This post is the third in a series, adapted from an article I wrote for my blog, Transportation Matters, a Pacific Northwest-flavored blog that discusses railway planning, urban planning, and related politics.
The previous post described five proposed improvements to the T line. This article proposes three improvements to the bus system in Tacoma:
- Dramatically Improve the Transfer at Pacific/24th
- Send Regional Buses to Pacific Avenue and/or Downtown Tacoma
- Replace the MCI Vehicles of the ST Express
Dramatically Improve the Transfer at Pacific/24th
A major connection point of the Pierce County subarea transit network needs to be recognized, honored with improvements, and be served by all regional express bus lines: Pacific Avenue at 24th Street. Please note that 24th Street becomes Puyallup Avenue and that they are one-in-the-same.
As Pierce Transit’s Existing and Future Conditions Report for Pacific Avenue BRT showed, many local transit riders connect to regional services. However, what appears lost in the report and in current planning is that the main point-of-connection is not Tacoma Dome Station. In the real world, it is Pacific/24th. This is concerning as the claimed abundance of connections at Tacoma Dome is being used as rationale to divert and truncate buses there.
A large volume of transit riders, particularly those originating from points south of 24th Street and to the east, as well as along SR-7 and from within broader Pierce County, travel here to make their regional connection—not the Dome. In fact, very little of the County’s transit actually goes to Tacoma Dome Station. Just 5 of Pierce Transit’s 31 bus routes serve the stop or its general area, and zero of those are the trunk routes that form the backbone of the County transit system. About 8 in 10 people who use the station drive alone to it, fulfilling its mandate as a vast, free park-and-ride. It is not, as is now so freely asserted, some great urban transit center. While Sounder commuter trains and Amtrak do serve the Dome, they do so only because the City enthusiastically okayed the destruction of Union Station’s platforms for I-705, not for any other compelling purpose (read more about the Tacoma Dome Park and Ride). Additionally, Sounder trains operate only during peak-hours and do not constitute anywhere near the majority of transit trips out of Tacoma Dome. Amtrak has a far smaller ridership presence than even that.
Most regional buses travel along Puyallup Avenue and then turn north on Pacific Avenue to go into the city center, including the 59X-series ST Expresses and Pierce Transit buses from Puyallup and Federal Way. At 24th Street, regional transit has its first interconnection with the dominant local transit axis that is Pacific Avenue, just as it has for much of Tacoma’s history. Tacoma Dome Station is completely irrelevant to this larger dynamic.
For many, Pacific/24th is the essential regional transfer stop, imparting onto it a role in the transit system that is shared by Union Station and Commerce Street. You would not know this if you visited the area, which suffers from a lack of investment in the right-of-way. Meaningful capital improvements should be made to the area: new and expanded shelters, massively improved lighting, repaired and widened sidewalks, higher curbs for near-level boarding, real-time arrival signage, and other quality features that reflect its importance. Along with the Puyallup Avenue Complete Streets project, this should become a beautiful area that emphasizes and prioritizes alternative modes of transportation. An example of a quality transfer station can be found at the Monroe & Louis stop of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
It is important to note that transit riders do use Sounder and Amtrak. They deserve quality transit to Tacoma Dome Station to access those services. However, they have access in the form of the T Line and several bus lines. Many could walk or bike. This is a reasonable trade-off given the geography of the city, the layout of transit system, and the nature of the connecting services. Ultimately, choices have to be made related to the design of our transit system. We should emphasize the transit nexus of Downtown Tacoma where possible and when appropriate, and impose transfers on those who choose to leave by way of heavy rail. Bus lines should not be deviated or truncated to serve the Dome at the expense of Downtown. This should be City policy. Instead, upgrade and prioritize the connection at 24th/Pacific.
