Three buses currently serve the east side of Green Lake: The 20, 45 and 62. As soon as Link gets to Lynnwood, the 20 will go away. There are aspects of the 20 that should be adopted by the other routes. However, this will require the help of the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). Here are the things that SDOT and Metro can do to significantly improve transit in the area:

62

The 62 was created with the U-Link restructure. It replaced part of what was then the 16. I don’t have a link for the route but you can see it on Oran’s old map (it went from Northgate to downtown via Aurora and Green Lake). This helps explain why a southbound 62 goes the wrong direction (north) on Ravenna before heading back south on Woodlawn. With the Northgate restructure, planners hoped to improve the route in this area by having it follow Latona and 56th to Meridian. Unfortunately, changing the route would require SDOT to harden the street and they couldn’t do it then. Now that Metro is about to get rid of the 20 it is time to push for this. By following the previously proposed route, it would improve things in couple ways:

  1. There would be better coverage in the area (especially with the 20 gone). The bus would run through the middle of the neighborhood, minimizing the distance someone has to travel to get to a bus stop.
  2. It would be considerably faster. This is not only better for riders of that bus, but it saves Metro money, which would allow the agency to increase service levels (there or elsewhere).

45

The 45 was essentially split off from the 48 with the U-Link restructure. North of 65th it has followed that route for as long as I can remember. In contrast, the old 16 (and more recent 20) follow a different path through the area. Both are problematic. I propose having the 45 follow the current route of the 20 (like so) but with some changes by SDOT.

Right now the 20 encounters two significant problems in that area. The first is turning left from 1st to 80th. Although both streets are arterials, there are no traffic lights or stop signs there. As a result the bus spends a lot of time waiting for a break in traffic. The second is that eastbound rush-hour traffic often builds up along 80th. This can delay a bus considerably.

But the pathway of the 45 is not without issues either. It is common for traffic along the lake to be very slow (especially on nice days). The path of the 20 covers the area better, so that is preferable even if it is only as fast as the current 45. Changing the route and making it faster would require a couple fixes (with a possible variation):

  • Add eastbound BAT lanes between Wallingford Avenue and 1st. This would require getting rid of some parking and moving southbound 80th closer to the curb. This would have a side benefit: Safety. Right now drivers exit the freeway and then make a sweeping right turn (downhill) on 80th. There is no merge there, so drivers often go too fast. This would act like a chicane, slowing drivers.
  • Add a stop sign or traffic signal at 80th & 1st. The cheapest option would be a stop sign there. A traffic signal would work, especially if it was triggered by a bus (or a beg button for pedestrians or cyclists). Either a stop sign or traffic signal would again improve safety and make crossing the street a lot easier.

Both of these changes are relatively minor, but the benefits would be big. With the loss of the 20, these changes make more sense than ever. Contact your city and county representative (especially if you live in the area) to request these improvements.

110 Replies to “Improve Buses on the East Side of Green Lake”

  1. Aye, Mr Ross… you’ve been reading my mind. Sorta. Though I understand your proposed solution, I believe a more efficient option is to simply keep the 45 on its current path via Wallingford Ave.

    I used to live near 65th & Latona and would take the 20 in either direction to get out of the neighborhood. Indeed, I would cringe at times when the northbound bus would have to [illegally] ease its way into 80th St traffic as it was attempting a left turn from 1st Ave NE. Sometimes the bus would block EB traffic and inch its way into WB lanes until a motorist took pity and let the bus in. In addition to this dangerous left turn, ridership along 1st Ave NE was super low. It wasn’t worth serving. Thus, I always felt the 20 should’ve been altered to match the routing of the 45 through Green Lake.

    The 62 was also a bus I used to regularly take (and sometimes still do). My stop would be Keystone. There’s really no good reason for a Metro bus to operate along Keystone due to its narrow road width and the fact 2 buses can’t fit on the street at the same time without one of them pulling to the side and allowing the other to creep through. Rather than use 52nd St, the 62 should use the entire length of Latona Ave between 65th and 50th – just as the current 20 does. This prevents the 62 from having to unnecessarily zig-zag between Ravenna and Keystone and it’s safer and easier to drive.

    1. There aren’t a lot of people on 1st, but there are plenty along Woodlawn. The 20 goes through the heart of the neighborhood while the 45 hugs the shore. First Avenue is just the way to access Woodlawn from the north (any ridership there is a bonus). But it just doesn’t work without having a way for the bus to turn (as well as avoid the freeway backup).

      There’s really no good reason for a Metro bus to operate along Keystone due to its narrow road width and the fact 2 buses can’t fit on the street at the same time without one of them pulling to the side and allowing the other to creep through.

      I assume you mean Kirkwood and I agree. It is an awkward routing (that probably goes way back — maybe to when there were streetcars there).

      Rather than use 52nd St, the 62 should use the entire length of Latona Ave between 65th and 50th – just as the current 20 does.

      I disagree. Doing that would create a big coverage hole. The proposed routing (to turn on 55th/56th) is pretty close to ideal. You are never that far away from a bus stop. The area between the lake and the freeway narrows as you get close to 65th. Thus serving it via Latona is not that bad. But it is fairly wide as you go south. By turning on 55th/56th you cover that area well with just one bus. About the only thing that would be better would be run on First instead of Latona, but First is not an arterial (and Latona is already set up for bus service). By using Meridian you also avoid the awkward crossing of 50th on Latona/Thackery (which probably isn’t that bad, but is still not as good as just going straight on the same street). It is really only that small part of 55th/56th (between Kirkwood and Latona) that would need work.

      1. Ross, actually the primary street car route for the neighborhood before the trolley buses followed the 56th to Latona route that you propose for the 62. It didn’t go through the Tangletown streets like the 16/62 does. There was a reversing wye at 65th and Latona.

        There was also a one-way single track loop all the way around Green Lake which used Stone Way, Interlake, Green Lake Blvd, Winona, Linden and Whitman to get back to the reversing loop at 45th and Woodland Park which most cars used.

        Here’s a link to the map: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdot_photos/4110256341

      2. Amazingly, on that map there is no service on either Rainier Ave South or Empire Way South (Martin Luther King Jr Blvd). I guess the Renton interurban served that ridership.

      3. Thanks Tom, for finding the old maps. It makes the bus route (using Kirkwood) even more of a mystery.

      4. “Amazingly, on that map there is no service on either Rainier Ave South or Empire Way South (Martin Luther King Jr Blvd). I guess the Renton interurban served that ridership.”

        Rainier Valley was built up after central Seattle and Greenlake. It may have been under water then or still farmland.

      5. Indeed it does. When the 26 ran it made sense to go through Tangletown, in order to serve the neighborhood more completely. But with only one bus between 50th and 65th the Freeway and Green Lake, it makes sense to use the old streetcar route. There are more multi-family buildings that way.

        You can see the old trackway running under the divider in this image at First NE:
        https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6693321,-122.3283826,3a,85.8y,113.19h,82.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPVdfS03y4_B43MfE9EAIzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

      7. Rainier avenue streetcar was a separate company. The map linked shows Seattle municipal ones so I’m guessing it’s just not listed here.

    2. *Kirkwood, yes

      The unfortunate side effect of keeping routing along East Green Lake way is t the removal of front-door service in the retail core of Green Lake. But it’s a mere block away and easily accessible. I think keeping the 45 routing as-is would save a few extra dollars for SDOT in retrofitting 1st Ave & 80th St and give riders a bit more access to the park if it continues to skirt the north side of the lake.

      However, the 62 should indeed by shifted elsewhere. And if it’s via 56th, it’s better than Kirkwood where residents’ parked cars will be saved from sideswipes and drivers can maintain a clean record. I betcha residents along 56th will complain of constant bus noise and window-rattling.

      1. But it’s a mere block away and easily accessible.

        Yeah, but it is a block for just about everyone. Of course there are people who are close to the lake, but way more people live (and work) in the other direction. There are apartments all the way until you reach the freeway (and no bus service on 5th). If you are going to the lake then it probably doesn’t matter much where you get dropped off. If you are commuting every day to work it does.

        But the main advantage of going that way is that it can be made significantly faster and more consistent than going on East Green Lake Drive. Add a stop sign and BAT lanes and it is more consistent. In the future I could see queue jumps or BAT lanes on Woodlawn (by taking some parking). In contrast, I don’t see how you make East Green Lake Drive faster. I wouldn’t make this a high priority for SDOT (moving the 62 is way more important) but I think it should be done someday.

  2. Interesting that SDOT didn’t put concrete pads at the 80th & Corliss stop when they rebuilt the street. Makes me wonder about the long-term hopes for buses on that street.

    1. I’m glad you brought up that stop. I didn’t want to mention it in the post, but I think the stop spacing could use some work there. Corliss is quite close to First (where there are other bus stops). I would move that stop closer to Meridian (and have a crosswalk there). With a crosswalk at First and another one at Meridian that is better for the neighborhood (not that I would get rid of the crosswalk at Corliss). The stop spacing for the bus would be better, but there would be another benefit. A stop at Meridian takes advantage of the angular streets, making up for the loss of service along East Green Lake Drive. For example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WNxT1Fipi55KaY8Z6

  3. It is insane that an area as small as “East Green Lake” has so many routes. Yes, please eliminate, consolidate, and make these more efficient. Then divert the resources to areas that have substandard transit coverage. The further reaches of South King County with just as many multifamily zones are lucky to get 1 route that weaves through an area a mile or two wide, taking 5 times the travel time of just driving. Last week (on a weekday!), I had to run errands, our family is down one vehicle, so I opted for Bicycle + Bus. Every time I arrived to a bus stop, I checked the bike travel time vs. the scheduled time on a bus and ended up riding about 7 miles round trip on bike and 3 on bus because it was simply faster and easier to keep going on my bike.

    1. There are only two routes: the 62 and 45. The 45 has more riders per service hour than every bus serving South King County. The 62 is not quite as productive, but much better than a typical South King County route. Then you have the fact that Seattle voters decided to tax themselves to provide better transit.

      1. To be fair to Engineer, north of Ravenna, routes 20 and 45 are close together, and south of Ravenna, routes 20 and 62 are close together. LLC proposes to delete Route 20; RossB suggests that the Route 62 pathway be optimized. In 2016, Route 26 replaced Route 16; in 2021, Route 20 replaced Route 26. There were one-way peak-only variants: Route 16X before 2003 and Route 3016 between 2003 and 2021. In the P2 phase of North Link Connections, the planners placed Route 62 on the RossB suggested pathway, but they asked about routes 23 and 25 as well. Clutter.

    2. > The further reaches of South King County with just as many multifamily zones are lucky to get 1 route that weaves through an area a mile or two wide, taking 5 times the travel time of just driving.

      Well that’s also a problem when you say the “further reaches”. How long of a bus route will it take to reach that area. The 45 is a 5/6 mile bus route. Aka for route 160 that’d only be half of it from Kent to Renton. And then considering route 160 heads over to state route 515, it really is like a 19/20/21 mile route. For the resources of one south king bus route the same frequency requires three times as much buses as the 45.

    3. I assume Engineer is including the 20. The 62 and 20 and their predecessors 16 and 26 are widely seen as being very close together between 45th and 65th, but that’s only one mile and the 20 is going away. The 45 is an east-west route at 65th so there’s no overlap: it’s like the 165 and 181 at Green River Community College: one goes north, the other goes west.

  4. For the bus route, my personal preference is the 45’s routing because it’s more direct and gets you closer to Green Lake park. The park is not just about the park itself, but also the park trail as a pedestrian route to everywhere west of the Aurora/68th crosswalk. Even if I need to go all the way up the hill to Phinney Ridge, I have found it consistently faster to get off the 45 at Green Lake Drive/Wallingford and hoof it the rest of the way than to stay on the 45 and transfer to a #5 bus that runs only every 20-30 minutes.

    That said, regardless of which route the bus takes, the intersection at 1st and 80th badly needs fixing. Its current design is very dangerous for all road users (including cars) and is effectively inaccessible for pedestrians, as traffic is very heavy and there are so signs or marked crosswalks to encourage anyone to stop. I can see traffic volumes being a bit high for a stop sign, but SDOT should definitely look to installing a traffic signal.

