them decent places to sleep, and at least get them off the trains. But we need to distinguish from a real likelyhood of them being violent, vs a false overhyped impression of it.
“Someone’s boss “forbidding” them to ride the E Line seems… pretty wildly disrespectful and inappropriate to me.”
You should hear about the Wall Street companies that forbid their employees from commuting by transit during covid. They didn’t get the message that transit hasn’t been a superspreader: they just had a knee-jerk reaction to transit.
“Rapidride E had the highest number of ‘passenger disturbances’ and the only other route with ‘passenger assaults’ besides Rapidride A.”
Less than 1% of passengers were assaulted, but people talk like it’s over 50%. Tens of thousands of law-abiding people live within walking distance of the E and the Aurora motels, and a significant portion of them ride the E, and are either never impacted or like once in a decade, beyond somebody shouting several rows away from them.
“if this is northbound during the evening rush-hour, the E Line’s vibe is as sedate as any other bus heading north out of downtown that time of day.”
The problems are usually not when tons of commuters are traveling. The commuters provide “eyes on the street” that deter it. The issues are more off-peak. Or at downtown bus stops, now that you don’t have a hundred commuters waiting at them.
@WL,
“Rapidride E had the highest number of ‘passenger disturbances’ and the only other route with ‘passenger assaults’ besides Rapidride A.”
I believe you are correct about the assaults on RR E. There are problems on that route. Her employer was correct about that.
Additionally, my wife is never armed. And she isn’t very good in “fight or flight” type situations. So it’s best not to put her in harms way.
She could have told her boss that she was going to ride the E anyhow, but when her boss instead suggested an extra day per week of WFH she jumped on the opportunity. Most people would.
However, her homeward commute on LR wasn’t that bad during single tracking, so the whole subject was sort of moot. But, of course, she kept the extra day of WFH anyhow. She’s not dumb.
My partner and I have been riding the E since it was the 358, and have never seen anything worse than a bit of yelling, or very rarely a baggie and money exchanging hands. We’ve ridden it before sunrise and well after sunset, and have always felt safe. In fact, the only problems we’ve had are getting to the bus stops safely → on more than one occasion we’ve almost been hit by reckless or inattentive drivers. If we’re going to focus efforts on safety, let’s focus it on an activity that we know has severe consequences for society at large, as driving killed almost 45,000 people last year (over 700 in WA state alone), almost as much as COVID, and with no possible vaccine.
Thank you to everyone who defended transit’s safety record. You are correct; it’s overall quite safe. However, the Sinclair Broadcasting System, which owns two of Seattle’s broadcast stations, begs to differ. Sinclair is a strong proponent of “If it Bleeds, It Leads”. In fact it is such a strong proponent that it “MBSU” all the time when there’s a dearth of real blood, and transit is one of its favorite hobbyhorses. It checks so many boxes favored by its viewership: Desperate Po’ Folks, the N-Word, Radical Hippies, and of course Snotty Environmentalists.
[The reader is left the conundrum of decoding the acronym, but here are two hints: the “S” is indeed “the S-word” and the “M” stands for the English third person singular translation of “hacer”. Happy hunting!].
please use incident per revenue hour and not incident per route.
> please use incident per revenue hour and not incident per route.
Unfortunately I couldn’t find any in depth data beyond this one news article. If one is able to find a link/document that provides security incidents by route in detail that’d be great
What affects passengers is routes and bus stops, so that they can avoid the worst hotspots or at least estimate the risk. For decades disruptive misbehavior has been the most prevalent in south Rainier Valley (south of Columbia City) and along Aurora, regardless of how the routes have been restructured over time. Identifying the current routes that go through these areas is the most useful way to identify areas where passengers may have problems.
Incidents per service hour sounds like an internal Metro accounting thing. Passengers don’t even know how Metro distributes service hours or how incidents correlate to them or what that even means. So people should avoid RapidRide/frequent routes, or coverage routes, because they have the most/least service hours?
The total number of incidents to service hours is probably tiny, for the same reason that thousands of airplanes fly every day but only one occasionally crashes. But what people need to know is where bus misbehavior is highest, and it’s not spread evenly.
RossB: perhaps, as real time schedule information, from either signage or smart phone apps, help reduce the anxiety of waiting, the presence of security or POP fare inspectors helps reduce the anxiety of security issues.
