Metro’s presentation of its new RapidRide Prioritization Plan revealed plans to resume work on RapidRide K and R. The Urbanist pointed out that King County Metro Route 7 was originally supposed to be replaced with RapidRide R by 2021 in the Levy to Move Seattle, but the project was delayed to 2024 and eventually put on hold due to budget issues. Now, the line will resume planning work next year, with opening targeted for 2031.
RapidRide R represents a major upgrade to Metro’s Route 7 that can’t come soon enough. With over 10,000 daily boardings (and growing) the 7 is the one of Seattle’s most important lines. During the pandemic its ridership didn’t drop nearly as much as other lines, and it has since almost recovered to the 2019 level.
While the delay has been frustrating, SDOT has continued to improve the corridor by adding dedicated bus lanes and other improvements. Now that the RapidRide design and planning has restarted, it will be interesting to see what additional changes will be proposed and how this will impact travel time and ridership.
Although RapidRide R would mostly follow Metro’s Route 7, some stops would get consolidated. The terminus would change from the current Prentice loop to the Rainier Beach Station of the Link 1 Line, a change which STB proposed in 2014 but is has been contentious recently.
What else should Metro and SDOT consider when they finalize their plans? Since feedback was last given in 2018, what new developments warrant Metro’s attention?
I’m curious why we don’t through-run RapidRide in downtown. There are so many upsides: regional connectivity instead of commuter focus, service hours saved by not duplicating downtown service can be repurposed into higher frequencies, and generally reducing bus volumes downtown will greatly help with buses getting stuck in bus-only traffic, which happens surprisingly often.
After the routes in planning get built out, we have 3 northern (D, E, J) and 3 southern routes (C, H, R) all terminating in downtown (and G, but that uses different vehicles). E and H may be too long to add through-running without a driver change (which still may be worth exploring), but we can at least have C-J and D-R, or C-D and J-R. Of the two options, I think it should be C-J and D-R before Ballard Link, then C-D and J-R afterwards, to maintain one-seat rides between regions when the 1 Line gets diverted to Ballard.
The main downside is that on-time reliability may suffer a bit, but in theory RapidRide is more suited to mitigate this than other routes, because all the bus lanes should minimize delays.
One major problem is with the drawbridges on D and J. RapidRide D is also pretty long itself.
I think J is short enough that combining J + R should be fine though.
Yes, that was the main issue with C and D through-routing. The D ran into bridge-related congestion, and screwed up C riders.
Pairing the 7 and 70 (R and J) was always considered a possibility. The 7 is paired with the 49 right now (and they are similar). Initial plans for the RapidRide R broke that connection, and late night workers objected. That seems like a fairly easy thing to fix. There are actually two contradictory trends regarding the routes. The J will eventually be extended — at the very least past 65th. My guess is the various improvements in terms of speed will more than make up for that.
In the long term I think the tail of the 4 should be eliminated and the 3 should be RapidRide. (It makes more sense as RapidRide than most of the routes they are considering.) The 3 through-routes downtown (although unlike many routes it keeps the same number).
The original service planners’ network for Metro Connects had routes 70 and 7 turnback at Mt. Baker through routed. The MC that was approved had been revised to include the seven Kubly SDOT RR lines. That had Roosevelt extended north to Northgate and Route 7 as is. Kubly backed out of funding the electric trolleybus overhead on 23rd Avenue South.
Lines C and D were through routed between fall 2012 and spring 2016. Seattle paid for splitting them and paid for more red buses. The rides attracted per line increased but the rides attracted per platform hour decreased significantly. The D line tail in downtown stopped short of Pioneer Square; the C line tail in SLU was costly. There was some improvement in reliability; was it worth it? In fall 2020, Seattle stopped paying for the split of lines C and D. The TBD revenue stream was smaller. Trips on several other routes were cut to keep lines C and D split apart.
Yes, careful through routes in the CBD are great. Link is through routed. Through routing uses buses, hours, and operators more intensively. It avoids using scarce curb space inside the CBD.
Branding ought not get in the way of good network design.
The turnaround loops of routes 7, 36, and 70 are all awkward and time consuming. The Route 70 terminal was impacted by the South Main Street PBL. Routes 7 and 36 have a pocket hazard with a PBL on 7th Avenue nearside Stewart Street.