    1. > That said, regardless of which route the bus takes, the intersection at 1st and 80th badly needs fixing. .. . I can see traffic volumes being a bit high for a stop sign, but SDOT should definitely look to installing a traffic signal.

      One solution might be to add speed bumps or at least rumble strips for the i-5 southbound exit similar to what seatac uses. At least cars coming off i-5 wouldn’t be coming off so fast when entering 80th st

    2. “ the intersection at 1st and 80th badly needs fixing”

      Actually, if you sort through the WSDOT crash data the intersection is surprisingly safe. There was like one accident in 2019 and two in 2018, and none were serious.

      There are far more accidents on the one-way section at the intersection of 80th and 2nd, and many more on the CD itself. Which is why a light at 1st and 80th would be a bad idea. Anything that backs stopped traffic up onto the CD is going to create more accidents than it cures.

      As per pedestrians crossing at 1st and 80th, I’d just ban them. There really aren’t that many houses on the north side of 80th near 1st, and crossing at Sunnyside and 80th is far safer anyhow.

    3. Given the highspeed nature of an a freeway exit (and high volume of cars), I believe the safest option is to 1) give motorists the leeway to exit as they normally do and 2) restrict left turns in both directions at 1st Ave & 80th.

      1. @Jordon,

        I definitely concur with that. That intersection needs to be free flowing, and it is the left turns that cause the (main) problem. Good comment.

        That said, restripping 80th to provide 2 GP lanes going WB (one lane dedicated to left turns from 80th to 1st) would also help, but it wouldn’t be as effective as just prohibiting all left turns as you suggest.

      2. Given the highspeed nature of a freeway exit (and high volume of cars), I believe the safest option is to 1) give motorists the leeway to exit as they normally do and 2) restrict left turns in both directions at 1st Ave & 80th.

        Wait what? How in the world is that safer? I’ve taken that exit many times. You exit the freeway and then the road curves heading west. This is also downhill. So basically you are traveling freeway speeds, then freeway-exit speed (which is often just as fast) and then suddenly you are on a residential street, heading downhill! Oh, and there is no merge. Experienced drivers know that, and often make that turn going forty!

        Now imagine someone crossing there. The driver doesn’t see them until they have made that turn, going way too fast and heading downhill (with reduced stopping distance). It is like that scene in The French Connection where Gene Hackman almost hits the woman with the stroller. No thanks!

        The street should be safer for pedestrians and bikes. Speed bumps would help, but so would stop signs. There is plenty of room for someone to slow down before making that curve (it is over half a mile). If you just take your foot off the accelerator you will be going 25 by the time you take the corner (which is appropriate). Of course you would need to add warning signs, but after a while people will drive slower.

      3. That intersection needs to be free flowing, and it is the left turns that cause the (main) problem.

        Wrong on both points. The intersection does not need to be free flowing. It is highly likely that drivers going either direction won’t be delayed by a stop sign there. They will encounter a traffic light or congestion a little while later. In that respect it is like speed bumps. You have to slow down but it doesn’t make your trip take much longer (you are simply forced to go the speed you should have been going the whole time).

        The left turns there are not what is most dangerous. Of course someone might punch it to make a left, but it is far more common for someone to come off the freeway going way too fast. You can’t even see them and make eye contact (unlike someone taking a left).

      4. 80th restricts parking on that section and so it already acts as an informal left turn lane.

        Banning left turns — most of the drivers are trying to head south and will the just be making left turns at Bagley or Wallingford Ave and it’ll back up the same. you might as well just add a stop sign or roundabout at 80th and 1st then

      5. @WL,

        “ 80th restricts parking on that section and so it already acts as an informal left turn lane.”

        Parking is only signed as restricted within 30 ft of the corners. After that parking is allowed, but most people are smart enough not to park there.

        Before the intersection WB it is unclear.

        What is clear though is that it is not striped for 3 lanes. So even though people sometimes treat the WB lane as a dedicated turn lane, those people passing them on the right are technically driving on the shoulder – which is illegal and ticketable.

        But Jordon is right. The easiest solution is just to ban left turns at that intersection.

      6. > What is clear though is that it is not striped for 3 lanes. So even though people sometimes treat the WB lane as a dedicated turn lane, those people passing them on the right are technically driving on the shoulder – which is illegal and ticketable.

        Do seattle or even washington state cops ticket for that?

        I was a bit curious and apparently at least for washington it’s legal according the news articles and the cited law.

        When overtaking on the right is permitted:
        …
        (b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
        (2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.
        https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.115

        There’s no white lines saying the “other” lane to the right isn’t part of the roadway so it’s legal to use. Granted SDOT should probably formalize it, it’s bit of an iffy state right now just being an extra wide lane.

        > Parking is only signed as restricted within 30 ft of the corners. After that parking is allowed, but most people are smart enough not to park there.

        Checking google maps, it is very poorly signed. But at least on the official SDOT parking website that entire section is banned. SDOT should definitely add another sign clarifying it.

        No Parking Allowed (northside): NE 80TH ST BETWEEN 1ST AVE NE AND CORLISS WY N WB RP
        https://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5814e3f6c7054a40a9b4d175dcbf294b

      7. Whoops didn’t copy paste the entire thing properly sorry. Should be.

        1) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
        (a) When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
        (b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
        (2) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway.

      8. @WL,

        “ Do seattle or even washington state cops ticket for that?”

        Oh yes they do! I almost got caught once at Northgate for that very reason. The car ahead of me moved onto the shoulder to pass, and I started to follow. But I checked my mirrors first and saw a cop, so I moved back into my lane. The other car got tagged, I did not.

        And regardless of what the SDOT website says, the signs clearly allow parking on the north side of the street just beyond the 30 ft point WB at 1st. There is even a painted parking line between the signs marking the legal parking area. And I have seen cars parked there, but very infrequently.

      9. @Ross…. here me out…

        1) In a perfect world, I’m totally for safe streets and 1 or 2 lane roads and lower speed limits. However, even in our ultra-progressive bubble that is Seattle, the reality and context is that we’re still car-centric. So the compromise is…

        2) Allowing cars to exit as they currently do. It’s kinda dangerous in and of itself to abruptly come to a sudden stop or slow down immensely after traveling at high speeds. A stop sign *might* cause a back-up onto the freeway exit, which is even more dangerous. And there’s no way to forcibly slow down vehicles on the exit ramp. So the only safe option is to allow cars to exit and slow down naturally.

        3) Prohibiting left turns from 1st Ave NE prevents cars from daringly jet across four lanes of traffic, 2 of which are coming off the freeway. And prohibiting left turns onto 1st Ave prevents cars from impeding WB 80th St traffic until the traffic light at Wallingford Ave (come to think of it, the meridian should be blocked from I-5 to Wlfrd Ave)

        I know allowing cars to “do their thing” sounds anti-transit. But we really should keep in mind that some safe-street measures aren’t appropriate everywhere and can actually backfire. Like it or not, motorists are a part of our society and culture too. Until Seattle has a highly functional and expansive transit network connecting all points of the region, we must be mindful for moving vehicles too.

      10. @WL,

        Check out the north side of 80th just west of 1st using streetview. The section of allowed parking is clear. Look for the white stripe and the signs.

        East of 1st on the north side of 80th? It’s unclear. There isn’t a white stripe, but there isn’t a no parking sign either (other than one right at the intersection in the 30 ft zone).

        SDOT should really clear this up. If left turns are allowed, and passing on the shoulder is too, then they should really stripe it that way.

        But I still agree with Jordan, just ban left turns.

      11. @Jordan,

        Well written post and I totally agree.

        “ some safe-street measures aren’t appropriate everywhere and can actually backfire.”

        Absolutely true. Just look at 68th NE over in Ravenna. That street has traffic circles to calm traffic, and it worked fine. But some yahoo at SDOT decided it should be a bike route and it needed to be “safe”. So now all the Aves crossing 68th have both stop signs and traffic circles.

        The result? A large number of cars are giving up on 65th and its congestion and using 68th instead. And why not? You don’t need to worry about cross traffic, so speeds are up, and safety is down. Brilliant! Not….

        The only thing I would add to your post is that pedestrians should be barred from crossing 80th at 1st. For reasons of safety.

      12. @Lazarus
        > Oh yes they do! I almost got caught once at Northgate for that very reason. The car ahead of me moved onto the shoulder to pass, and I started to follow. But I checked my mirrors first and saw a cop, so I moved back into my lane. The other car got tagged, I did not.

        That’s not the same thing. I’m talking about for passing left turning cars.

        > And regardless of what the SDOT website says, the signs clearly allow parking on the north side of the street just beyond the 30 ft point WB at 1st.

        Uhh yeah that’s fine. I thought we’re talking about the section east of 1st avenue?

        @Jordan
        > 2) Allowing cars to exit as they currently do. It’s kinda dangerous in and of itself to abruptly come to a sudden stop or slow down immensely after traveling at high speeds. A stop sign *might* cause a back-up onto the freeway exit, which is even more dangerous. And there’s no way to forcibly slow down vehicles on the exit ramp. So the only safe option is to allow cars to exit and slow down naturally.

        We can add rumble strips/the shallow speed bumps. If seatac can have them I don’t see why this one can’t have it? This is already half a mile off from the i-5, this is not like 100 feet off the freeway.

        > 3) Prohibiting left turns from 1st Ave NE prevents cars from daringly jet across four lanes of traffic, 2 of which are coming off the freeway. And prohibiting left turns onto 1st Ave prevents cars from impeding WB 80th St traffic until the traffic light at Wallingford Ave (come to think of it, the meridian should be blocked from I-5 to Wlfrd Ave)

        I don’t think you’ve actually thought it throughly that much. A stop sign at 1st avenue with a left turn and straight through lane probably has higher capacity than making the cars make left turns at wallingford avenue traffic light that leads into green lake avenue traffic light. It’s not as if this intersection is right next to the freeway; it’s half a mile already from the freeway exit ramp. Just exchanging it from a stop sign to the wallingford stoplight doesn’t mean it won’t back up.

      13. @WL — Agreed. There are four potential left turns there:

        Eastbound to Northbound — Very rare (since it is a dead end).
        Southbound to Eastbound — Also rare (same reason).
        Westbound to Southbound — The one you just mentioned.
        Northbound to Eastbound — What the 20 does.

        So even if there was a substantial delay for riders (and there wouldn’t be) it wouldn’t delay a bus. It would actually make things better. Unlike a lot of other potential changes, this really has no trade-off. If drivers are delayed a bit, so be it. Just in terms of safety this is worth it. In general I’m all for banning left turns, but in this case it makes more sense to just add a stop sign.

      14. @WL,

        That is exactly the situation where the other car got tagged. A left turning vehicle had backed up the thru traffic lane, and the car ahead of me moved to the right to pass. But it was clearly a shoulder.

        I’m pretty darn sure the north side of 80th east of 1st is also a shoulder, so I’m always extra careful when I use it (illegally) to pass a left turning vehicle.

        SDOT could clear this up with some signs and some paint.

      15. @Lazarus

        > That is exactly the situation where the other car got tagged. A left turning vehicle had backed up the thru traffic lane, and the car ahead of me moved to the right to pass. But it was clearly a shoulder.

        > I’m pretty darn sure the north side of 80th east of 1st is also a shoulder, so I’m always extra careful when I use it (illegally) to pass a left turning vehicle.

        There’s no white line there on 80th east of 1st.

        I checked online it seems to be very contentious. Michagan State (washington county) says definitely no https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/824/PW-No-Passing-on-Shoulder

        But then for the same state a different county says
        > Michigan law does allow motorists to pass on the right when another driver is turning left, provided he or she does not leave the roadway to do so. And while officers and deputies may not ticket motorists for treating wide roads as two lanes during the course of normal driving, Church said the real question is how to deal with the rare crashes that occur at intersections like the one described above.
        https://www.mlive.com/news/2012/09/traffic_talk_one_lane_or_two_w.html

        I couldn’t find any slightly authoritative answer for Washington state / Seattle besides random blog posts.