I could see that. But I think it is also interesting that when it came to transitioning the 7 to RapidRide (which I very much support) the local community was more concerned about heavy-handed fare enforcement than the benefits of additional policing. In other words, one of the reasons they wanted to keep the 7 the same was because they did *not* want additional security.
Very nice piece by Sherwin.
Reliability has several margins. The key today is matching the attempted network to the number of operators on staff; Transit took a few years to see that they were overly optimistic. The usual margin is meeting schedules or headway in the provision of service. A key issue is attempting to operate transit through known congestion; one tactic is to not use pathways with known congestion; agencies can also improve the pathways; sometimes that is difficult and traffic overwhelms the improvements; sometimes it only during part of the service day. See Route 8 on Denny Way. (See also routes 3, 4, 193, 303 on James Street; routes 20 and 31-32 were added to NE 45th Street).
Security is important. With improved security, passengers and operators are more likely to be retained. That is also important at bus stops and stations; societal issues have spilled over to that realm; consider Little Saigon, 3rd Avenue and Pike and Pine streets.
Speed of service is important. A key to that is priority through traffic. Link is the service spine; it will perform best when it is frequent and has short headways and waits. (IMO, ST spends far too little on service, Link and bus).
Faster fare collection through all-door boarding and alighting and proof-of-payment has been the best improvement for RapidRide lines. POP inspection probably helps on several margins: speed, security, operator safety and retention, ridership. SF Muni and many networks in Europe apply it widely.
Capacity is less important. It does not attract riders, but the lack of capacity will repel riders. (Consider the E Line in 2018, or the I-90 peak routes in 2013).
Network and route design is important in addressing both speed and reliability; signal priority can only save seconds of travel time. Over time, routes have been taken from the I-5 general-purpose lanes. I wonder about current planning decisions; full freeway interchanges tend to attract heavy traffic congestion. Yet, ST placed the South Shoreline station next to one and Stride3 and conceptual Metro routes are to be placed there (e.g., routes 72, 333, 365; Route 333 will also use NE 175th Street). In East Link Connections, conceptual routes 111 and 256 are to go through congested interchanges.
The troubling trend was visible before Covid; the whole I-5 South peak-only network was in decline with increased running times, degraded reliability, and lower ridership. Several routes are scheduled to weave on and off I-5 and battle congestion (e.g., routes 574, 190, 193, 197).
Cleanliness is important to retain riders. I note a decline is cleaning and maintenance after ST took over the DSTT. Societal issues spill over into bus stops, buses, and public spaces.
The network will be reset. The pace of the reset seems too slow. Ridership on the one-way peak-only routes oriented to downtown office work fell the most with Covid and recovered the least. Many such routes are suspended and should not return even with more operators.
See Route 8 on Denny Way.
Yeah, that is why there is a movement to make the 8 faster. https://fixthel8.com/
The southwest escalator at Capitol Hill station has graffiti on every step riser, and the escalator walls have remnants of removed graffiti. It feels like New York in the 70s. It’s so unpleasant aesthetically that it makes me not want to use this entrance. I’m really angry at the graffiti “artists” who deface the city. It’s an example of society breakdown that people don’t care about each other and there’s insufficient social deterrent against graffiti.
At Roosevelt station on the same day, I noticed that the wall behind the southbound platform, which is a thin metal art installation, has white streaks on it, and on the concrete below is what looks like white foam. At first I thought it was leaking water and bird poop. (Leaks are another thing that shouldn’t happen but do.) But after seeing the Capitol Hill escalator, I wonder if the white streaks were due to graffiti removal.
Reactions to graffiti are largely based on our own perception of it. In Argentina it is accepted as part of the national culture (a remnant of the resistance to fascism). It America we often think it is synonymous with decay. I don’t like it when people deface art (whether by graffiti or some other means) but graffiti on boring cement walls is usually an improvement (to my eyes anyway).
I understand what you are saying, although I prefer more of a Singapore approach.
Has Seattle/Metro/Sound Transit considered laser cleaning for graffiti removal? It works on steel, wood, masonry and other surfaces, and it’s less messy than sandblasting or pressure washing. https://youtu.be/FoHCTW6dCyg?si=9Ae8ty9CYpuwLfiP
“graffiti on boring cement walls is usually an improvement”
It’s one person unilaterally deciding what decoration should be on a piece of public infrastructure that everyone paid for. It’s usually in contemporary graffiti syle, which as you said is in the eye of the beholder, but the taxpayers who have to look at the graffiti didn’t consent to it. And often it’s gang initials, which are significant only to one gang.