Route 7 was split in 2005. Route 49 was formed and Route 9 degraded to diesel and truncated. in the evening, routes 7 and 49 were through routed. This saved hours and provided through connections for riders when congestion was less severe. In fall 2024, with the reductions to Route 49, the through route will be broken. Presumably, more minutes and hours will be used on Route 7.
When electric trolleybus overhead is added to South Henderson Street, the service revision could include a Route 7P serving the Prentice tail and the Rainier Beach Link station with a standard ETB.
In another post, I suggested that the South Henderson Street overhead and the R Line capital might be used on Routes 48 or 49-9 and not Route 7. The Route 7 travel shed has several Link stations. Link can carry the radial load.
The C and D were through-routed in the beginning, and reliability was so terrible the city begged (i.e. paid out of the TBD) for Metro to split them. Splitting the routes also improved their coverage; with the through-route, the D had to leave downtown around Columbia to turn into the C instead of serving Pioneer Square, while the C had to continue on to Seattle Center to turn into the D rather than serving SLU.
There is a trade-off between trying to limit transfers and route length, but ideally RapidRide mitigates the transfer penalty with excellent headways and span-of-service.
I’ve wondered if it would make sense to combine RapidRide G with RapidRide R. RapidRide G is not that long and several Rainier stops could be set up for left side boardings in the median.
Generally, RapidRide G is much shorter than every other RapidRide anyway. It’s probably the easiest to extend.
Wouldn’t this mean the RR-R could only serve the south/east end of downtown? It also would mean ordering more 5-door coaches since the G requires them.
With the decline of Westlake’s retail presence — and the availability of other transit routes to get there including a highly frequent 2 Line from Judkins Park, does it even make sense to take it further than Madison and Seneca? The tradeoff would a direct service between SE Seattle and First Hill and Capitol Hill — a direct connection to medical services and other destinations that doesn’t exist today.
How much more expensive are 5- door coaches? Having a larger fleet of them could be useful (as long as there aren’t eventual maintenance issues). Having a limited fleet does have its risks.
Generally, RapidRide G is much shorter than every other RapidRide anyway. It’s probably the easiest to extend.
In terms of driver-time yes. Right now the G makes a live loop downtown. If if was extended then it would layover somewhere at both ends and it is quite likely the route would be short enough so that a driver would have no trouble driving it. (Drivers are limited to how long their routes can be — I don’t know what that limit is.)
So in that respect yes. But there are other considerations. The G is slated to run every six minutes. If it is extended then it means the other buses run every six minutes. That is expensive. That is why the bus doesn’t go to Madison Park — it isn’t worth it. It might be worth it with a different route (like the one you are proposing). But there are other issues. A bus that runs that often can experience bunching. With the G, the assumption is that the route is short enough and there is enough right-of-way to avoid that problem. An extension (with six minute frequency) might experience bunching.
The biggest problem though is the geography. You want your routes to go straight. The E is a classic example. Because the bus goes straight, every single trip pair makes sense. The G can’t go straight once it hits downtown. It essentially runs into the water (it will turn on First, but that is fairly close). A turn south then east means that many of the trip pairs no longer make sense. For example Mount Baker to 23rd & Madison is much better with the 48.
Not only that, but you lose as much as you gain. Not for the G, but the 7 (RapidRide R). Turning at Madison means riders from Rainier Valley have to transfer to get to the rest of downtown. In contrast, if the R pairs with the J, then the bus continues the same direction to areas that are about as dense. So every trip pair makes sense, and there are a lot of really good ones. Same thing would be true if the R follows the C and lays over in the same area.
Speaking of which, from a geographic standpoint, pairing the C with the G is much better. Every trip pair makes sense. But now you run into every other issue. Where do you get the money to run the C every six minutes? I suppose you could send both the C and H there, but that creates dependencies. Besides, are those buses reliable enough? What about the riders who prefer going to the north end of downtown?