        For SDOT itself, I’m pretty sure I’ve read a document about how they leave extra wide lanes on some two lane streets to allow cars to bypass, though I can’t remember where I saw it I’ll try to find it. They do use extra wide lanes elsewhere as informal two lanes like on 23rd avenue for the bus stops, but that is on the right side. Beacon avenue is like that as well on some sections, though I don’t know if it’s because they just didn’t bother to repaint the dashed lines or if was never there lol.

      16. This isn’t quite the proof I’m trying to find. But I guess one partial example is

        NE 75th st before 2013. They didn’t mark any lanes on the ground it was just 2 lanes in each direction for 4 lanes total.

        https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6830381,-122.2963501,3a,75y,271.56h,59.53t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sm2FEIw3r81pQElFDrGXSzQ!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

        The channelization afterwards talks about it https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/NE75thRechannelizationReportFINAL.pdf

        > Before – one general purpose lane in each direction with peak hour parking
        restrictions providing one additional travel lane during the morning and evening commutes
        > After – 5 foot bike lane, 10.5 foot travel lane, 9 foot center turn lane, 10.5 foot travel lane, 5 foot bike lane
        https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/NE75thRechannelizationReportFINAL.pdf#page=3

        You can see pictures of it on page 3. The 2 lanes doesn’t have any dotted lines.

        Of course, I’m not really sure why sdot doesn’t just paint the lines. It does leave everything a bit ambigious lol.

        There’s other streets in west seattle and south seattle that have these informal second lane not demarcated. but sometimes I’ve seen in the rechannelization proposals they are actually official lanes just not painted.

      17. Allowing cars to exit as they currently do. It’s kinda dangerous in and of itself to abruptly come to a sudden stop or slow down immensely after traveling at high speeds.

        Right, but in this case you are talking about a huge distance before you actually have to slow down. Not only that, but to even turn left you have to change lanes and merge with regular traffic (that did not come from the freeway). Try it yourself next time you use the exit. After exiting take your foot off the gas (like you were taught in drivers ed). Don’t brake, just let the car coast. By the time you hit the merge point you are going plenty slow. As you hit the 90 degree turn you will probably need to use the brake, but this is normal, since it is a 90 degree turn . Anyone who is new to the area makes the turn at a safe speed. They brake and the car behind them sees that they are breaking, and slows down accordingly (even if they don’t want to). Folks who are not new — who have been driving it for years — will go way too fast, knowing full well that there is no merge there. It is a driving mindset. You have been on the freeway a while, and are focused on the other cars. You aren’t used to people there, because normally there aren’t people there. This is basically a recipe for an accident — the worst kind. A fender bender sucks, but it is nothing like getting hit by a car as a pedestrian. People need to just get used to slowing down, since they are now in the city (in an area with plenty of pedestrians). As someone who grew up driving that road (very fast) it is tough to change, but if I can do it, so can others. Again, I would put in plenty of warning signs. But just like Lake City Way and 15th NW (where new crosswalks were put in) people figure it out.

        As for backups, it is the same thing. It is a very long way from the exit to the freeway. A stop sign doesn’t cause much of a delay. There could be a merge (with cars coming in from 1st) but not that many. In contrast, the traffic light at Wallingford is more like 50-50. Actually, from what I can tell it is even worse. There is a left turn phase (from Wallingford to 80th). There is also the lag time between phases. This means that a car can go straight for less than 50% of the time. If there was going to be a backup, that is the street that would cause it (but there isn’t). Just about every exit in Seattle has a shorter distance from the exit to the next stop light/stop sign. Even with the additional stop sign I’m not sure if there is one that has a longer gap between the exit and the stop. Nothing north of Michigan, which means a lot of exits that are much shorter.

        Oh, and remember, 80th is exit only! This means that the exit is effectively not at 90th (when the ramp splits) but at the collector-distributor, which is way back at Northgate. When traffic is bad. the exit lane actually moves faster than through traffic. A stop sign is not going to make traffic worse. It is just going to make it safer for those who think it is still the 1970s, and cars rule.

      18. The turn from the freeway off-ramp yo NE 80th is clearly single-lane and yes, 80th is just barely wide enough for three narrow lanes. So the best solution is to narrow the eastbound lane a foot or so from Corliss to the freeway, add a westbound left turn pocket from the curve to First NE, remove the painted parking strip wext of First to Corliss and put a bus-only left-turn merge pocket lane in the middle of the street for the block to Corliss. Then put a bus-actuated light for the eastbound lane only at First. It would normally flash yellow for eastbound cars on 80th and red for northbound cars on First. But when a bus approaches, it would go red for eastbound 80th in order to empty the queue in front of the bus and hold until the bus makes its turn into the westbound merge pocket. There would be matching flashing lights over the two westbound lanes as well. When the bus light goes on, the one over the 80th to southbound First pocket would go red.

        I think this would work well without affecting exiting traffic much at all if any.

      19. @Tom — That would work, but it would mean the bus would be stuck in traffic. It is common to see traffic build up going eastbound (up the hill) towards the freeway.

        Instead I propose squeezing in a third lane, but it would be a BAT lane. So drivers heading west (down the hill) would travel next to the curb. Drivers in regular cars going east (up the hill) would be in the middle lane. The eastbound bus (also going up the hill) would be in the curbside lane. So would drivers taking a right on First, but they would only be allowed in the BAT lane at the last block. That way a bus heading towards the UW would avoid this traffic backup.

        For a bus going the other direction you either put in a traffic light or just a stop sign. There is precedent for a stop signs nearby: 5th & Banner. Like First & 80th, it is a meeting of two arterials, but instead of a traffic signal they have a stop sign. It works. I remember talking to a traffic engineer about that particular intersection and he said that people assume that traffic signals have better throughput than stop signs, but that isn’t necessarily the case. I agree, having noted a case base in Interbay about twenty years ago. The city replaced the stop signs with traffic lights but traffic got really bad so the went back to stop signs. In this case, a stop sign really wouldn’t impede traffic very much (simply because there aren’t that many cars merging onto 80th from First). A roundabout would probably move traffic better, but it would be a lot more work (especially with the BAT lane).

        But the main thing is that the buses would have a way to avoid the congestion. Ultimately, that is the only way to deal with traffic (Downs–Thomson paradox).

      20. So traffic backs up eastbound on 80th all the way back to west of First? That means that the intersection on the other side of the freeway (80th and Banner Way) is functioning poorly. Let’s figure out why that might be.

        The most common reason that intersections do not clear each cycle is that the traffic approaching is heavier than the signal timing can accommodate. The intersection has been configured like it is today for decades. If a better signal timing were possible, SDOT would have found it.

        Another common reason that intersections perform poorly is that their output volumes do not match the volumes arriving at the corner. Here there are two lanes feeding into the intersection and three dispersing the cars that enter. So that alone should make the intersection flow freely. It’s not as good as a one-lane road that sprouts both a right turn pocket AND a left turn pocket as it approaches the intersection, but it’s fairly close. This narrow two-lane bridge carries all the traffic that is destined to the east side of I-5 from the north shore of Green Lake up to 85th east of Wallingford, and an even wider catchment area west of there. So it’s a busy beaver, for sure.

        Fortunately, cars turning right to Banner Way make an almost completely uncontrolled and fairly wide-radius turn into an arterial with two lanes to accept its volume (there is a cross-walk the occasionally stops turning traffic). So the righthand lane is ipso facto performing as a very long right-turn pocket and very efficient. Those turning left onto Banner Way northbound have only a “Yield” which in theory would be even better than a left turn pocket, because it really shouldn’t ever back up into the “through” lane when 80th has the green. Yet here there is apparently still so much traffic passing by on Banner Way that they can’t reliably make the turn even when Banner Way is stopped because 80th has the gree. There must be enough cars turning right from 80th westbound to Banner Way northbound to block those turning left, at least sometimes.

        Therefore the cars trying to turn back up traffic over an eighth of a mile, presumably because of right turners from 80th to Banner Way northbound who also of course have a green.

        Perhaps Banner Way needs a third lane for, say, half the distance from the 80th to Banner merge point to the curve across the freeway? The hook would become a slip lane to allow for merging, rather than an “intersection” at which the “Yield” too often becomes a “Stop”. Maybe carry it to the sign bridge? That way cars turning left at Banner could always clear the “through” lane.

        I don’t know how much that would cost; it would mean biting into the hillside to the east a bit, though not very far. Then you would not need the BAT lane west of First and could use the space for the bus-only merge lane, allowing westbound 80th to flow uninterruptedly.

        Doing this would mean that people could enter and leave the block of First NE north of 80th only by turning right. Maybe a single-lane connector could run between the end of First, behind the big blue house on the flag lot off 82nd and the dogleg in the flag lot access road. The Google car went past the basketball goal where the new access would connect.

        By using the connector drivers arriving from the west or headed east on 80th could connect to it using Sunnyside. It would remove some tree canopy from the two houses on “extended NE 82nd Street” adjacent to the freeway.

        With this the BAT lane — which is pretty unlikely to be granted, jes’ sayin’ — would not be needed. Traffic should flow to First NE from the west reliably.

        One completely weird thing is that there is no “Right Turn Only” sign on Second Avenue NE just south of 80th. THAT’S A ONE_WAY STREET it is entering. And no arrow or RTO at all. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6865892,-122.3269833,3a,75y,358.7h,80.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9lqBpoQnn4BOnTXg-V6YRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

        Crazy.

      21. Refinement: Close the through lane and bend it into the middle lane on southbound Banner Way. If folks want to go east on 80th, they go down Banner Way to Fifth and turn left. It’s only seventy yards.

        Doing these things together guarantees that the eastbound traffic will flow along 80th.

      22. @Tom Terrific,

        Or just solve the EB 80th problem by completely removing the light at 80th and Banner.

        Just rebuild the Banner Triangle — which is already owned by SDOT — in the form of a giant, 2 lane, broken roundabout.

        All lanes of EB 80th traffic would enter the roundabout and then have choices of SB Banner, EB 80th, or NB Banner. The roundabout would be “broken” in the sense that a driver couldn’t continue all the way around it and would eventually be forced onto NB Banner (exactly the same way WB 80th traffic is forced onto it now.

        SDOT is way behind in roundabouts. This city has a huge roundabout gap. Lake Stevens is way ahead of us.

        Time to close the roundabout gap!

      23. So traffic backs up eastbound on 80th all the way back to west of First? That means that the intersection on the other side of the freeway (80th and Banner Way) is functioning poorly. Let’s figure out why that might be.

        I’m not sure, but I doubt the fix would be trivial. There is a northbound ramp to the freeway. It is metered. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is just backs up from the freeway onto 80th. Unlike regular traffic lights, these are designed to dramatically limit car throughput.

        I think it is more likely to be the light at 80th and Banner. A roundabout or some other “fix” might help things, but probably not that much. Roundabouts aren’t magic. DC is famous for roundabouts (and numerous attempts to fix the traffic problem with bigger and faster roundabouts). Yet traffic in DC is famously bad. Ultimately you are simply dealing with too many cars. At best you are putting racing tires on a Pinto. Yeah, you can go a little faster, but it is still Pinto. Traffic is a zero sum game. If you improve it here you would likely make it worse somewhere else.

        But here is the thing: It doesn’t matter, as long as you make transit faster. That is the *only* thing that will work. The reason I know 80th backs up is because I have driven there in the afternoon, and I don’t like it. I take an alternate route. Make it faster and now folks like me start going that way. It is induced demand (at best). In contrast, if you make transit faster then more people use it. That is one of the key advantages of having a bus follow the route of the 20. You can add bus lanes, making it faster. If it is stuck in the same traffic as cars everyone loses (including drivers) no matter what you do. This is Downs-Thompson Paradox. The only way to make general purpose traffic faster is to speed up transit. Adding a queue jump for eastbound buses would do that.