I guess one unfortunate trend side-effect is king county metro is removing some of the bus stop benches/shelters from the most problematic ones.
For example recently at S Jackson and 23rd bus stop. https://southseattleemerald.com/2023/10/23/residents-and-businesses-call-for-action-from-city-officials-and-corporations-to-improve-conditions-at-23rd-and-jackson/
Also the one at the Broadway Ave (Qfc i think?) just last month.
And last year the 12th Avenue South between South Jackson Street shelter was removed as well.
This is why we can’t have nice things. Metro removes benches and shelters to keep homeless people from using them, but then passengers have no place to sit if they’re tired.
Exactly. When benches are removed, it is certain they will not be available for the waiting little old lady with groceries; the bad actors may move along to another spot or only use the shelter intermediately.
Fyi sound transit has monthly rider and operations meetings. Page 4 lists the complaints by subcategories.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Report%20-%20REO%20Metrics%20Monthly%20Performance%20Report%20November%202023%202-1-24.pdf#page=4
Page 9 has security concerns by month
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Report%20-%20REO%20Metrics%20Monthly%20Performance%20Report%20November%202023%202-1-24.pdf
I think it needs to be stressed that rider experience varies by the demographics of the rider. The overall mobility is to me the biggest variant, but crime concerns vary by other demographics too. And of course the amount of “extras” that someone is carrying (luggage, stroller, bicycle) matters too.
There is a tendency to read about an idea and assess whether we personally are affected or benefited. Being able to step back and understand how things may work differently for others is something that is needed with every transit investment, especially when it’s a capital project with impacts that last for decades..
There is a real tendency at our agencies to think mostly about how people get in and out of transit vehicles — whether bus or rail — yet give little attention to other parts of the trip including the effort to simply transfer from one vehicle to another. It’s that negligence that gives us too few escalators in stations, crazy transfer journeys with the current preferred DSTT2 alternative, and route restructures that create transfers by crossing two busy high speed roads.
Having said that, it’s often forced on our transit operators to be the lead agency and funding source to improve access around the different lines, when the responsibility should also rest on local governments. In recent times, I’m seeing too many transit dollars go to update non-transit elements like underground utilities or add elements like bicycle tracks or pedestrian crossings. I’m not attacking the merits of those supplemental projects, but I am attacking the local government tendency to expect transit capital dollars to be the main funding source and project sponsor.
The most extreme example is how we expect a transit agency to design and fund a freeway over-crossing first, and a local government second — but rarely do we expect that over-crossing to be funded by WSDOT, who created the access barrier in the first place!
One of the conclusions that one might gather from this post is something that I have been saying for years now — that “rail bias” is both real and rational, and that it results from both tangible and subjective factors that are easily understood.
The tangible factors are easy. Rail tends to be faster, more reliable, and almost always more frequent. These three attributes align exactly with 3 of Jarrett Walker’s key criteria for a successful transit system, and explain a lot of why “rail bias” exists, and why rail bias is also rational.
Subjective factors leading to rail bias usually center on ride quality and crime. Both of these feed into another of Jarret Walker’s key criteria for a successful transit system, and that is safety.
Ride quality is significantly better for rail systems. Rail does not suffer from the unpredictable motion of buses, and it is therefore safer to stand on a train. This is why rail systems are generally configured more for standing.
Additionally standing on a train doesn’t require as much bracing while standing because of the smoother ride, and passengers can be more relaxed while standing without the worry of being thrown to the floor by a sudden stop. Translation: “standing just feels safer on a train”. And, of course, you don’t have to stand for as long on a train either.
Crime is the other main subjective factor. This results from the generally less obvious security presence on buses, and also from the configuration of the buses themselves. With most people seated for safety and facing forward, it is simply harder to move around and avoid someone who obviously looks like they are about to become a problem. And the forward seating also makes it harder to access the entire crowd and determine if there is a potential safety issue behind the rider.
Rail vehicles offer more chances to move around and avoid social disturbances, and passengers often have a better ability to survey the entire car to access issues. And sitting or standing with your back to the exterior of the vehicle while facing the crowd just feels safer.
So, ya, this post does a good job explaining while rail bias exists and is a rational result of both tangible and subjective factors.
Sure agree with all points, but I mean I wouldn’t overstate the bias either. I always opt to use the 40 or rapidride C over the South lake union streetcar; the ride quality might be slightly better but it’s frequency and speed is worse so I don’t choose it.