The G is shorter than ideal, but it is one of the few routes that is OK being so short. If there were a lot more people along the way then an extension to Madison Park would be the obvious extension. There are other (much shorter) extensions I think might be worth it. One is to go south on First, following the proposed CCC path. I believe this would be center running the whole way. It could then turnaround close to King Street Station. That gives you a connection to the trains (Amtrak and Sounder) as well coverage on First. It is a bit of a wrap-around from the CID, but it is still likely the fastest option for a number of trips. (The trips from First would all be fairly straight.)
But I also think it is one of the few routes that is OK being short. It directly intersects a major spine, with buses every few seconds running perpendicular to it. It connects well with the ferry. To the east it ends where the density ends. I think it will be fine being as short as it is.
How much more expensive are 5- door coaches? Having a larger fleet of them could be useful (as long as there aren’t eventual maintenance issues). Having a limited fleet does have its risks.
Agreed. One of the big problems with our order was that it was so small. The G is fairly short, and the buses are expected to run quite fast. So even though the buses will run every six minutes, we don’t need that many of them. Because of that, the company that sold us those buses didn’t want to sell us trolleys with doors on both sides. They would sell us trolleys; they would sell us diesel buses with doors on both sides; but to have the combination would require a larger order. If a bus like the 7 had center running (on say, Jackson) then we need plenty of buses and they would fulfill the order. This reminds me of this snippet (from https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/):
The TMP also includes this nugget: “evaluate tradeoffs of converting First Hill Streetcar running way on Jackson Street to center-running transit-only lanes to allow for shared RapidRide/streetcar operations and Japantown, Chinatown, and Little Saigon center-platform stations.” The result would be an impressive 33% travel time savings through the corridor.
Hell Yes! Right now the streetcar, 7, 14, 36 and 106 run along Jackson. The 7 and 36 make sense as RapidRide. I would send the 106 to First Hill. That leaves the 14 (which is paired with the 1). There is no reason that center running *has* to be with a RapidRide bus, especially for such a short segment. Thus we could buy enough of these buses to run the 1/14 as well. If not, then the 14 would just endure the same traffic it endures today. It could also dogleg to Yesler (via 18th?) although that would require running wire.
It might make sense to pair the C and G. The C has been quite crowded in the past so that it needs high frequency at times. Of course, West Seattle Link will someday complicate things — even though it looks impossible be to open it until the late 2030’s (deep tunnel station vaults have taken Link and other systems at least 8-10 years between groundbreaking and opening, and I don’t see a negotiated construction contract before 2028 as there must be property acquisition and final design after the new DEIS is issued and comments are submitted and addressed).
Anyway, my stated preference for RapidRide R is to follow the existing Route 9X routing and shift service hours from most of Route 7 (only the Prentice loop runs remain). The routing would go by four Link stations (Capitol Hill, Judkins Park, Mt Baker, Rainier Beach) and they are all faster ways to get Downtown from anywhere south of Mt Baker even with a transfer.
The C and G have very different ridership patterns. The C is more of a commuter bus (even now). It runs every 7.5 minutes during peak (even now) but then transitions to every 10. In contrast the G will run every 6 minutes throughout the day. It is not a good match.
Anyway, my stated preference for RapidRide R is to follow the existing Route 9X routing and shift service hours from most of Route 7 (only the Prentice loop runs remain).
OK, that is a very different beast. That basically destroys the G. You have lost your connection between downtown and First Hill. You are running a bus on Broadway (which doesn’t have transit right-of-way) which means you can pretty much guarantee bus bunching. You still have the same issues with geography (some trips pairs don’t make sense) that even the struggling 9 doesn’t have to deal with. Sorry, no.
Replacing the 7 with the 9 makes more sense, but is still flawed. Riders on Rainier have to transfer to get downtown despite being almost there. It would make sense to send the 106 there. There is a similar issue, but at least with the 106 the riders have alternatives (like transferring to Link or riding the 7). Which gets me to the other issue:
The routing would go by four Link stations (Capitol Hill, Judkins Park, Mt Baker, Rainier Beach) and they are all faster ways to get Downtown from anywhere south of Mt Baker even with a transfer.