        There is room for three lanes on 80th between 1st and Wallingford Avenue. We don’t need a merge lane. A stop sign would be adequate and ultimately delay traffic the same amount. If no one turns, you make a quick stop and keep going. If someone is turning then you merge (letting them go in front of you). That would be the only delay (more cars from First merging with cars going westbound on 80th). But that would be the same delay as a merge lane.

        As far as Second Avenue goes there is a “One Way” sign. It is just obscured by the truck in that picture. You can see this sign here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ojkTGwJtuvARYYVv6. If driver doesn’t notice as they pull up to the stop sign, there are pretty clear “Do Not Enter” signs: https://maps.app.goo.gl/q53LsK7r1K4ULqPV8. I would probably still have a “Right Turn Only” sign, but it is adequate (if not great).

        Speaking of left turns, they are generally unsafe. I think it is appropriate to have a stop sign (or traffic signal) and allow a left turn at First because it is an arterial. It is actually kind of rare to have two arterials meet without a four-way stop or traffic light. But for residential streets it is a different beast. It would be reasonable to ban left turns (onto 80th) between First and Meridian. Right now they seem especially dangerous. Cars come down the hill fast. Thus I could see someone on Corliss looking to their right for a gap in traffic, then making a quick check to the left and then punching it. They missed the pedestrian who also spotted the same gap. Splat.

        This goes back to one of my earlier points. A stop sign makes the street safer, while having a very minor impact on overall throughput. Your killing two birds with one stone. You are making it easier for the bus to turn left and you are making the street safer.

      24. Lazarus, I really like your idea, and the critical swatch of land, between 4th and Banner, where the roundabout would be placed is already public land.

        It would also ameliorate any ramp meter backup because the “holding zone, atheist for traffic from 80th to the West and Banner Way to the south would be much longer.

        This is a great idea. I hope somebody from SDOT is reading. It solves everything and allows the westbound merge pocket for buses from First which means that traffic from the freeway to 80th westbound never has to stop.

      25. [The roundabout] solves everything.

        Right. Just one more lane, bro.

        Sigh. If that road is faster than more people use it. Then the road is no longer faster. It is called induced demand. The *only* way to fix the problem is to make transit faster (as I suggested).

      26. Ross, yes, it will improve things. That’s because it clears the outflow jams. The inflow is limited by the two lanes from the west entering the 80th street bridge (the straight lane from 80th and the off-ramp/jog from 85th). Only two lanes of traffic can cross the bridge. Only two lanes of traffic can even approach the bridge from the west, whether a BAT or a westbound merge lane is squeezed in west of First. Since SDOT isn’t going to three-lane 80th all the way from Aurora to First, any bus using 80th from the west is going to have its speed limited by the throughput of a single lane on 80th.

        You have stated that it is your experience that traffic gets jammed up eastbound, and we all agree that it’s probably something about the 80th and Banner Way intersection or points beyond that cause it. You suggest that it’s backups at the ramp meters, and I agree that they’re likely a major culprit.

        That said, with a roundabout cars waiting for the ramp meter can back up all the way to just south of 80th in a big question mark before they start to slow traffic on 80th west of First. Grant, it’s a little hincky at 80th and Banner, since well more than half the cars will probably want to cross the queue to continue west on 85th. So there will have to be some rigorous “don’t block the box” enforcement there. But adding a third to the length of the available queue has to be beneficial to the overall traffic flow.

  5. The cancellation of the 20 hits me hard as it currently provides a direct trip from Pinehurst / Northgate to the eastern part of Green Lake, which hosts a lot of retail stores and businesses. The impact is aggravated when combined with the cancellation of the 73, which currently takes me directly from Pinehurst to the Roosevelt / 65th area and the U-District. The situation will get better once the NE 130th St station opens, but until then, visiting those two neighbourhoods by transit will be much more cumbersome and discouraging for me.

    1. Ya, the cancelation of the 20 is another head-scratcher from Metro. Cancelling it leaves no good options for travel between Northgate or NSC and the Green Lake area, and it creates a coverage hole southeast of Green Lake along Latona.

      Additionally, most people I know who live in that area and are upset about the 20 cancelation are actually using the 20 to access Light Rail at U-Dist Station. Theoretically they could walk the added distance to the 62 and then do the counterintuitive thing of riding the 62 north to Green Lake and then east to Roosevelt Station just to go south on Link and pass the station that they access now with the 20, but I think we can all agree that that that isn’t a very good transit “improvement”..

      1. Ya, the cancellation of the 20 is another head-scratcher from Metro.

        Not when you understand the nature of bus routing. This is geared towards improving ridership. There is a loss of some coverage (which is what this post is addressing). If you are confused about these concepts, here is a good primer: https://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe. The book Walker wrote is even better.

        The high ridership part of the 20 is being retained. It is simply being renamed the 61. So folks who use the 20 to get from Northgate to Lake City (which likely is the bulk of the riders) will see no change, other than the bus coming more often. It is the other part of it that will be replaced. This section (which was basically just a shadow of Link) performed poorly. It is no wonder. Consider some of the trips it provided and the alternatives:

        1) Lake City to the UW. The 522 is much better.
        2) Victory Heights/Pinehurst to the UW. The bus goes right by Link and the bus route is so slow that a lot of people just transfer.
        3) North end of Northgate to the UW. You can take the 67 (which is much faster) or take several buses to Link.
        4) Shoreline to the UW. The 347 and 348 both connect to the 20. But they also connect to the 67 and Link.
        5) Capitol Hill to the east side of Green Lake. Either way you take Link. But why would you ride to Northgate and then take the 20 instead of riding to Roosevelt and then taking the 45?
        6) East Green Lake to the UW. The 45 is faster and more frequent.
        7) Ballard to East Green Lake. You could take the 40 and then the 20, but it would make way more sense to just transfer to the 45 (from either the 40 or the D).
        8) Bitter Lake to East Green Lake. You can take the (infrequent) 345 and then the 20, but you would be much better off taking the 5 and 45.

        It really only works for a tiny set of trips. It is no wonder it didn’t carry many riders. Folks found other ways to get there. In contrast, look at what the new 61 will offer:

        1) Lake City to Greenwood. Much faster than the alternative.
        2) Northgate to Greenwood. Much faster than the alternative.
        3) Greenwood to Link. Double the frequency.

        This will provide a lot more benefit, even though it is cheaper to operate! The drawback is loss of coverage, which again is what this post is addressing.

      2. the cancellation of the 20 creates a coverage hole southeast of Green Lake along Latona.

        Yes, which is what this post is about. Look, Metro is not going to resurrect a route that performs as poorly as the 20. You really have two choice: You can push for altering the 62 (as I suggest and Metro at one point proposed) or you can whine about Metro. Feel free to do the latter (you be you) but I’m sure most of the folks in the area would rather they just change the 62.

      3. @ Lazarus … I used to live off Latona & 55th and would use the 20 as my personal 15minute limo to either access PCC in Green Lake or go to 45th St. But there was one thing I noticed about the route: it was mostly empty. Aside from UW students using it between U-Dist and Trader Joes, the route was dead outside of peak hours. North of Northgate is a completely different story. As a transit advocate, the route really does need the axe- at least the southern half.

        The good thing about folks living in the route 20 area is the 62 is a 10 minute walk away. And if that’s too far, then that means you’re closer to Roosevelt Station or 45th St.

      4. Oh, and I get why you would want a one-seat ride from Tangletown to the U-District. The problem is there just aren’t enough riders to justify it. At best you make it a coverage route which means you run it every half hour. Meanwhile, the 62 and 44 are running every ten minutes. At that point folks will just take the 62 and transfer to the 44 (rather than wait for the 20).

        I know what you are thinking: “But Ross, the 62 and 44 don’t run every ten minutes!”

        You are correct. And one big reason is because of buses like the 20! When there are a lot of different routes you end up with lower frequency. In cases like this (where you have a relatively small group of potential riders effected) you are much better off just asking people to transfer.

      5. @Jordan,

        “ the route was dead outside of peak hours”

        Yep. But peak hour ridership was actually very solid, and the reasons for that are obvious – people use the 20 to access jobs or school at the UW/U-Dist, or to access Link at U-Dist Station for the same reason.

        Outside of peak? Anemic. But the local community isn’t asking for frequent service off-peak, they are just asking for coverage that gets them to U-Dist Station in a reasonable amount of time and on a predicable schedule. And none of the options involving the 62 do that. So more driving and more Uber’ing will be the result.

        We will see more issues like this in the future. Metro seems intent on maintaining some of their pre-Link legacy routes, but the ridership base wants more and improved coverage routes that get them to Link instead.

      6. There will be a transit hole between Northgate and Greenlake; we should recognize that. The loss of the 26 also created a transit hole between Latona and Fremont. These are failures of the grid which should be addressed long-term. But they’re not acute enough to keep the 20 right now.

        One way to address it would be to the 62 into a fully north-south route like its predecessor the 16 was. So it would replace the 20 north of 68th like the 16 and 26-Northgate did. The east-west part of the 62 would merge with the 45 into a fully east-west route.

      7. @Mike…

        But sir, that current transit hole is filled with a few riders. Green Lake – Northgate has low ridership, which is the main reason why the 20 is getting the axe – and I’m all for it. From my anecdotal experience, the bus is busiest between Lake City and Northgate with transferees and U-District and Roosevelt with students needing to shop at Trader Joes. Everything else in between is dead. If anyone in Tangletown or the Latona area wants to go to Greenlake, it’s a reasonable walk. And if they want to reach U-District, they can take the 44 or walk (as evidenced by my friend who lives at 50th & Latona who simply walks to the Ave). The only real loss is folks needing to reach Northgate, which apparently is not enough for the 20 to stay alive.

        In a time of driver shortages, “coverage” must be secondary to higher demand corridors and routes.

      8. The only real loss is folks needing to reach Northgate, which apparently is not enough for the 20 to stay alive.

        Bingo! There just aren’t enough people taking trips along the corridor south of Northgate. From a network standpoint, it really doesn’t do much. It provides a one-seat connection to the UW, but only for a handful (along Latona). It can’t compete with the 45 for the bulk of the riders. Same goes for Link. I’m sure a lot of people walk, and those that don’t are more likely going to catch the 45 or 62. You are really only talking about a fairly small part of Latona that doesn’t have a better way of getting to the UW (or Link). If you are up at 65th you take the 62 (or walk). If you are close to 45th you catch the 44 (or walk). If Tangletown was like Capitol Hill it might work, but it isn’t. Likewise if Northgate was as big a destination as the UW it might work (but it isn’t).

      9. “Green Lake – Northgate has low ridership,”

        It’s still a transit hole for those who want to do it. How would you get from Latona to Northgate or Fremont? Or to focus on higher-density village pairs, from Greenlake to Northgate. The fact that there’s no reasonable way to get to the next village or to far north Seattle is network failure, like the issue of getting from Lake City to Bitter Lake or Lake City to Ballard is. It may the smallest transit need now, or we may not be able to afford to because limited funds must go to higher priorities, but it’s still a flaw that should be ideally/eventually addressed.

      10. @ Mike Orr,

        “ How would you get from Latona to Northgate ”

        Or to North Seattle College, or Lake City, or any of the places in between?

        And even more important, how do these people get to Link? Most people transferring to Link will be heading south, so walking an extra half mile to the 62, just to go north, and then to go east, to finally go south, is more than a little inefficient.

        As you say, deleting the 20 is a network failure. More and more people want to get to Link, Metro should make that easier and easier. Not harder and harder.

      11. Lazarus, I think you could say the same thing about folks wanting to go between Greenwood and Lake City, though – the best transit option right now between them involves going 20 blocks south to Roosevelt to catch the 522. The 61 would allow a much more direct connection, and likely benefit more people than the segment of the 20 south of Northgate.

        It’s not that the 20 isn’t a useful route, it’s just that there’s not resources for all of the routes Metro wants to run.

      12. I think that the optimum situation east of Green Lake is to reroute the “trunkline” 62 to Latona – 56th – Meridian to speed it up as Ross suggests, move the 45 to 80th and Woodlawn, and add a coverage route run half-hourly that bounces between Roosevelt and U-District stations and return using the existing 62 route from 65th and Roosevelt as far as 56th and Kirkwood, turns left to Latona turns right to 50th, turns left to Brooklyn and hot loops around U-District station.