Send Regional Buses to Pacific Avenue and/or Downtown Tacoma
Along with physical improvements to Pacific/24th, regional transit should be required to serve it. Preferably, buses would then continue to Downtown Tacoma and Commerce Street, but service to Pacific/24th is the minimum expectation. This provides for easy local connections on Pacific Avenue, which is the dominant north-south transit axis of Pierce County. Transit route deviations to Tacoma Dome Station are unnecessary and inappropriate as an alternative, as are bus truncations there. Should transit that is claimed to serve Tacoma not even reach Pacific Avenue, then it is not properly serving the city.
Today, many ST Express services serve Pacific/24th and continue to Downtown Tacoma. The same is true for all Pierce Transit bus lines from the east (Puyallup, Federal Way, etc.). This should remain the case until that time when Tacoma Link is integrated with Central Link, at which point the bus network would be substantially reconfigured. The Pierce County Integrated Transit Plan previews one such possible network reorganization. For those bus lines that do not serve Downtown, however, their service and schedule should be revised to pick-up the Pacific/24th connection, at least.
For Sound Transit’s 586 line, from Tacoma to the University of Washington, its service should begin at Commerce Street as it did years prior. In light of recent service reductions to the 590, however, this run should simply be cancelled outright. Its precious service hours should be reallocated to the 590.
For Sound Transit’s 574 line, from Lakewood Transit Center to Sea-Tac Airport, a small and meaningful route change is sought. Using northbound trips (toward the airport) as the example, after exiting the freeway in Tacoma the buses should turn left on 26th Street, then right on Pacific Avenue, then right again on 24th Street toward Tacoma Dome Station. This would add a negligible amount of daily service hours while picking up the connection at Pacific/24th. It would eliminate the railroad grade crossing of the current alignment at 25th Street, and maintain a limited footprint in Tacoma. It would decisively integrate the 574 into the local transit system and allow many riders to avoid yet another transfer—this time to Tacoma Dome—to access the popular service.
Replace the MCI Vehicles of the ST Express
Good transit makes riding and transferring easy. This quality—ease—is essential, particularly if we are to serve riders who have children, mobility impairments, are carrying groceries or luggage, or are experiencing any variety of conditions or situations that call for extra care. Transit can be good and convenient. Where this is the case we find cities and societies that are better places for everyone.
Sound Transit’s MCI buses are an enemy of this vision. These buses are not good transit. They are poor transit personified by a single vehicle, which is somehow used extensively on Pierce County routes. Not only should their use here end, but the vehicles should be sold and replaced at once.
While the seats of the bus are comfortable, getting to that seat is frequently a nightmare. Even able-bodied individuals have to fight to ride it, given its multiple steps, sharp turns, and distressing narrow aisles. Once in the seat, the sense of a Pyrrhic victory washes over you. Unlike buses that are actually suited for the purpose of mass transit, there is only one means of egress, forcing many to struggle along its full length to reach an open seat. As the floor is perched well above sidewalk level, ADA access is disturbingly convoluted. Should an individual need mechanical assistance to get inside, interior seats need to have their occupants relocated before being shuffled about, and then a power lift deployed. This totally avoidable procession delays the trip by several minutes. Worse, it creates a potentially embarrassing situation for the passenger at no fault of their own, but who must still bear the burden of a failed transit operation. If more than one person needs a lift, riders will sit idle for an unknowable and untenable duration.
Confoundingly, the MCI coaches are often used on the 574 ST Express run to Sea-Tac Airport. As poor souls heave their suitcases upstairs and bang them on the vehicle’s protruding edges, a shockingly poor rider experience is had on what should be a marquee busline. About $5 billion is being spent to extend light rail from Federal Way to Tacoma Dome, ostensibly to connect “Tacoma” to the airport by frequent transit. This has long been a defining subarea transportation dream. For such an important trip pair—as is so often claimed—you would think a fraction of that money could be put toward proper transit vehicles on the 574. Yet, the MCI buses have persisted over the decades like an incurable infection.
Sound Transit has equipment that works. On merciful occasions, it will even use them in Pierce County. More of that, please, and no more of the MCI!