For reaching cap hill/central district outside of the area next to cap hill station, I usually just opt to use the 48 since it’s faster than the link. From mt baker area I’d have to backtrack to the station and then go through downtown. From UW, even next to the station it takes quite some time to get underground and then exit on the other end at capitol hill.
You are confused. Rail bias is a the bias towards using rail even though buses offer the same thing. It is real, but minor. The vast majority of people don’t care about the mode — they only care about the other factors (speed, frequency, linearity, etc.). Rail typically is given those for a different reason: capacity. Consider Link for example. Link manages to cover most of the main destinations in the area (although it skipped a few). If was a gigantic enclosed busway it would get very similar ridership (if not more). The problem is, it would cost a lot more to operate, simply because you would have to have a lot more buses. They would come more frequently (which is why it would probably have higher ridership) but it would be more expensive. It just wouldn’t be worth it. Rail has another advantage in that it can be easily automated (if it is grade separated) but we don’t have that, and have shown no interest in automation despite new lines which will be grade separated and could easily benefit from automation (e. g. Ballard Link).
In contrast, there are areas where rail is added where capacity is not needed. These fall into two categories: poorly thought out streetcars and rail on existing tracks. We have both. Our streetcars would carry just about the same number of riders if they were buses. We wouldn’t need to run them more often, because we don’t need the extra capacity (which is a good thing, since they don’t have much more capacity than our buses). So it would probably cost a little bit less to operate while having a little bit less in ridership. That is assuming we didn’t alter the route (which is flawed) since it is much easier to alter a bus route than a streetcar.
We also have rail running on existing tracks. Unfortunately, we don’t own the tracks, so the cost per riders is very high for North Sounder, and very high for South Sounder outside of peak hours. Sounder is nice, but not nice enough to induce a significant number of riders to take it from Seattle in the morning (it is largely used by commuters heading to Seattle). Although a bit unusual (because we don’t own the tracks) it still follows the same basic idea: run rail when you need the capacity.
There is a funny rail bias among some architects; check out the E Line maps in their shelters; they are 10 years old; the maps show the north Sounder alignment next to Puget Sound that has no relevance to E Line riders; the maps do not show intersecting bus routes (e.g., routes 8, 44, 45, 40, 330, 348, 331).
Ross, you consistently ignore trams when you go all jihadi on “our streetcars”. They could be as long as the shortest block in which they might have to stop for a traffic signal or passengers. Tram makers offer vehicles of six or seven segments..
Yes, their stations would have to be lengthened and the storage facilities expanded, but nothing mandates use of the toy Inekons except “that’s what Portland did.”
@Tom — I’m not ignoring anything. You missed the point. It doesn’t matter how long our trams are. They are nowhere near capacity, despite running every 12 minutes at best. You could replace them with buses or trams that are ten times as big and they would still run just as often. We don’t need trams on that, or any other corridor. Do you know who does?
Vancouver! Along Broadway the buses carry over 50,000 riders a day. They arrive full every couple minutes. It is clear they have a capacity problem, and a tram would solve that problem. They could replace the buses with a tram and run less often (e. g. every five minutes) thus saving a lot of money. Of course they are jumping over that step and simply adding a subway (something they should have done years ago). It will be automated (of course) and probably run almost as often as the buses, but still save a lot of money on operations (because of the automation). They are busy doing calculus while we are struggling with long division.
I think we need more frequent buses rather than longer buses. That thought process to me holds true with the streetcar debate, in cities in other countries often built for capacity issues, of which we don’t really have a comparable problem
Our problem would be solved if we just ran buses more frequently. “Just” is of course an understatement because getting the funding to increase bus hours and not let alone fixing the operator shortage is no easy feat. But those operational and cost problems don’t translate to necessity to spend $100M per mile on a downtown streetcar
I know what I wish we had. A really frequent bus GRID like Vancouver has. It just seems so convenient. Unfortunately our street network seems objectively worse than cities like Vancouver or LA? There are many chokepoint bridges that we have. The street really does not maintain a coherent “grid” the further north and south you go. But from purely a service perspective I do really wish we had some semblance of a dense system with buses coming every 7 minutes
The problem with streetcars is that the Seattle/Portland definition of light rail is mostly in exclusive lanes or grade-separated, while the definition of streetcar is mostly in mixed traffic. In other words, light rail is what most of the world is building, and streetcars are what they stopped building seventy years ago because it’s ineffective. It’s only the US that takes a long-obsolete design and pretends it’s a transit solution, while ignoring the real transit needs.