        This serves the “remote” part of Tangletown around 63rd and Woodlawn which is a long walk from either 55th and Meridian or 65th and Latona. It restores the link between the U-District and the Latona neighborhood, and in fact strengthens it through Tangletown. It also increases frequency a bit for long-distance riders in the heart of the route, since buses headed east of 56th would all go to a Link station.

        It could use a somewhat smaller vehicle than the standard Metro bus, with maybe only one seat along one side of it in order to fit in the narrow Tangletown streets.

      13. How would you get from Latona to Northgate or Fremont?

        To get to Fremont you would take the 62. To get to Northgate you would take the 62 and then Link.

        Or to focus on higher-density village pairs, from Greenlake to Northgate.

        You would take the 45 and 61.

        Or to North Seattle College

        Take the 45 and 61. Alternatively you could take the 45 the other direction and transfer to Link.

        or Lake City, or any of the places in between?

        You can take the 45 and 61. In the case of Lake City you may be better off taking the 45 the other direction and then taking the 522 (or 522 replacement).

        And even more important, how do these people get to Link?

        The 45.

        Most people transferring to Link will be heading south, so walking an extra half mile to the 62, just to go north, and then to go east, to finally go south, is more than a little inefficient.

        Oh, you are talking about the people who live between 45th and 65th. If they live close to 45th they take the 44. If they live close to 65th they take the 62. That leaves a very tiny group of people who at worse backtrack using the 62 or take the 62 followed by the 44 (if they are trying to get to the UW).

        The fact that there’s no reasonable way to get to the next village or to far north Seattle is network failure, like the issue of getting from Lake City to Bitter Lake or Lake City to Ballard is.

        No, because in all of these cases the route is straightforward. You are never going the wrong direction. You simply have to transfer between two buses that should be frequent. In contrast, if you want to go from Lake City to Bitter Lake you have to go way out of your way (all the way south to 92nd) and that involves an infrequent bus (the 345). As far as Lake City to Ballard goes, this will be better once the 522 is replaced by a bus that goes to the U-District. Then riders will take that bus to the U-District and then the 44.

        There are several issues here that are being conflated. First there is strictly coverage. In other words is there a bus — any bus — that you can walk to. This post addresses that. But even without that improvement there is nothing special about the area when it comes to coverage. If we were to list the areas that need more coverage it would probably not crack the top ten! Just take a look at West Seattle. Notice that the 37, 56 and 57 are *not* all day routes. That is a huge swath of the city with no bus service at all. Same with Broadview. Or Laurelhurst. Or for that matter Sunset Hill (which has way more apartments than Latona).

        Another issue is one-seat rides. Yes, it sucks when you have to transfer to get to a place that isn’t that far away. But that is common and not necessarily a flaw in the network. Even if you build a really good grid you will have fairly short trips that require a transfer (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YLTp2V4knbEzfzsG9). In our case, consider the 62 again. This runs on Stone Way, which has lots of apartments (way more than Tangletown). But the 62 doesn’t go to the U-District. This means a very urban area doesn’t have a direct connection to the biggest destination in the north end (despite being fairly close).

        There is no easy way to solve that problem. Folks are basically asking for a grid (of sorts) with the 62, while also asking for a hub and spoke system (with the UW as the hub). That is extremely inefficient. It would mean buses every hour. Not only is a hub and spoke system a lot less efficient than a grid, but if are adding both — with multiple hubs I might add — you are going to have extremely infrequent buses.

        Finally there is two-seat rides (instead of three-seat rides). Unfortunately, due to our tough geography, some three seat-rides are inevitable. Other three-seat rides are actually fast, simply because of Link. But three-seat rides should be avoided whenever possible. In this case, replacing the 20 with the 61 will add a handful of three-seat rides, but reduce way more. Trips like Phinney Ridge to Lake City or Licton Springs to the north end of Northgate will be much easier.

        The case for two buses in Tangletown is especially weak. Given its density and awkward location it is lucky to have the 62, and not just a coverage bus. In terms of density it is similar to 8th NW, an area with a bus every half hour (if you are lucky). There is a stronger case for connecting Northgate with Green Lake, but not that strong. Sometimes people just have to transfer.

      14. “consider the 62 again. This runs on Stone Way, which has lots of apartments (way more than Tangletown). But the 62 doesn’t go to the U-District”

        Of course not, the 44 and the 31/32 go to the U-District. One or the other is within 5 blocks of all parts of Stone Way, and runs every 15 minutes.

        The Latona situation is the opposite: there’s no way to get to Northgate without the 20 or a comparable north-south route. Transfers are generally good, but not when both halves of the transfer are less than two miles: that means you’re waiting as long as you’re riding, or a 15-minute trip turns into a 30-minute trip. That’s what people object to and why they don’t take transit in those situations and demand one-seat rides.

        In any case, a north-south route somewhere between Woodlawn and Latona is a straightforward grid corridor. The fact that the 62 fundamentally turns east in the middle of it is somewhat of a flaw — although it’s somewhat counteracted by trips from Roosevelt/NE 65th to Fremont and Dexter. So there should be something north-south between east Greenlake and I-5.

      15. Of course not, the 44 and the 31/32 go to the U-District. One or the other is within 5 blocks of all parts of Stone Way, and runs every 15 minutes.

        And Linden is close to the 44 and 45. Same idea. Folks in Tangletown might have to walk a bit farther, but there are way more people taking walks like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SRSwAyBiWLq7sG4NA. Again, this gets back to density. There just aren’t that many people in Tangletown. In contrast, there are plenty of people along Aurora/Stone Way that have to go north or south to catch a bus.

        Want a better example: Phinney Ridge. All of Phinney Ridge between 45th and 85th has a two-seat ride to the UW. This is a much bigger gap, and it effects way more people. To get to the UW people have to transfer. That is life.

        The Latona situation is the opposite: there’s no way to get to Northgate without the 20 or a comparable north-south route.

        Yes there is — you transfer! Take the 62 then the 45. It is no different than a lot of other places. Wedgwood, Phinney Ridge, Licton Springs, Ravenna, Fremont, Ballard High School. To get to the Northgate you transfer. Unless we make all the buses in the north end go to Northgate (a really bad idea) people will have to transfer.

        There is really nothing special with Tangletown (other than the fact that they have a cool name). It is fairly low density for Seattle. It just happens to be “on the way” between Roosevelt and Fremont. Otherwise it would have a bus like the 20 — running every half hour, carrying very few. It would be similar to the 28 or 79. A few good combinations but clearly just a coverage bus. However since it has the 62 it doesn’t warrant an additional coverage bus. Folks can transfer.

        Just for giggles, imagine what a more grid-like approach would be like. The 45 gets combined with the 62 (North Beach to Sand Point). The 61 goes all the way across. Those are your two main east-west routes north of Green Lake. Modify the 31/32 to follow Stone Way until 40th (to extend its east-west nature). To form a north-south corridor east of I-5 you combine the 348 with the 67 (as I suggested). Basically have a bus that follows 15th/Roosevelt all the way from Shoreline to the UW. Now you need a similar route to the west of I-5. It is actually fairly simple. Take the 346 and just have it continue south, all the way to Fremont. So that means running by the college (but skipping Northgate TC) and then running on the east side of Green Lake and following Meridian/Wallingford all the way to 35th. It is remarkably straight (about as straight as the street grid allows). It would be similar to other nearby buses (the 5, E and the new 348/67 I proposed). This would be a solid grid route. Guess what though: It doesn’t go to the Northgate. It doesn’t go to the UW. That is the nature of grids. You have to transfer.

      16. “Yes there is — you transfer! Take the 62 then the 45.”

        You’re the one who wants to abolish the 11 and 49, saying we must have an 8-Madison Park route to be grid-correct, but then you say it doesn’t matter between Greenlake and I-5: the 62 can do the same thing as the 49.

      17. “Otherwise it would have a bus like the 20 — running every half hour”

        Or every 15 minutes. Just because Seattle currently has substandard frequencies doesn’t mean it should have or will always have or other cities do. Even if it is a “coverage route”, maybe all the “frequent routes” should run every 5-10 minutes and most of the “coverage routes” should run every 15 minutes.

      18. Transfers are generally good, but not when both halves of the transfer are less than two miles

        But that is inevitable with any grid system! Otherwise it isn’t a grid. Look at the previous example I listed: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YLTp2V4knbEzfzsG9. That is Vancouver. A system that has been called an almost perfect grid. Yes, it is annoying that you have to transfer when your destination is fairly close but diagonal. But that is just the way it is.

        The alternative is some sort of hybrid. A grid, but with a hub and spoke system on top of it? It just doesn’t work. You are talking about a hub and spoke system not only to the UW, but to Northgate, which is not even a major destination! So a grid, with a hub and spoke system to multiple hubs. OK, fine. Your bus will arrive ever hour. Seriously, you are forgetting one of the main advantages of a grid: It is more efficient. The more it is like a grid the more money you save. Remember my proposal for merging the 67 with the 348. It saves money (because it is more of a grid). In contrast if you run the 67, 348 and 73 (like we do now) the buses are infrequent. It just doesn’t work.

        The biggest problem we have with transit in this city is not that a handful of people in Tangletown will have to transfer to get to the UW. Or that people in some parts of Pinehurst would have to transfer to get to Northgate (if the system was more like a grid). The problem is that buses are way too infrequent. Not only in the north end, but in the Central Area. The greater Central Area (First Hill, Capitol Hill, CD) is the largest contiguous block of density in the state. Yet buses will run every 20 minutes. Twenty minutes! Part of the reason for that is this idea that people aren’t supposed to transfer. Not to a bus running every six minutes or a train every ten. Folks are supposed to have a one-seat ride to downtown even if a lot of people on the bus aren’t headed that way. As a result, frequency is terrible for a lot of riders.

      19. Or every 15 minutes. Just because Seattle currently has substandard frequencies doesn’t mean it should have or will always have or other cities do. Even if it is a “coverage route”, maybe all the “frequent routes” should run every 5-10 minutes and most of the “coverage routes” should run every 15 minutes.

        Sounds good. I could see that. Except only if we make the system more efficient. We can’t have a hub-and-spoke system like that, let alone a system that is both hub-and-spoke AND a grid. You just can’t do it. Look at the 67, 73 and 347/348. This is exactly that kind of system. The 67 and 348 are hub-and-spoke (to Northgate). The 73 is a north-south grid line. The result: None of the buses are frequent. The 73 ran every half hour *before* the drive shortage. The 347/348 ran every 15 minutes. The 67 is the only one that is close to frequent, but at best it ran every ten minutes. That is what happens when you spread yourself too thin. You want core routes running every 5-10 minutes with everything else in the city running every 15? Join the club. The way to do it is to create more of a grid, as David proposed a long time ago: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/

        You’re the one who wants to abolish the 11 and 49, saying we must have an 8-Madison Park route to be grid-correct, but then you say it doesn’t matter between Greenlake and I-5: the 62 can do the same thing as the 49.

        I don’t want to get rid of the 49. I want to send it to Beacon Hill. I do want to get rid of the 11, and send the 8 to Madison Park instead. Yes, in both cases this is more of a grid. Just as importantly, you would have dramatically better frequency because the system is more efficient.

        Sending the 62 somewhere else doesn’t help with frequency. I’m really not sure what you are proposing. Do you want the 62 to loop back to the UW? Seriously? Do you want it to go across the water via Gas Works (like a Duck Boat)? If a bus is going north-south on the east side of Green Lake the only logical place to go is Fremont. It is really the most grid-like option (such as it is). As I wrote, the most grid like would be to have a bus that starts in Shoreline and then follows Meridian/Wallingford as much as possible. But it still ends up in Fremont.

        It sounds to me like you are suggesting a second route on top of the other route, which will make frequencies worse. That would be like saying I want to send the 8 to Madison Park, but I also want to keep the 11. Sorry, no.