Up next: Pierce Transit
I agree on the MCI coaches. Once in the seat, they are great, and as an able bodied unencumbered person, I do enjoy the comfort for the longer 594, where you can be non-stop for almost a hour. But they make no sense for a quick hop to FW or even Seatac.
I did recently discover the poor transfer from T-Link to the 59Xs. Since T-Link is the only frequent transit service in the county, and I need to transfer to infrequent service, it is the only transit mode I would trust to get me to the airport on time, without having to budget an extra 30 to 60 minutes into the journey. But the transfer involved literally running down stairs and through the parking garage. I could have sworn their was a stop for the 574 at 25th and A, but it appears to no longer exist.
I can’t find any internet info that grades the wheelchair loading in different types of buses. The universe needs this YouTube series! All I can find are “how to use” videos. Are there any honest critiques out there?
ADA only has minimum requirements so it’s possible to have something really awful that meets ADA rules.
I watched a lady get loaded onto it a few weeks ago. It was painful to watch. Relocate passengers, move seats around, open door, deploy ramp, load wheelchair, unload wheelchair, secure ramp and door, secure wheelchair, and go on our way. I assume reverse it when we get to her destination (I wasn’t going that far). At least a 5 minute (maybe 10 minute) delay to the schedule. It was not a fast or simple process and the driver seemed confused by it. The relocated passengers seemed frustrated as well. The rest of us were frustrated by the time we were just sitting at a transit center and some probably missed their connecting buses making them late for work or appointments.
These MCI buses are ridiculous. Did they get some sort of bargain pricing? Why are we paying for under-bus luggage storage that literally never gets used? Did the geniuses at ST think that people were going to use this because it was a trip to the airport????? With how most of the ST, Metro, and PT drivers are, I’d be afraid they’d drive off with my luggage and close the door in my face.
In all the times that I have ridden the 574 on an MCI bus, I have never seen luggage stowed underneath. Passengers will try to cram all their belongings into their seat row and then hope for the best.
Eventually you are dropped off at a very sad location within the airport property, a place without any apparent transit priority or architectural flourishes. This completes a deeply unpleasant transit experience that could easily be so much better.
The return journeys from the airport are even worse. If you make your first 574 connection, please recognize that a miracle has just occurred.
With the T Line’s single track section restricting service to 12-minute frequencies, and with a single-track terminal station at the Dome, it will be fascinating to see how it all performs when Central Link opens in 2035. There will be forced transfers to reach UW, Downtown Tacoma, and Commerce Street Hub. The regional buses will be terminating at the Dome. There will see thousands of multi-level bus-rail transfers through the parking garages, around the Amtrak station and its checked baggage operation—around taxis, general motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, etc. Add in a busy railroad grade crossing and it is sure to be a wonder.
I forgot Sounder! There will be a lot going on along 25th Street—somehow.
I have seen the MCI type bus load a wheelchair in the wild, but had no idea how many steps were involved. So many opportunities for disaster. Ridiculous! Not close to a reasonable accommodation , more like an afterthought.
Very true. It’s time consuming for the driver, and very scary for the wheelchair passenger.
> Send Regional Buses to Pacific Avenue and/or Downtown Tacoma
I think i’ve mentioned this before in other threads, but one “easy” fix I could see is building the tacoma dome station to the west straddling pacific avenue instead. https://maps.app.goo.gl/X72mfuiFzmdmv2Dd8
Then the buses don’t need to detour over to the tacoma dome station. This is of course easier if the i-705 freeway is taken down. But even if it isn’t removed one could follow a similar at-grade / embanked alignment similar to the sounder tracks that travels below the freeway and above the roadway.