No they are not. Mount Baker has the various issues (https://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/18/the-awfulness-of-mt-baker-station/) which make the transfer quite slow. Notice that Google never suggests taking the 7 and then transferring to Link at Mount Baker (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dAAufzwryHqzNqXW9). Link is fast, but the transfer takes a while, and Link is not that frequent. The transfer at Judkins Park should be better, but it still won’t be that quick and the train won’t be that frequent. By then you are very close to downtown anyway. Capitol Hill as a way to get downtown from Rainier Valley is just silly. Rainier Beach makes sense, but that is the southern tail of the route.
In contrast, there are plenty of riders who take the 106 and pass right by Rainier Beach station (where a transfer to get downtown makes sense). Likewise, the other surface transfers (Columbia City and Othello) are very easy, and far enough away to be worth it. That is why Google does sometimes suggest taking the 106 and transferring to Link instead of riding the 106 all the way downtown.
Keep in mind, when I put in Google directions, they are calculating it as the 7 exists now. As we add more and more right-of-way and off-board payment, the bus will be considerably faster. As soon as the driver shortage is over, the bus goes back to being more frequent than the train (even before it becomes RapidRide).
Oh, and what about the people who live close to Rainier & Dearborn? Under this plan they are basically screwed.
I’m not saying that there won’t be people who transfer to Link (Judkins Park will be great for getting to the East Side) but the bulk of the riders don’t now, and won’t in the future.
“If it is extended then it means the other buses run every six minutes. That is expensive. That is why the bus doesn’t go to Madison Park — it isn’t worth it.”
The reason it doesn’t go to Madison Park is the RapidRide G capital budget couldn’t stretch that far. There was some support for extending the G to Madison Park to replace the 11 (although in one variation the part east of MLK wouldn’t have RapidRide features — no street improvements or offboard readers), but SDOT was somewhat skeptical, and the capital budget limitation finished it off.
“Not for the G, but the 7 (RapidRide R). Turning at Madison means riders from Rainier Valley have to transfer to get to the rest of downtown”
Remember the goal of more north-south transit capacity on 3rd Avenue with fewer bus vehicles. A turn in Midtown or the Financial District prevents the line from fully contributing to this goal.
“Where do you get the money to run the C every six minutes?”
By deleting West Seattle Link. (running, ducking)
“The G is shorter than ideal”
East Seattle is short. All east-west routes in East Seattle are short. The density is so high their ridership is high even with their stunted length.
Glenn, are you aware of the snowball effect in transit? The later a route is, the more rider will board, causing the bus to become even later, causing more riders to board, etc., etc. So, if the length of the R Line were doubled, by attaching it to the D Line, even a small 2 minute delay in the Rainier Valley could easily turn into a 10 minute delay by the time it reaches Ballard, and vice versa. And, if transit is too unpredictable or unreliable, it will discourage transit use. And your through-routing ideas would make those routes much more unreliable.
Sticking to the post, and not dreaming up new route ideas that aren’t under consideration, and will never happen, I do like that the R Line won’t go to Prentice, but will instead go to Rainier Beach Link Station. That makes a lot more sense.
Yes, I mentioned bus bunching up above. But to be clear, it is less of an issue with RapidRide (or Link) since boardings are so quick. There is also a drawback to having to transfer. Ideally you don’t want your buses to be too long, nor too short, but “just right”. With off-board payment you can stretch that distance a bit. The 7/70 combination might work really well. I think a future RapidRide replacing the 3 definitely would as well. Getting to your other point, I think both ideas are quite plausible.
Longer routes do increase the risk of a delay in one segment getting transmitted across the entire line, and two simultaneous delays in both segments. But the biggest issue is with very long routes (like the 1980s downtown-Federal Way) or specific congestion bottlenecks (like around freeway entrances or the low Fremont Bridge). So if you’re concerned about the reliability of a D/R pairing, you’d look for severe congestion chokepoints. The Ballard Bridge is not as bad as the Fremont Bridge, and nothing in the corridor is as bad as the Denny Way congestion that afflicts the 8.