      20. @Mike — I think you are missing a crucial point here. Northgate is a detour from just about every direction. If you are going north on Roosevelt from the station (up and over Maple Leaf) then Northgate is a big detour. If you are going south from Shoreline on 15th (through Pinehurst) it is still a detour. If you are from Shoreline on Meridian (by the college) it is a big detour. If you are on Wallingford, going north from Green Lake, it is still a detour. Going straight would mean going to Shoreline via Meridian.

        Some detouring is inevitable, obviously. But the future 61 is the only route that will pass by the Northgate Transit Center and *not* reverse directions. If you think of it as a bus from Greenwood to Lake City, serving the station is *not* a detour. There are other ways to get there, but the route is direct. No other bus offers that. The 20 is not direct. It reverses itself. If you started in Lake City the bus goes west all the way to Wallingford, then goes east to Woodlawn. This is part of the reason it didn’t do well. For Lake City to that part of Green Lake you might as well catch the 522. Northgate is an awkward station to serve, and the 61 is the only route that serves it in a direct manner (other than the buses that end there).

      21. “Sending the 62 somewhere else doesn’t help with frequency. I’m really not sure what you are proposing.”

        Reroute the 62 north in the 20 alignment to Northgate, to make it a true north-south route.

        “A grid, but with a hub and spoke system on top of it?”

        Northgate is a grid node for a Meridian/Woodlawn/Latona route.

      22. But Ross, you are throwing people from 62nd and Woodlawn to Woodlawn and Sunnyside — who have had direct service no more than one block away since the 1910’s when Tangletown was built — yes, it was originally a one way loop — under a bus more than a third of a mile away.

        Some of those people paid a premium for their houses to have nearby transit.

        Give them a half-hourly coverage route to Link.

      23. Northgate is a grid node for a Meridian/Woodlawn/Latona route.

        No it’s not! Northgate is a detour. I explained that before. Here is the natural north-south route: https://maps.app.goo.gl/az4VEp2qFm58YY4a7. Notice that it stays remarkably close to Meridian the whole way. It has to go around the two lakes of course. It follows Wallingford in places (where it is an arterial and Meridian is not) but Wallingford is only a couple blocks over. This is a straight north-south line that extends from Lake Union (Fremont) to the county line (and beyond). If you were to make a grid, this would be one of pieces, just like this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3ZAatebRQRPD5jLe8. Now you have two north-south lines on either side of the freeway.

        The drawback of course, is that such a grid misses Link connections. Sound Transit didn’t consider the network when they built Link. By staying on one side (or right next to) the freeway the whole way they basically force some of the buses to ignore Link or detour to it. But the more you detour the more you water down the system. Green Lake is connected to Link very well (with the 45). It is a much closer connection. It is the direction most people want to go (south).

        Yes, you could send the 62 to Northgate (and presumably send the 45 to Sand Point). But that means a lot of extra service for not that many riders. I’m not saying that people aren’t going from Green Lake to Northgate, but it is tiny compare to the number going from Green Lake to Roosevelt/UW and thus Link. This would provide an additional Link connection for Green Lake riders, but one very few would use. As Lazarus rightly pointed out, in the north end people take Link to go south (not north). You’ve basically doubled up service (on a stretch that is fairly slow) and adds very little.

        In contrast, consider the 61 again. If you are in Greenwood and want to take Link, either bus will do. You take whatever bus comes first. Even if you are headed to the UW you can take the UW and transfer via Link (rather than wait for the 45). Likewise it connects to Aurora (for those don’t want to walk). Making yet another connection to Northgate (this time via the 62) just doesn’t offer that.

        Northgate is a very awkward station. Unlike U-District and Roosevelt stations, it can’t easily be served in a north-south direction (other than via the freeway). It is not great from an east-west direction either. The proposed 61 (which will go northeast-southwest) is a good as you can get from a grid standpoint, although it should go farther west (as you pointed out).

      24. But Ross, you are throwing people from 62nd and Woodlawn to Woodlawn and Sunnyside — who have had direct service no more than one block away since the 1910’s when Tangletown was built — yes, it was originally a one way loop — under a bus more than a third of a mile away.

        Some of those people paid a premium for their houses to have nearby transit.

        Give them a half-hourly coverage route to Link.

        Look at the old map again. Here is an ever older version, from 2015: https://seattletransitmap.com/version/1512d1/SeattleTransitMap_v1512d1_web.pdf. Notice something? No connection from Tangletown to the U-District. They had the half-hour 16 (which was an express to downtown). They had the half-hour 26 (which is remarkably like the 62 except it was a lot less frequent). The 20 is a very recent concept. If you are interested in these folks who supposedly bought their house for transit reasons then you would resurrect the 16.

        But if you are going to do that, then why not do the same all of the city? Restore the old 41 (as I’m sure lots of people miss the express to downtown). Run buses like the 19 all day long. If memory serves, the 17 was an all-day bus as well. Of course you can kiss 15-minute (let alone 10-minute) buses goodbye. Sure, ridership would plummet, but the important thing is that we honor the needs of the people who bought extremely expensive homes back when they were merely very expensive.

        Sorry, no. It really isn’t that complicated. Just run alter the 62 as suggested.

      25. “Northgate is a grid node for a Meridian/Woodlawn/Latona route.”

        “No it’s not! Northgate is a detour. I explained that before. Here is the natural north-south route [west on 80th, north on Wallingford, east on 92nd, north on College Way/Meridian — like the 16 did]”

        Your proposal doesn’t do that either. It just says if you want to go north, you can’t. Just like if you’re in Phinney Ridge or north Ballard and want to go east around 65th or 70th, you can’t, because the buses only go north-south.

        So let’s take this routing and modify it to go on 92nd east of I-5 to serve Northgate. That’s where most of the businesses and services that people might be going to are. It misses the college and the businesses on Meridian, but you have to choose one or the other, so we should choose the larger village (a regional center) with the most choices. Then it can continue north from Northgate Station like the 346 currently does. Or do one of those variations around Haller Lake.

      26. Your proposal doesn’t do that either.

        No. I’m not calling for a major overhaul in the area in an attempt to create a grid. I’m just pointing out that a bus that goes from Green Lake to Northgate does not follow a grid. Not north-south, not east-west. In contrast the 45 is fairly east-west between Roosevelt and North Beach. The 61 is fairly east-west as well.

        So let’s take this routing and modify it to go on 92nd east of I-5 to serve Northgate.

        Right, but my point is you get very few riders that way and you have to pay for extra service. It is all good and well to say that a lot of people are dependent on that one seat ride, but obviously the ridership numbers say otherwise. Think of the 20 as an experiment. It failed.

        Look, the same argument applies also to the 73. It is shockingly similar. You basically have two problems:

        1) People lose their one-seat ride. Pinehurst to Maple Leaf/Roosevelt/UW. As you put it, if you want to go south, you can’t. Not to a secondary destination (like Northgate) but to the largest destination in the north end (and top three in the state).

        2) People have to walk further for a bus. As Tom suggested, it is possible that someone bought their house because it had very good transit. Not only the 73, but the 77 (which was an excellent express bus to downtown). Now they not only have lost their express but they have to walk further just to catch the bus and transfer.

        Thus you can make the same case for the 73 as for the 20. The problem in both cases is that it costs money. Some bus somewhere gets cut to pay for it. The 28 (which performs better than the 20 or 73) runs every half hour instead of 15 minutes. Or huge swaths of West Seattle have absolutely no service in the middle of the day. All because people aren’t supposed to transfer or walk a little farther to the bus.

        That is why I am *not* proposing we keep the 73. I am instead proposing we send the 348 to the UW. This would provide the same connection as the 73 (but not the old coverage). Some people would lose their one-seat ride to Northgate, but many more would gain a one-seat ride to the UW. There is one really big difference between what I am proposing and what you are proposing:

        It saves money. If you send the 348 to the UW you can get rid of the 67. This means that the 28 can now run every 15 minutes all day long or maybe some part of West Seattle actually gets something (anything) in the middle of the day. Nothing you are proposing does that. It is the opposite. It costs money.

        It is easy to propose new routes. But at the very least it should result in the same frequency we have now. Better yet, like what I proposed for the 348 (and Metro’s proposal to replace the 20 with the 61) it should result in better overall frequency.

    2. The long-range plan still has a coverage route on Latona, so this is really just the driver/vehicle shortage and not a full cancellation. I would assume either the 62 gets shifted to Latona and the corridor is upgraded to frequent, or an infrequent 20 comes back in some form on Latona.

      Either way, that Metro is concentrating on keeping the frequent routes frequent is a good thing, rather than trying to spread itself too thinly like pre-2010.

      1. @Skylar,

        Bringing back the 20 in some form would be good, but I’m not sure I see much commitment from Metro to do that.

        In the mean time people closer to Latona are left without an effective way to access Link, which is what many of these residents used the 20 for.

        People I know who are impacted by the cancellation of the 20 are just planning to switch to Uber to access U-Dist Station, which is not the direction this city should be going with transit.

      2. As explained earlier, the long-range plan (or at least the map) is meaningless. It is highly unlikely that the 20 will be resurrected. The change is not based on the driver shortage (the Lynnwood Link restructure basically assumed it was over when they created the map). It is based on providing a better network. The part of the 20 that is being eliminated didn’t get many riders. It was basically a coverage route that didn’t provide much coverage.

        I think people forget why these buses did fairly well back in the day and why they don’t now. Not too long ago, the 16 was the main way you got from downtown to North Seattle Community College. It also connected downtown to northeast Green Lake (where there are a ton of apartments). This is where the bulk of the ridership on the 16 came from. Meanwhile, the 26 connected Fremont and Dexter with downtown. This is where the 26 got most of its riders. Thus a lot of riders were lucky to be “on the way”.

        Consider those trips now. If you are headed to North Seattle College from downtown you take Link. Likewise if you are trying to get from downtown to northeast Green Lake you just take the 45. If you are trying to go downtown from Tangletown you take the 62. The 62 also replaced the Fremont-Dexter-Downtown section (the 20 doesn’t go that far south).

        Thus the 20 really only works for a handful of trips serving relatively few riders. It forces a transfer for some and means a coverage hole for others. The transfer is less than ideal, but doesn’t effect that many riders (northeast Green Lake to the college) and reducing the coverage hole is the point of this post.

      3. One of the things a lot of these discussions illustrates is just how much of a barrier I-5 is, particularly in the Latona stretch between 50th and 65th/Ravenna. The 20 might not even have been created from the ashes of the 26 if I-5 weren’t there, or had a crossing around 55th. Folks on the 20 now would have had the enviable choice of two frequent routes (62 and 67) rather than just the 62, and could take the 67 all the way into campus rather than just adjacent to it.

        Presumably there also would be housing and retail instead of pavement in what should be a dense part of the city feeding into these routes as well, but that’s probably a topic for another thread…

      4. One of the things a lot of these discussions illustrates is just how much of a barrier I-5 is, particularly in the Latona stretch between 50th and 65th/Ravenna.

        Yes, absolutely. It is a big barrier for much of the city. This is why the pedestrian bridge to Northgate Station (as expensive as it was) was so important. The alternative is to go way south to 92nd, or north to the terrible Northgate Way. That is a large gap that has basically been cut in half and the results are fantastic. Every time I take Link from there I see people on the bridge and many of them aren’t taking Link. In the north end of Seattle, the gap you mentioned (between 50th and 63rd) is now probably the worst. The gap up by Jackson Park (between 130th and 145th) is actually bigger, but doesn’t really matter (because of the golf course). As you wrote, folks in Latona are actually not that far away from Roosevelt Avenue — they just can’t there.

        I’ve often argued for building a pedestrian/bike bridge across I-5 at 47th. But I could definitely see the value of one at around 55th or 56th. The freeway isn’t especially wide there (although it isn’t that narrow either). I think the argument against it is the same problem we have with extra bus service there: It is just isn’t that densely populated an area. It sucks to have to take two buses to get to the UW (or walk a long ways) but the same thing is true for Phinney Ridge, and there are a lot more apartments on Phinney Ridge.

      5. “As explained earlier, the long-range plan (or at least the map) is meaningless. It is highly unlikely that the 20 will be resurrected.”