Put a transit center at that location?! And eliminate a highly valuable automobile refueling station?! And CAR WASH?! Outrageous!!!!!! What will the masses do? Where will they purchase their latest fix of nicotine, canned caffeine, chips, or candy bars?!?!?! People will scream to get their vices back, and it will be an Armageddon of dirty SUVs and pickups (cars are no longer manufactured in this country), all abandoned at the side of 705, having run out of their choice of 87, 91, or 93.
I strongly agree with you about the platform, WL. It is painfully obvious to me that the platform should be closer to Pacific Avenue. It would appear to fit nicely in the linear parking lot south of 25th between A and C Streets under 705, with an at-grade station. That would place each end about 500 feet from both Pacific Avenue and the Sounder platform (which perhaps could be shifted a bit west as well). A new T-Link platform could be dropped there too with an at-grade transfer point until T Link gets changed to be able to use 1 Line platforms. They might need to close C Street.
An added bonus is that it would create a more pleasant walking corridor from Pacific Avenue to the Dome too. The current walk is sad and even a bit scary.
The main problem is that it stops further from the ST Express stops and garage at Puyallup west of G Street. Of course a new stop as well as a new parking facility could be added with the funding coming from not building the multi-level glass palace that ST plans. ST seems to clutch their pearls in horror offering parking too far from a Link station platform — ironically ignoring the awful transit transfers that they have no problem pushing on riders at stations.
I’ve provided this comment to ST several times in the TDLE input process. Of course I don’t even think anyone at ST ever reads comments. Their public involvement team seems to look at any public comment as those of 4 year old children rambling in a fantasy world, while they are the adults politely ignoring what they say.
Well thought out commentary. Fully agree.
Not holding my breath for it but I do hope the Pierce county and Snohomish county ST3 funds can mostly be appropriated towards better operating budgets for service within the counties or at least some future initiative (but ST3 is such a daunting financial commitment as is). Both for Pierce Transit, Community Transit and Everett Transit (though they really should merge), and Sounder. Although likely not a popular solution and quite different from the scope of ST3
After taking up people advice on reading some pretty well known transit literature, I feel quite inspired by what transit can enable as far as “freedom of access” is concerned, as often argued by Jarrett Walker
But unfortunately many of the ST3 link extensions do not really expand access quality beyond what express buses feeding to the suburban terminuses are able to achieve (and even worse, could be slower than what they replace). Having grown up in Everett, it was very much uncomfortable trying to depend on the local bus system when most buses only came every 40 minutes, and my understanding is apart from Swift Blue and Green (which would have been transformative for my high school commute), the system in that town really hasn’t improved whatsoever. But I think people ride it if the network received investment
I agree with all of points. There are areas where the high cost of a metro/subway system is justified. Much of ST3 does not come close to that bar. So many areas need better bus service instead. It doesn’t have to be anything that special either — just better frequency.
Is this approach more feasible if we can get ST to consider some frequent “local” busses more as extensions of the light rail system? It would be similar to how 512/513 busses work now, but directed more at serving local, walk-up riders at key destinations (and neighborhoods along the way) vs. the park and rides. Something along these lines is already being planned for Edmonds – Mountlake Terrace once the Link station opens there. This route would actually be shorter than some Community Transit local routes! An example for Everett might be Everett station – Downtown Everett – Providence Regional Hospital – Everett Community College. Running every 10-15 minutes. I bet that would be popular. For the east side, perhaps Kirkland South – downtown Kirkland – 85th ST Stride station – Redmond (e.g., beefed up Route 250). This is something that I would envision commuting from Lynnwood on if Microsoft ever hires me (Stride to Bellevue TC to Link just seems like too much backtracking, Route 250 doesn’t seem to have much priority though it might be frequent enough). For Tacoma, you might do some of the OP’s suggestions for T-Link extensions: Tacoma Dome – Tacoma Mall (freeway) – Tacoma Community College – Ruston, and another one that goes down Pacific Ave. Pierce County should probably get most of this since they are being so shortchanged on the service they are actually getting from ST, much of which will be slower than the current busses.