@John — Yes, I agree completely. I think most transit experts would as well. Link pretty much covered the main areas where capacity is an issue. Other areas (like Downtown via Third) form a “spine”. There are a few busy corridors that might eventually have capacity problems, but they don’t have it. Almost all of our capacity problems occur in rush hour, and they went down considerably after the pandemic. For example, the SR 522 corridor used to have a bus every couple minutes during rush hour. This is great for riders, but very expensive. Now it isn’t an issue anymore. The RapidRide E runs a lot during peak — at the point where it clearly responding to crowding, not just providing value — but I expect some of that ridership to shift to Link (via other buses).
We really don’t have a problem with buses coming too often. They don’t come often enough. Funding is a big problem, but so too is the way the network is built. It is outdated. It assumes everyone is heading downtown. Worse yet, it assumes that frequency doesn’t matter. Buses run a couple blocks from other buses, thus making frequency much worse.
Then you have congestion. It is a major problem, which also contributes to bad frequency (if the bus can run faster, it can run more often). We are fixing this bit by bit, but it will take a while. There are a lot of conservatives in this city that don’t want to see change. This occurred with the 40. I am thrilled though that SDOT was able to make these changes that would have been unheard of a generation ago (e. g. Westlake will be one general purpose lane each direction). We’ve added a lot of BAT lanes over the years, but almost all of it has come in the form of removing parking. This is flat-out taking a lane, and leaving a minimal amount for cars. Kudos for Spotts and everyone else for making this change.
You are right about our street grid (or lack thereof). It is a problem in that leads to bottlenecks. But it can also lead to opportunities. If we have fast transit through those pinch points it could make transit all the more attractive. I think Jarrett Walker mentioned that (specifically for Seattle) but I can’t find it.
“It assumes everyone is heading downtown.”
How can you say that when Metro created the 32, 23, 45, 48, 50, 60, 65, 67, 128, A, and is proposing a 61, 77, and Redmond-Eastgate RapidRide?
“It assumes everyone is heading downtown.”
How can you say that when Metro created the 32, 23, 45, 48, 50, 60, 65, 67, 128, A, and is proposing a 61, 77, and Redmond-Eastgate RapidRide?
I say that based on the RapidRide G restructure. Consider two routes: the 11 and 49. The 49 starts at the U-District Station, where riders can take Link to downtown. It then runs along the same pathway as the 70 (which will soon become RapidRide) a bus that goes downtown. Then it again passes by a Link station in Capital Hill as well as several bus routes that go downtown (and form a spine of frequent service). But instead of following the main corridor(Broadway/10th) that it has been following for quite some time, it suddenly lurches west, to go downtown. For several places along the way riders have had the opportunity to go downtown — on service that is quite frequent by Seattle’s standards — yet Metro feels it is necessary to carry on with tradition and run the 49 to downtown.
Likewise with the 11. It too runs downtown. Along the way it passes by the new RapidRide G — the most frequent bus in our system (running every six minutes throughout the day). The 11 also runs by Link, which will be running every five minutes throughout the day. It will pass by the 10 and 12, which will combine for service every ten minutes. Again, there would be ample opportunity for riders to transfer to get downtown if it simply merged with the 8 and went to Uptown, but instead it leaves the main corridor and goes downtown. It leaves a corridor that is one of the most cost effective in our entire system. This is the section that despite all the congestion (and there is plenty) serves enough high density locations to attract more riders per service hour than anywhere else.
The result: Very poor frequency in various high-density places. The 49 and 11 will run every 20 minutes at best. Not only do riders who just want the bus to go straight lose out, riders heading anywhere lose out! Even those heading downtown! Madison Park and Summit riders have to deal with buses that are so infrequent that the destination of those buses is practically pointless. In contrast, frequent service which would connect to other frequent service (to downtown) would make all the difference in the world. The routing only makes sense if you assume that everyone wants a one-seat ride to downtown.