        You can’t just say that as if that’s an ultimate solution. That’s like repealing Obamacare and not replacing it with anything: we’d go back to insurance companies excluding people so that some aren’t eligible for any plan, 9-month waiting periods to start using a new plan, and price-gouging. That’s why I wrote an article on where the current Metro Connects maps are. If we throw that out, then we need to have something else, and there is nothing else at this point.

        Otherwise you’re doing short-term planning one restructure at a time, with no articulated long-term goal to work toward or measure your progress against, and it leaves holes like this Latona to Northgate, which you don’t notice until you live there or go there someday or meet somebody who does.

    3. Nice to hear from you, Dai!

      The 20 is basically going to be replaced by the 61. It will connect to Greenwood instead of that side of Green Lake. I think this is an improvement overall. Not only for one-seat rides (to Greenwood) but two-seat as well. For example, our neck of the woods to Phinney Ridge. Right now it looks like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ocN8Wc3YQP8C9TaFA. Notice that it either requires a really long walk or a three-seat ride. It is worth noting that this change also saves money. The 61 is shorter than the existing twenty. This means it can run more often at no additional cost. I understand why some folks want to keep the 20, but the 61 offers a lot more (for less money).

      I agree about the 73. I pushed for combining the 67 and 348. Send the 348 to the UW and get rid of the 67. This would also save money while providing more of a grid.

      1. Thanks for the reply, Ross.

        I spoke with a Metro rep at the SDOT Open House held at Lake City Library a few days ago. I told him they should keep the 73 alive at least until the 77 was implemented. I expected him to say they can’t, but surprisingly, he said they’d gotten a lot of requests like that. I sure hope this will help them adjust their plan accordingly.

        As for the 20, if I wasn’t clear, the new 61 won’t take me to the east side of Green Lake where I’ve got places to visit. With both the 20 and 73 gone, I would have to transfer twice from Pinehurst to East Green Lake instead of none or once. Yes, this is a personal inconvenient that you may believe I should just accept, but I have a feeling I’m not the only one.

      2. I think it is tough to make the case for the 73 as it exists now. On the other hand, I would send the 348 to the UW and have it replace the 67. That basically replaces the 73 while also saving money. I feel like the case for this is very strong.

        the new 61 won’t take me to the east side of Green Lake where I’ve got places to visit. I would have to transfer twice from Pinehurst to East Green Lake instead of none or once.

        Twice? That implies you wouldn’t walk to Northgate Way. Otherwise it is one transfer (from the 61 to the 45). Instead you will have to take the 348 to Northgate, then the 61, then the 45. Alternatively, you could take the 348 to Northgate, then Link, then backtrack on the 45. If you are close to 125th you could eventually take the 77, then Link at 130th, then the 45. Taking Link for such a short distance is a bit of a pain but pretty soon it will be a lot more frequent.

        But yes, either way it would be two transfers. This is another argument for sending the 348 to the UW. You would still have to transfer, but only once. Basically you would take the 348 to Roosevelt and then the 45. Between Roosevelt and Crown Hill the 45 is basically an east-west bus, which means you would be going south, then west. This is very grid-like (even if the lake forces you to go back north a bit).

        I feel very strongly that the 61 is an improvement over the 20 as it provides more of a grid. The problem is other buses are not. We have this weird hybrid system — half hub, half grid. Worse yet, the hub for a lot of these places is Northgate. Northgate is not a major destination (it is not the UW) and it is awkward to access. Notice how many buses actually reverse directions to get to it (40, 67, 345, 346).

        Other buses just end there. In contrast, the 61 is the only bus that will go through Northgate and follow a straightforward path the whole way. it will have to zig-zag (like every other bus) but it is always going the same basic direction (northeast/southwest).

        In contrast, look at the buses that go past Roosevelt or the U-District. They basically just keep going the same direction. That is because the Roosevelt and U-District stations are basically “on the way” while the Northgate Station isn’t (for every bus except the future 61).

      3. “I feel very strongly that the 61 is an improvement over the 20 as it provides more of a grid”

        It also provides a half-grid when it terminates at Greenwood instead of going to Real Ballard or at least 24th Ave NW. So I’m not sure it will be as great as you think, or that it will pick up that many riders from the 40 or address the 40’s mediocre travel time.

      4. Yes, it would be better if the 61 west as far as 15th NW. But going as far as Greenwood gets you two major corridors (served by the 5 and the E). Trips like these will be dramatically better: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fZtHSxAt5WVyCLPw7. Note that the fastest route involves 20 minutes of walking and still takes almost an hour (for what is a 15 minute bus trip). If you want less walking it will involve two transfers while going way out of your way (and you will get there a full hour after you leave: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1xPf6zKga8gyDPk28). Same goes for Aurora (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n6x1SJwBCphX9Lqi6). That is over an hour (for what is a ten minute drive) despite the first leg involving one of the fastest, most frequent buses in our system. The 61 is not ideal, but it offers way more than the 20.

      5. In the long run I see the 40 being merged with the 61. The first step would be to extend the D to Northgate (via the current tail of the D). Then the 40 keeps going straight across on 85th until it becomes the 61 (thus closing the gap).

        That is probably too long (especially with the bridge crossing). So I would split it. Here is one option: Have the 40 start downtown and follow its current pathway until 65th. At 65th head west, towards 32nd and then north to where the 17 terminates (by the old Gob Shop). Then have the northern half (now back to “61”) go from Lake City to Ballard via 85th then 24th. As it gets to Market it would turn right and layover with the 44 (assuming there is no other place to layover in Ballard). That would provide a bit of overlap for folks who are transferring from the 40 to 61. The split (if you will) would occur as the bus reaches it’s westernmost point (which is also in a very dense area — perfect for a bit of overlap as well as an endpoint). By splitting there you hurt fewer riders (e. g. the 40 crosses 15th twice, but no one would ride the 40 between there).

        It would cost more. You are overlapping in Ballard and more of 85th (although you avoid the current overlapping on Holman Road). You are also adding all-day service (and frequent at that) for that little Sunset Hill/North Beach section (the new tail of the 40). But you would connect greater Ballard really well with Northeast Seattle.

        There are other variations. For example, do the 40 as suggested, but alter the 61 like so: From Lake City continue to 85th and Greenwood, but then turn south on 8th NW. Then turn west on 65th until 24th. Then south on 24th and west on Market (as before). It is not quite a grid but it is pretty close. You have a crossing route on 65th that avoids the tight corners of 65th on Phinney (the turn from 8th to 65th is trivial in comparison). All the routes keep going the same basic direction. By providing east-west service (on 65th) it reflects the nature of Ballard. When it comes to density, Ballard is more east-west than north-south. Again, this would cost money, but the benefit would be huge.

        You also cover most of 8th which means that you could just get rid of the 28. Or make it peak-only (since it is much faster for going downtown). This would pay for a lot of the changes.

      6. Metro will probably not do this, but I would like to see the 61 extended to go to Ballard via 85th->Greenwood->65th->24th, that is, Greenwood, not 8th, as the population density served along the way is much higher there. This would go a long way in solving one of the more annoying transit holes in North Seattle – that residents of Phinney Ridge have no bus to go east/west, while also connecting Ballard, Greenwood, Northgate, and Lake City all with a single line.

      7. I agree, asdf2. 65th has decent density, Ballard High School, and would be a logical additional E/W corridor in the gap between the 44 and 45, which is 30 blocks wide.

      8. 65th and Phinney is a very tight corner. If Metro felt comfortable running an east-west bus there it changes the dynamic. Instead of the new 61 going to Greenwood it could keep going south on Wallingford until Green Lake then follow Winona/Linden and 65th to Ballard. (Or that is a different bus, perhaps going to Roosevelt.)

        As apartments and shops go there is not much difference between turning on 8th or Greenwood. Remember if you go on 8th it means you are traveling on 85th longer. Also worth noting that development on Greenwood is just more visible — there are apartments on 6th (near 8th) that are similar.

        I think the biggest difference is less backtracking. If the bus goes on 8th it means that Phinney Ridge riders have to either go south to Market or north to 85th to get to Ballard. Either way it means going back and forth. In contrast if the bus went on Greenwood people on 8th would take the 28 down to Market or catch the new 61. In both cases it is a 90 degree turn.

        The advantage of going on 8th is that you avoid the problematic turn and could get rid of the 28. I’m not sure how I feel about that though. From a grid perspective you are just trading one weakness for another. You make it easier to go east-west, but harder to go north south (on 8th). It means someone on 8th trying to get to Fremont has to go over to 24th.

        I didn’t realize it when I sketched out my ideas yesterday but if the bus goes south on either 8th or Greenwood then the 40 has to stay on 24th. This means no additional coverage on 32nd. Various options get pretty messy. There is no way to create a good grid without a fair amount of redundant coverage and/or dealing with that awkward 65th & Phinney intersection.

      9. In addition to density, I would argue that the geography is such that people on Greenwood benefit more from a 61 extension that takes Greenwood than people on 8th do from a 61 extension that takes 8th. A 61 extension that took Greenwood would still stop at 8th/65th anyway on the way to Ballard and 8th is simply a much shorter and flatter walk to the D-line on 15th than Greenwood is. On top of this, somebody living near 8th/85th can also walk to the 40 as well. Phinney Ridge simply has fewer options, and not having a 61 extension that takes Greenwood leads to more long walks and/or awkward transfers.

        Yes, the tight turn at Greenwood/65th seems like an issue, but Metro should not be using that as an excuse to say that, because the corner is too tight for a bus, everybody that wants to live in Phinney Ridge and wants to go east/west has to suck it up and either pay for Uber or go buy a car. That is essentially what Metro does today, but I believe it can and should be able to do better than that. First off, SDOT can easily adjust the stop lines to allow room for buses turning right into the westbound lane to swing across the eastbound lane. I’ve seen this done at other intersections, and should be pretty straightforward. If that’s not enough, Metro can simply run the route with smaller buses. I’m pretty sure a 30-person-capacity Trailhead Direct bus could make that turn just fine, even if the 60-foot articulated bus typically used by Metro cannot. It is the job of Metro to procure fleet that can handle the road conditions it needs to handle, it shouldn’t be the job of passengers to take circuitous trips because Metro is artificially limiting itself to routes accessible to giant 60-foot buses. Of course, a smaller bus might mean more crowding and/or needing to run more often to avoid overcrowding, but if that’s the case, that means it’s a popular route that deserves good service, so Metro should just run additional buses and deal with it.

      10. Here’s a little outside-the-box thought about using Greenwood and 65th. The problem is the south / westbounds, right? The east / northbounds can make a left from 65th to Phinney pretty easily.

        Presumably, by the time this happens there will be enough BEB’s in the fleet that this could use them. So, instead of having Ballard-bound buses take the arterial wiggle to Phinney at 67th, take the right-hand wiggle and go down Greenwood to a bulbed stop at 65th and Greenwood. It’s only a short block to the business district on Phinney, and it’s pretty flat.

        BEB’s would be quiet enough that they shouldn’t raise a fuss with the residents, and that one block of Greenwood could be made one-way southbound to eliminate meeting hassles. It would mean that folks living on the street would always have to “loop” one way other on a trip, but it’s only one block.

        The buses would charge at the Ballard end of the route.

      11. @Tom — That might work. It is still a bit tight making the turn from Greenwood to 65th. Just to back up here, the ideal route for a bus on 65th is to just keep going on 65th (and not turn on 8th, Greenwood or Phinney). So something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MnfpwjkQKHHQa7j58. So that means navigating that intersection on both sides (and it is tight on both sides).

        A shorter bus would probably work. It wouldn’t be able to handle really big loads but that might not matter. I would expect a lot of people getting on and off at each stop (the opposite of a commuter bus to downtown). It would definitely make sense once we have small automated buses.

      12. Metro should not be using that as an excuse to say that, because the corner is too tight for a bus, everybody that wants to live in Phinney Ridge and wants to go east/west has to suck it up and either pay for Uber or go buy a car.