While ST Express is geared towards longer trips, there are plenty of routes that are fairly short. Some of these are obvious feeder buses (to Sounder). But others look very much like normal routes that Metro would run. The 550 is a good example. It goes from Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle. But it isn’t even a true express as it takes the surface streets instead of the fastest way to get get there (405 to I-90). Nor are these going away anytime soon. After Link gets to Bellevue, ST will operate the 554 from the Issaquah Highlands to Downtown Bellevue. But again it won’t be an express. It will stop in central Issaquah along the way. It won’t go straight to Downtown Bellevue, or straight to Link. Meanwhile, the 215 will operate more like a regional express bus. It will go out all the way to North Bend and once it gets to the Highlands it will stay on the freeway until it gets to Mercer Island (with a short stop at Eastgate).
I see no reason why the same thing can’t happen in Pierce County. ST can just take over a handful of the routes, freeing Pierce County to supply more service. Of course the simplest thing would be to just skip the middle man and pay the agency (since they are the ones operating the buses anyway). Ultimately the only difference between an ST bus and a Metro/CT/Pierce County bus is the colors on the bus — and no one really cares.
Ross has touched upon the weakness of our disjointed regional transit planning — the inability to prioritize public subsidies for effectiveness.
One subtle but huge shift with ST3 was its tacit admission that ST should contribute to other transit projects that they won’t operate. That began in ST2 with the FHSC but became universal in ST3.
The issue is pervasive locally, like how Stride 1 and RapidRide F serve three common destinations, or how Stride 3 is a RapidRide concept as opposed to Stride 1 and 2 as freeway express services.
Our region isn’t the first to face this. California has separate funding/ sales tax administration from the operators even though many have staff serving combined boards. Portland has Metro and TriMet. Chicago has the umbrella RTA. Toronto has MetroLinx and TTC.
I see the big void in Pierce County as lacking such an organizational entity to commit to a unified transit vision. Each entity — ST, PT and the local juridictions — is figuring out things on their own. The State (even though Amtrak Cascades) nor PSRC is empowered to encourage unified transit planning.
Let me paint an alternative scenario: If Pierce County was set up like California, there would be a sales tax funded multi-modal planning agency whose elected mandate would include broad funds for transit capital and operations as a percent of the tax receipts. The agency would be effectively required to work with every transit operator to create a countywide transit element of a countywide transportation plan. The agency would have a technical advisory committee of transit operations management, city engineers and other administrative types advising elected officials on the record through consensus.
The result would have a more operator neutral long range transit systems plan.
Finally, I think such an arrangement is more palatable to the public. At its core, ST3 feels to many like a blank check to build an underbudgeted transit expansion created somewhat in secret in summer 2016 in a specific way — leading to widespread skepticism and even disgust in Pierce County. That makes it harder for PT to present a winnable referendum to voters. And that’s how we got billions of Pierce County dollars towards transit in ST3 being spent without regard to getting better transit travel times and cost effectiveness.
I just want to state, Al S., that your comment is wonderful and is precisely the type of input I sought through the Seattle Transit Blog. Excellent, and thank you for it.
Thanks, Troy!
I really want to drive home the point that early critical technical review from other agencies is critical. Elected officials don’t usually get when proposals are off. Even a skilled city engineer that doesn’t build light rail tracks or subways has a good sense of costs and appropriate contingency assumptions. Likely none would have let ST create ST3 with a 10% contingency or DSTT2 off by a factor of 300-400 percent like they did. The lack of independent technical review institutionalized as required for all ST capital projects is sad and notable at this point. How many delays and budget missed will the Board endure before they finally blow up the process and start demanding better technical review years beforehand?
And I want to drive home the point that we deserved to have more alternatives. Another big miss here is the way our alternatives get developed. I watched this video released just 2 days ago:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrv6LSZab5Y&t=841s
In it, he mentions that two studies to just link Ontario Airport to regional transit. The 2014 study to just the airport began with 32 alternatives and got to 6 (starting at the video’s minute 14) with a 2018 broader study to better connect transit between LA and SB Counties beginning with 38 alternatives and winnowing again to 6. Each alternative is widely different — different transit modes and alignments that vary by miles apart.