It’s not just severe chokepoints or major congestion that sends a bus snowballing into becoming later and later throughout the route. It can be a few, small, normal events. Early in the route, the bus loads a wheelchair. Then just misses a green light. Then a few blocks up it deploys the ramp for a personal shopping cart. One stop up it lets off the wheelchair. Let’s say it’s a hypothetical northbound R Line through-routed D Line route. Now it’s 4 minutes behind schedule at Rainier and Alaska. The bus will often only get later and later on its journey to Crown Hill, even without any congestion, because it’s now it’s picking up more riders than normal at every stop, which, in turn, slows it down further. That’s how behind 4 minutes in the Rainier Valley turns into behind 10 – 15 minutes in Ballard. Of course there are other reasons for bus bunching or snowballing or lateness spirals, but that’s a common one. Anyone who cares about reliability, isn’t floating ideas for extending the length of routes. That’s why I have seen many of you in the past suggest cutting routes in half when it has reliability issues.
South Bellevue to Redmond or Kirkland is not too long for a local/RapidRide route. Auburn to downtown is too long. The northern boundary to the southern boundary of Seattle is not too long. Does that give you a sense of how long extensions make sense and how long don’t?
The C/D were originally through-routed due to budget limitations. Criticism started immediately about Ballard losing direct access to lower downtown, Pioneer Square, and the stadiums, and remained persistent until the routes were split.
The split was due to the influx of money from Seattle’s then-new Seattle Transit Benefit District, the critical need to get high-ish capacity transit to the new SLU highrises (which the C was extended to when it was split), and the long-term claims about Ballard needing access to the southern half of downtown, especially with ballgame crowds heading to Uptown/northwest Seattle.
Since then there have been concepts like R/J or 36/J, and we can imagine H/J, H/E, or R/E. The issue is mainly that the J and R don’t exist yet. Once they do, even if lines aren’t through-routed initially, they could become so later. Through-routing has an advantage of reducing layovers downtown, which has been a Seattle goal since the mid 2010s and is now mostly complete. And there’s a major advantage in having routes go all the way through downtown to SLU or Pioneer Square, because of the number of overlapping trips they can support. That’s the key to having more bus capacity on 3rd Avenue with fewer bus vehicles, which Seattle, Metro, and the Downtown Seattle Association are very interested in too.
But a D/H line would reignite the complaints about the C/D, so I doubt it would happen. And the E may not be suitable for pairing because its especially high ridership/frequency need may be an imbalance to another route. Part of the reason we’ve had so many splits and reconnections on regular routes is to correct imbalances where one half of the route needs higher capacity/frequency than the other half. So the only route the E could maybe be paired with from that standpoint is the R. But the E already takes 45 minutes from Aurora Village to Westlake, and that’s pretty long to attach to another long line like the H or maybe the R. Oh, wait a minute, an E/H would withdraw service from the southern half of downtown, so that would be like the C/D.
There are also those who want to see the E paired with CT’s Swift Blue. That’s very unlikely, but it would make it even harder to attach the E to the R.
There’s also RapidRide 124, which may come at some point, and RapidRide 36 and 150, which are in the prioritization, if you’re looking for more southern things to attach to northern things.
An H/G is very interesting, and I haven’t heard that before. But that would have the opposite problem of the C/D: it would withdraw the connectivity between Delridge and Midtown. That would contradict the principle of going all the way through downtown. Right now the H could be extended to SLU or through-routed with the future J. If it’s paired with the G, it wouldn’t be able to.
I agree with all of your points. Assume that we don’t want to connect routes that:
1) Are really long. That pretty much eliminates the E.
2) Cross the ship canal (over a movable bridge). That eliminates a lot of potential pairs.
3) Would eliminate service through downtown. This eliminates the G from basically any extension to the south, and probably to the north (although it is close).
So that basically leaves a bus that comes from the south (isn’t too long) and goes to Magnolia, Queen Anne or Capitol Hill. I think we can rule out Magnolia, just because there aren’t enough people there. Capitol Hill doesn’t work well because of the geography. A bus like the C could take a hard right on Denny and then go up to 19th and take a left, replacing the 12. But now you’ve skipped part of downtown, and you haven’t gained much.
I think that basically leaves (upper and lower) Queen Anne. The C, H or R could follow the D to Uptown and then maybe keep going, taking over the 1, 2 or 3. I could maybe see that with the R, but as I wrote elsewhere, I think it makes way more sense as a different route entirely. The 3 (as it exists now) is a solid choice. It definitely should be considered for RapidRide status. Before the pandemic it had some of the highest ridership per mile. This means it would benefit greatly by becoming faster. But I could also see the Boren bus (Mount Baker to Uptown) being RapidRide. Again, this would get a lot of riders per service hour, especially if it was even reasonably fast. I guess that is not technically downtown (as we traditionally think of it) which means the 3 or 7 (R).