There is no sense of building complementary service. Consider the 47, which will now be a part of the 3. This is a good move, but now what? If you are in the Summit neighborhood you have the new 3 and the 49 to go downtown. One runs every half hour, the other every twenty minutes (again, at best). You can also walk a ways and catch the 11 (except, well, same problem). Even if you are trying to go downtown your options are very poor. The only decent choice is to walk all the way to Link and go down into the depths to take the train, even if you are only going to Westlake. What if you aren’t going that far, and are instead headed someplace around the Paramount? Your only choice is to either wait for one of those infrequent buses, or just walk. This is ridiculous. There you are, in one of the most densely-populated places in the state, trying to get to an area with major destinations and the options require either tremendous luck (catching the bus at just the right time) or walking quite a ways.
It doesn’t have to be that way. Send the 49 to Beacon Hill and get rid of that part of the 60. Have it run straight down Broadway, instead of zig-zagging like a squirrel. Send the 8 to Madison Park, replacing the 11. Use the saving to bump up frequency in the area. Have the branch of the 10/12 occur at Aloha (if it happens at all) which would mean ten minute frequency (or better) from John to downtown. Have the 49 run every 12 minutes, opposite the streetcar, for 6 minute combined headways. Have the 47/3 run every 15 minutes (or better). Stop treating it like a coverage route. That can happen when it complements the 49 instead of competing with it.
Other neighborhoods have their own challenges, but it is the same idea. Asking people to transfer to go downtown makes the system a lot more efficient, and it is better for people — even when they are going downtown.
Yes, Metro has made some improvements over the years, but they have largely stopped. Many of them now only come with Link extensions (things like the 61 and 77). The last couple of these Link based restructures weren’t good, although the problem had little to do with assuming everyone wants a one-seat ride to downtown. How could it, when hardly any buses from Northeast Seattle go downtown anymore? But RapidRide G was a great opportunity to leverage a very frequent bus and build a high quality network in an area of town that should have it. The planners blew it. If they can’t do it right there — when given every opportunity to make meaningful changes — what chance do other neighborhoods have, when nothing much is going to change for decades?
It’s not just “everybody goes downtown”. I take the 49 sometimes from the Broadway Market or Capitol Hill Station to Bellevue Ave when I’m tired; that’s not downtown. The 8 and 11 will overlap between MLK and Summit; that’s a large core of what your 8-Madison Park would do and it’s not downtown. The 3 extension to Summit is because the 49 is a steep hill away so it’s not available. Seattle’s TBD is shifting its hours from the 10 and 11 to the 49 and 60, so SDOT may have asked Metro to hold back on rerouting the 49. The 49/Broadway/36 RapidRide is apparently coming long-term so they may be waiting for that. Keeping the 8 as is may be about connecting Judkins Park station to Capitol Hill, serving the lower-income northern MLK area, and not having an MLK route that terminates at MLK & Madison in the middle of nowhere. The 49 is reduced so it may be a two-part reduction/elimination like the 20. Frequency is good by Seattle standards but it’s still not enough for seamless transfers, especially when both segments are short as in all of East Seattle.
The concept of “rail bias” is a factor, especially for long journeys if a rider has to stand. I can type as post here standing on a train (and have a few typos) but responding while standing on a bus is effectively impossible !
Add to that the nicer waiting environment of a rail platform as opposed to a bus stop that can still be loud and inclimate even with a shelter.
That said, it’s the door-to-door trip reliability that I think is the most important. I don’t think a bias towards rail can overcome the penalty of 5 minutes ascending or defending to a platform at each end, with a similar hassle for a rail-to-rail transfer. Keep in mind that it will still be 45-50 steps down to a DSTT platform with only pre-ADA elevators that may not be working or be really slow.
I see bad vertical access as the unspoken negative to making ra work better for the public. So if we are going to admit to a “pro-rail bias” we need to admit to an “anti-vertical bias” too.
Actually weighing rail vs. bus on my trip to Burien from Tacoma in a bit. I’m leaning towards 40 minutes on the Sounder to Tukwila and hop on the F, even though that 2 seat trip is theoretically 10 minutes longer than the 574->560.
My rail bias is first and foremost reliability. I’ve waited for over 30 minutes for the 574 at TDS. The FW detour odyssey may no longer be a thing, but I am not taking a chance. And even the HOV 2 on I-5 has the potential to become disastrous any second the next dufus decides to respond to a text driving 75mph and blows himself up.
Plus the train is cushy. Might grab a nap, and the views are far superior. Even riding a bus on I-5 and looking out at the idiots (of which I am admittedly sometimes one, given that it’s going to take me over twice as long on the bus as in a car to get to Burien) is stress inducing. The bucolic Puyallup and Kent Valleys are much more pleasant.