What do we get for alternatives? Oh we get 3-4 station locations all within a few blocks of each other! That’s not early alternatives development! That’s more what an agency would do right before land acquisition to assess what to offer to get hold of property! TDLE began by assuming C-Link 4-car trains and four stations will the suites being near each other. To me, that’s 1 alternative! There wasn’t a T-Link alternative, a battery EMU alternative, an automated alternative or a Stride system alternative. There was no alternative to move any part of the tracks south of I-5 where more people actually live and be less distance is across the terrible soil in Fife.
Making these two very basic changes to how we get major transit projects evolve would set in motion a much better use of transit dollars. Unfortunately, most people involved don’t even see the flaws that we keep repeating. We would think that after the monorail debacle decades ago that planning would change but it didn’t. And now we uselessly grumble about the waste of TDLE but can’t derail the train.
I would offer in Sound Transit’s defense that their planners and engineers clearly had smart alternatives in mind when they drafted many of the project’s early scoping reports, alternates evaluations, and designs. There is good stuff to be found that clearly suggests a better ways of doing things. However, it is hard to overcome the powerful force of decades of political inertia that is expecting a predicted outcome. That was a railway that is “good enough” close to Tacoma and which brings choice riders to their jet at the airport—the only time many officials would ever conceive of using transit.
Who cares about how it interfaces with local transit? Just drive to the Dome! The new railway will take 90 minutes to get to Downtown Seattle and cancel all the fast buses? Oh well.
I would offer in Sound Transit’s defense that their planners and engineers clearly had smart alternatives in mind when they drafted many of the project’s early scoping reports, alternates evaluations, and designs.
I disagree. In Seattle the proposal for “BRT” did not include a new transit tunnel, even though plenty of us thought it was a really good idea. They basically had the buses running slower than they run today, and in turn downgraded the ridership estimates. If I’m not mistaken they assumed a limited set of buses going downtown, thus negating the one big benefit from a bus-based solution for West Seattle (no transfer for the vast majority of riders).
They completely ignored BRT on the CKC even though an independent consultant — hired by the City of Kirkland – recommended it.
Then again they did initially study a subway line from Ballard to the UW and it performed better than the line via Interbay but they basically ignored it. It is hard to separate the influence of the board members from the planners (which is one of the big problems).
Ross I agree with you. Some corridors had a good variety but some made badiccomissikns.
DSTT2 was never studied. It was an afterthought thrown into ST3. That’s literally the most expensive segment per mile. ST3 even did early illustrations suggesting easy transfers at IDS. It was done maybe more haphazardly than the monorail proposal was.
More specifically, Tacoma Dome was always confined as a corridor between the Dome and FWTC. They never looked at anything other than light rail and bus. ST never did any sort of comprehensive Pierce County visioning.
I think four other options should have been seriously looked at and debated for ST in Pierce:
1. A countywide Stride network with 2-3 lines (@ 60 mph) complete with freeway access ramps
2. A battery EMU (@75 mph) from DuPont to Fife, Federal Way or SeaTac (like SB Arrow to Redlands) that doesn’t require BNSF involvement
3. Fully automated short trains with smaller stations between FW to UWT with intermediate single tracking and bypasses that automation enables
4. T Link to at least SFW or FW or SeaTac rather than C Link
badiccomissikns = bad choices
badiccomissikns = basic omissions
For reference, see the 1994 RTA Master Plan and the 1996 Sound Move plan by clicking here and by clicking here, respectively. The agency exists to deliver a spinal light railway connecting our key centers and corridors, served by temporary express buses in the interim. To propose alternatives that do not accomplish this railway, or that not only retain but prioritize buses—especially in past decades—was almost certainly a non-starter. However, if you read between the lines of many planning documents and chat with the staff who conceived them, I believe they did the best they could within the framework imposed upon them. Agency policy and perspective on this topic are clearly evolving in beneficial ways, too. It takes time for bureaucracies to shift gears.