        That is not the only issue. There is no bus on 65th, anywhere. A bus like the one I suggested would not have to deal with that intersection and yet it still doesn’t exist. Just to back up here, Phinney Ridge is not that dense. It looks dense, but if you walk a block off of the main drag, it is single family homes. In contrast, There is a solid block of density south of 65th from 14th to 28th. Then there is density around 65th until about 3rd. In other words, a route like the one I suggested (using 8th instead of Greenwood/Phinney) would get you 90% of the benefit and not have to deal with that corner. Yet Metro doesn’t have it.

        One of the big problems we have is an inefficient network and lack of money. It is like a bus on Boren. There is a very strong case for it. But where you get the money? By cutting service on nearby routes that are running every 20 minutes?! No way. First thing we have to do is create a more efficient network so we can run the buses more often. Then we should consider additional buses. This is why I don’t get too worked up about the 61 ending at Greenwood (and not continuing to North Beach). By going to Greenwood you make two key connections while also *saving* money. This is very important: the 61 is shorter than the 20. It is shorter and better. An extension (as good as it would be) has to compete with a ton of other *additional* amounts of service (like a bus on Boren).

        The first priority should be making things more efficient. It is similar to this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/. Notice there is no bus on Boren. There are no major improvements, other than the buses run a *lot* more often. This is what we need, more than anything. Once you have that, and no more driver shortage, and Seattle funding their buses at a higher rate, then I definitely want to push for buses on Boren as well as 65th.

      13. Yes – as long as there are too few service hours to go around, it becomes impossible to fix one problem without creating problems somewhere else by cutting service elsewhere to pay for it.

        Somehow, this has to be fixed, but as long as the cost of each service hour is tied to the cost of labor which, itself, is tied to the cost of housing in Seattle (because bus drivers, like everybody else, have to live somewhere), it feels like service is just going to get more and more expensive, and continuously raising taxes to keep up with rising costs to maintain the same level of service isn’t something that can be kept up indefinitely. (Route restructures to eliminate redundancy can definitely help to an extent, but can only do so much; the fundamental problem still exists that the cost of each service hour is just too high to fund good service for a politically acceptable tax rate). Maybe eventually automation will be the saving grace, but even if the technology eventually allows it, I don’t think the politics would.

      14. That bus from North Green Lake to the Locks certainly works very well, except for that counterbalance-steep hill up 65th above the Lake. Even 80th is pretty steep, so it would be very tough to create a snow route for this bus.

        But overall, yes it is the best solution. If it went farther east it could be the “lakefront” bus that people want for easy access to the park.

      15. Yes – as long as there are too few service hours to go around, it becomes impossible to fix one problem without creating problems somewhere else by cutting service elsewhere to pay for it.

        There are always trade-offs. But sometimes the trade-offs are worth it. The U-Link restructure is a great example. Frequency increased on several fairly popular routes while the trip from the U-District to downtown got a lot worse. But I think most people — including skeptics — consider it a great success.

        The same goes for David Lawson’s proposal from almost a decade ago. Or my proposal for Capitol Hill a little while ago. There will be people who lose out. But I believe a lot more people would benefit. The biggest weakness in our system is frequency. Yes, the overall funding levels play a part, but our inefficient system plays a part as well. We have buses running very close to other buses. Sometimes they overlap, but in useless ways. Sometimes we make tough decisions, but the wrong ones. The current 20 over the proposed 61 is an example of that. It isn’t that the 20 is useless or fundamentally flawed*, it is that the 61 is so much better AND cheaper.

        Yes, we need to increase overall service levels. But Jarrett Walker doesn’t have a Wikipedia page because he is an advocate for overall higher service levels. He has pushed for that (repeatedly) but that is not his claim to fame, nor his profession. His consulting group makes the tough decisions when it comes to routing, and his books and blog explain the trade-offs so that ordinary people (like us) can understand them. There are so many ways in which our system can become more efficient, which would help regardless of the service levels.

        * The 20 should have overlapped with the 45 between 80th and 65th. That way someone trying to get from that part of Green Lake to the U-District could catch either bus. This is yet another example of poor routing. The buses were very close — too close to provide meaningful extra coverage — and yet far enough away that riders had to choose one. I don’t think it would have saved the 20, but it might have made life a bit easier for those in the neighborhood.

        In contrast, imagine you are trying to get from Lake City to Children’s Hospital. You can take the 65 or 75. They take very different routes. But you don’t have to choose one. They serve the same bus stops so you just wait at that bus stop and whatever one shows up first will do. That is how it should work.

    4. Ross, the 16 was actually worse than you were describing – it wasn’t even an express! It ran on Aurora but made the same stops as the 5 and 358. IIRC it then got off Aurora at Mercer, ran by Seattle Center on 5th/Broad, and then got onto 3rd. This meant that it got caught up in all the traffic on Northgate (this was before Metro used the 92nd St overpass), 45th (this was before the queue jumps for the 44), on Aurora (this was before the BAT lanes that came with the E) , and every single Seattle Center event too.

      Not only did you have a route that only ran every 30 minutes (OK, I think it was 20 minutes at peak), but it was slow as poop and unreliable as heck.

  6. I use the 20 before it was good for going to green lake as it’s route is much faster than the 62, never used it north of green lake. Adjusting the 62 to take 56 from meridian to latona would be a good add but if that were the case than it would make sense for it to take a left on 65 and not go through green lake. also sad about the 73 going away

    1. Adjusting the 62 to take 56 from meridian to latona would be a good add but if that were the case than it would make sense for it to take a left on 65 and not go through green lake.

      Yes, that is the idea. It may not have been clear by looking at the link I referenced, since it was on the second page. Basically Metro wanted to speed up the route like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hhV48Eca86B6vE1P9

  7. I once rode the 20 with my visiting parents from Green Lake to the U district. In theory, the 45 may seem like a faster route, but the 20 is actually faster because it’s low ridership means very few bus stops.

    I call this the “hidden express” effect, where any bus route with low enough ridership becomes effectively an express, even if it theoretically has bus stops every couple of blocks. For instance, before Link, the old 66 between U district and downtown was a hidden express because everyone else was taking the 71, 72, or 73.

    But, while hidden express routes are good for savvy riders willing to work around poor frequency for an empty bus that barely stops, they’re not good for the system as whole in trying to move the most people for a given amount of money.

    1. > I call this the “hidden express” effect, where any bus route with low enough ridership becomes effectively an express, even if it theoretically has bus stops every couple of block

      It’s also how stop balancing works partially. The decrease in stops can greatly speed up the bus

      1. It’s not really the same thing. Increasing bus stop spacing from 10 stops per mile to 4 may improve travel time a bit, but, if the bus is popular, it’s still stopping 4 times per mile, with some of the stops taking awhile as lots of people get on and off.

        With the hidden express, you get a “bus stop” sign every block, but because hardly anybody is riding it except you, the bus might go multiple miles between bus stops where it actually stops. In other words, you get the access level of stop spacing that is extremely close, but travel times equivalent to express buses that hardly stop at all. The catch, of course, is that the appeal of the hidden express only exists to the extent that the bus remains “hidden”; the moment other people start riding it in non-trivial numbers, it’s going to start stopping a lot more and it’s travel times will quickly increase until it’s not worth riding anymore. In other words, “hidden express” buses are, by definition, unproductive, spending a large amount of money carrying very few riders. While the one person who does ride the hidden express may not like seeing that bus go away in favor of more frequent service on a parallel route that more people use, it is still best for the greater good of bus riders as a whole.

      2. Signals timed for buses can affect bus speeds greatly. The bus priority logic isn’t instantaneous because you can’t leave pedestrians crossing in the middle of the streets

        So a signal can’t find out about an approaching bus without it passing the most recent stop. Sure it can guess a little earlier (like two stops) but a signal needs to know earlier by at least 30 seconds to a minute to know that a bus needs to clear the signal.

        Plus if two signals are timed to work together it’s best to not stop between them — and better to stop before the first and after the second signal.

        Then there is the issue of pulling in and out of traffic. Waiting to get back into the moving lane can take time if the roadway is busy.

        So while on a street without signals the number of stops isn’t that consequential , on a street with lots of signals it is.

      3. @Al

        I’ve read it’s around a 5% benefit for the rapidrides after installing tsp.

        After route 48, they’re planning on adding on 124 and 132 for tsp

      4. WL: RapidRide TSP is only one example of how to improve bus speeds. Speeds can also be improved without TSP like putting stops before and after two coordinated signals — as opposed to stopping in between (almost guaranteeing that a bus gets stopped at the second signal once leaving the stop).

    2. while hidden express routes are good for savvy riders willing to work around poor frequency for an empty bus that barely stops, they’re not good for the system as whole in trying to move the most people for a given amount of money.

      Agreed, but no one is arguing that the route of the 20 is better because it picks up fewer riders. That is nonsensical. We are arguing that with some work it can be made faster and more reliable than the 45, while also being closer to *more* riders. It comes down to what I wrote earlier. It is fairly easy to make the route of the 20 a lot faster. First add that stop sign. Then add the BAT lanes on 80th (between Wallingford Avenue and 1st) going up the hill. You can also add bus lanes on Woodlawn and First (it is wide enough).

      In contrast, you can’t do that on East Green Lake Drive. Because of the bike lanes (which I fully support) there is no more room. You could maybe add a queue jump on Wallingford (for southbound buses) but that is about it. It is highly likely that traffic will get worse in the future (as more and more people live here). It is essential that we make sure that transit is not stuck in it. The best way to do that in this area is to run the buses on the pathway of the 20 (not the current 45).

  8. I agree with RossB about the pathway changes to routes 45 and 62. I also agree with this suggestion to consolidate routes 348 and 67 later in the comments.

    In the North Link Connections, fall 2021, routes 20 and 73 did not consider route spacing well. Route 73 was too close to Route 67 and Route 20 was too close to Route 62. In addition, Route 20 was carrying the load of former Route 316; those riders would have liked a connection to Roosevelt station. Instead, Route 20 teased them and winded through slow local streets and congestion on NE 45th Street.

    With LL, we should make sure that service on Roosevelt Way NE is frequent enough; it has to mitigate the deletion of Route 73. It seems proposed to have less service: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/lynnwood-link-connections/routes/067.pdf?rev=4ecb9fcb93f44059b41e2e79c7f15a9d&hash=72A55035EFA2519FC3F710BF82C3C28D
    If routes 67 and 348 did not spiral in/out of Northgate, the minutes and hours could be invested in better frequency.

    SDOT and Transit could shift Route 62 to the pathway of the former Meridian Streetcar line; it served a string of villages with mixed use development: Wallingford, Tangletown, and Latona.

    Both North 55th and NE 56th streets had streetcar tracks removed. Since 1940, buses have been beating up the former and not the latter. Asphalt is in the center of NE 56th Street where the tracks were removed. In the short term, could SDOT and Transit operate Route 62 at the curb and parking could shift to the center from the curb. This would use the stronger pavement. SDOT made this change to North 34th Street west of Fremont Avenue North to add a PBL. The streamlining of Route 62 would be great for its riders and the two agencies. It would save several minutes. During the U Link process the residents of Kirkwood Place North made clear they did not want a transit route. SDOT and Transit should not want transit service on a 25-foot street without a compelling reason. Most of the Route 62 pathway needs pavement management: North 35th Street, Stone Way North, North 45th Street, Meridian Avenue North, and North 55th Street; just add NE 56th Street.

    The about to be deleted Route 20 replaced Route 26 and 316; they had replaced routes 16 and 16X. SDOT could add a stop sign to North 80th Street; it would help northbound transit flow and pedestrian crossings. A flashing light could be added around the corner on the collector distributor road warming of the stop sign. I expect that before Covid, routes 26 and 316 attracted more riders than Route 45 between Wallingford Avenue North and Ravenna. The Woodlawn Avenue NE pathway serves significant multifamily housing and the old business district; it looks like a transit street. Between 1940 and 1963, it service by frequent electric trolleybus Route 16. SDOT and Transit could compare the ridership and reliability data for the two pathways. Note that fish, ducks, and geese do not ride transit.

Comments are closed.