@Cam,
“ My rail bias is first and foremost reliability. I’ve waited for over 30 minutes for the 574 at TDS”
I think you get it, and I think your preferences aren’t that unusual in the traveling public. Reliability is hugely important, as is speed, frequency, and comfort. That is why most people have a bias towards rail service, because rail modes deliver on the metrics that matter the most to the traveling public.
Rail bias is real, and it is not irrational. It exists primarily because of the tangible benefits that rail offers over the other modes.
Rail bias is real, and it is not irrational.
By its very definition “rail bias” is irrational. There may be a preference for a particular trip by rail for a rational reason, but that isn’t rail bias.
rail modes deliver on the metrics that matter the most to the traveling public.
Except of course, when they don’t, which is why there are so many extremely expensive rail projects throughout the country that carry very few people. Infrequent trains, slow trains, trains that go nowhere near where people live or visit but follow the freeway envelope instead. Mode is secondary to what matters: https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe. Notice that he doesn’t mention mode, because mode is irrelevant — the same ideas apply with a train or bus.
Consider a local example: The 8. There is a movement to make it faster (https://fixthel8.com/). Now consider two approaches:
1) Convert the 8 to a streetcar. Do nothing else.
2) Add BAT lanes the length of Denny.
In the first case, the trip would actually be slower and less reliable. A bus occasionally has to get out of the way of someone now, and to do so, it changes lanes.
In the second case, it would dramatically change the nature of the bus. Suddenly it is fast and reliable, even during the busiest parts of the day. Ridership — which is already fairly high — would skyrocket. People would throw a party in celebration. Spotts would be a local here.
Mode is rarely important.
When people display apparently-irrational preferences, that’s generally a sign that you do not understand, or at least do not share, the perceptions or priorities which cause those choices to make sense; claiming that “rail bias is irrational” either begs the question, or defines the concept out of existence, which is not a very useful way to have a conversation.
The biggest downside of taking transit at all is that the return trip will be vastly less pleasant.
And boy was it. They F kinda sucked too. Can they do any more slow and painful loop de loops?
> The F kinda sucked too
Assuming you’re talking about rapidride F.
The Tukwila/South Renton area has unfortunately never fully implemented any of their transit projects.
There was the past idea to use the SW 16th street but boeing wouldn’t give permission. The new idea is to extend Strander Boulevard under the UPRR railroad tracks then the rapidride F can just travel east-west on Strander/SW 27th street.
Regarding i-405 access to tukwila sounder/southcenter there’s been a slew of random idea but never implemented ranging from lind ave hov, oakesdale direct access ramps, i-405 to sr 181 etc…
It’s why the stride 1 section is so much worse than the stride 2 one. Sound Transit never got around to actually building the hov direct access ramps it was supposed to in Sound Move
Is the place called “The Lake Wildlife Area” still controlled by Boeing? Or is it publicly owned?
If publicly owned, could they use 16th to the access road on the wildlife area west side? They could add electric gates to keep out unauthorized entry.
> In addition to the regular inflow of online comment forms, one other data source transit agencies might consider is the vast array of social media comments and messages. Advanced off-the-shelf machine learning and natural language processing tools now exist to process these datapoints at scale, to both detect sentiment and extract themes.
For data collection, I’ve always thought one interesting thing would be if apple and google maps allowed one to rate transit routes and transit stops/stations. I’ve seen them rated with stars by accident sometimes when google thinks it’s a restaurant but it’d be interesting if it was purpose built for it.
I think there’s quite a few people out there who’s real reason for not riding transit out there is that it takes too long, but if you ask them, they will cite concerns about crime because it feels better to choose to drive for reasons related to personal safety than because you want to get where you’re going faster.
For these people, no matter what Metro or Sound Transit does to help people feel safer, it will never be enough.
As a corollary to that:
The reason public spaces can feel safe or unsafe is the number of people around.
If transit speed were increased, there would be more riders. This helps improve safety.
I haven’t seen any security/FEO’s on the B Line in the last four years. Very rarely do I see security at the Bellevue TC, even though a man was beaten to death in Bay 6 less than two years ago. I never see security at the Kirkland TC, Redmond TC, Totem Lake TC, or South Kirkland P&R. I have never seen a security employee in my entire life on any bus on the east side of the lake (other than the pre-2020 B Line). Can anyone guess at which Bellevue and Redmond transit facilities I always see security?