There are indeed ST3 components that are so obviously not worth the cost and which were never part of the original vision—looking at you, West Seattle Link—but a good chunk of the system now under development is rooted in earlier light rail plans dating from the late 80s and early 90s. It’d be hard to stand in the way of that tidal wave of path dependency.
“We are tasked with building grade-separated light rail infrastructure and you’re suggesting a bus—the disrespect!” You can picture the interaction. And what Pierce ST Board member wants to be forever known as the one who helped cancel the long-promised line to Tacoma? Most of the public has no idea of the implications of that project’s completion. They are getting a taste of it with recent, unpopular bus cuts in Downtown Tacoma, but the general assumption is that Central Link will transform connectivity. That’s how it has always been sold. Indeed it will transform, just not in productive ways. There is virtually zero awareness that Link to Seattle will become a nearly 90 minute trip—far worse if anything happens in the Rainier Valley—and also result in the termination of buses that can be as quick as 35-minutes. With transit now part of the political split, there is understandable nervousness that impeding the project in any way might risk severe political blowback for a local politician who is part of a political transit agency board.
The agency’s structure pre-determines populist outcomes that are often bad for transit—at least in terms of proper alternatives analyses.
No double-decker buses either. I’ve ridden the 512 enough times now to have been both upstairs, in front, and in back. I’m an average 5’10” and I can’t walk upright upstairs: I have to bend down, and it’s hard to walk that way. The stairs would be harder now than when I was up there: painful going both up and down.
So I stay downstairs, and most times I’ve been able to get a seat in the front section. But last time the front section was full, so I went to to the back section. That was up a stair, but worse, the seats on the side above the wheels are so high I couldn’t get up to them. I found a seat in the very back. Parts of the back have a low ceiling too>
There’s also a problem with the buses on the 550; I’m not sure if that’s the MCI model or not. The seat backs are angled in such a way or the seats are so close together that you can’t go upright into or out of them, you have to lean to fit in. That gets particularly difficult when you’re carrying a full backpack and another item. And there’s no third door. I end up going out in front, sometimes to make a transfer to a half-hourly bus, other times because it’s such a hassle to get to the back door, probably because of that narrowness.
Double decker buses only make sense when you need them. If you have a lot of people to carry, and everyone needs a seat. They make sense for long distance trips (which ST runs) but only if the bus is full.
Thank you for bringing up the MCI buses. As a disabled person who regularly uses the ST express routes that connection at Pacific and 24th, and the buses themselves are just horrible. I’ve been yelled at by drivers and passengers for needing or wanting the lift or assistance up the horrible steps and then my knees barely fit in the seats
The 574 connection at SeaTac, also horrible as a disabled person. If you sit at the bench at the stop because you need to sit, there’s no signage that people will start to line up elsewhere and you won’t be able to board. I only took it once because its one of the few decent connections with Seattle’s 1 line light rail
Also!! I hate that nearly all of the Pierce county bus stops are not labeled with the direction they are heading.
Thank you for sharing this, Michelle. Your messages are understood loud and clear.
I am sorry that you have to deal with these avoidable, terrible transit experiences in Pierce County. We should not have a system that “others” people. That needs to change urgently.
“[Sound Transit]’s structure pre-determines populist outcomes that are often bad for transit—at least in terms of proper alternatives analyses.”
How’s that?
Just in the sense that projects have been advanced that may lack technical merit, but are believed to be capable of securing an approval at the ballot box. An example may be the preservation of the light rail program to serve the tails of the spine, despite some clear deficits in the approach.
The Board appears to reinforce populist decisions and often gives deference to local priorities over the regional system.
Would you agree with that?