“This eliminates the G from basically any extension to the south, and probably to the north (although it is close).”
The G can be extended, just not replacing another route. For instance, it could be extended south or north on 1st. That would bring new transit mobility without cutting off large transit markets from half of downtown.
“I think we can rule out Magnolia, just because there aren’t enough people there.”
I think Magnolia might actually make sense. Extend the R wire to Magnolia Village in place of the 24, eliminate the 24 looping switchback structure of the 24 through Magnolia, and replace it with something that makes sense.
It might not seem like Magnolia has many transit riders, but I’ve been on fairly full articulated 24s, but the vast majority of those riders get off before the first U turn.
Sure, some people lose their one seat ride to downtown Seattle, but I’m not sure those riders even exist. Not that many people seem interested in a 20 minute bus cross-stitch lesson, so maybe those 2nd and 3rd stitches would generate more ridership with a direct trip to Magnolia Village and a 5 minute transfer?
Magnolia got exempted from urban village upzones in exchange for not getting upgraded transit.
I’m not sure they’d consider this an upgrade in transit. I picture it being the same number of service hours, but deployed different.
The G can be extended, just not replacing another route.
Right. I should have used the word “connection”. My point is connecting the G with another RapidRide is problematic (for the reasons mentioned).
I think Magnolia might actually make sense. Extend the R wire to Magnolia Village in place of the 24 eliminate the 24 looping switchback structure of the 24 through Magnolia, and replace it with something that makes sense.
That would be a dramatic contrast in terms of density. Elliot has lots of buses and not many places. There is some density in the Village, but most of the density in Magnolia is elsewhere: Interbay, Gilman, and the cluster of apartments next to Magnolia Manor Park. The 7 follows such a dense path that buses used to run every 7.5 minutes in the middle of the day, even though it isn’t RapidRide. Magnolia has buses that run every half hour. I don’t see how you can justify such a dramatic increase in service, let alone the extremely expensive cost of running wire.
As for the “looping switchback structure”, it is less than ideal, but not that bad. Nor are there great alternatives. The buses in Magnolia are borderline coverage. You basically have four north-south corridors. If there was a lot more density then you could have several routes that fan out. Ideally you would have even more density before the buses spread out (similar to Uptown). But you don’t. So you are left with four moderate to low-density corridors. Trying to serve it without curving around is like solving the Seven Bridges of Königsberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg). It can’t be done.
OK, it isn’t that bad. But it is also quite reasonable for various places of Magnolia to have a less than direct pathway to downtown (the 31 is a fairly direct path to the UW). It is worth noting that Magnolia doesn’t have any stop lights. The looping travel is really not that bad. There are alternatives (and I’ve come up with a few) but what exists there is appropriate to the density (or close to it).
We are drifting way off top here, but I have thought about a Magnolia restructure. The best I’ve come up with is this: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1VdUUGDxsPK2jITsVmTCLuy6kqBCBetk&usp=sharing. Ideally it comes with a bump in frequency for the new 24. Riders heading downtown would take that bus, or one of the other buses and then transfer to the RapidRide D. You lose service on Fisherman’s Terminal, but Interbay (with all of the new apartments) gets 15 minute service to the UW.
Will continue Magnolia in the 7/28 article.
The problem with through routing is delays. I am an operator that drives the 7/49 3 days a week. It is normal being 30 minutes late. There’s just too many people getting on the 7 northbound that by the time I reach capitol hill I’ll be lucky if I’m only 15 minutes late. They are indeed splitting the routes, and I do think more frequent service could minimize those delays for through routing.
Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience. The comment section needs more of that.
Will this be a trolley bus BRT?
While the answer may seem to be yes, the buses might get bogged down sharing wires in Downtown Seattle.
I have wondered if a better strategy is to use battery electric buses and create an overlay service on the alignment while scaling back the frequency of Route 7. Only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the Route 7 buses use the Prentice loop today so 2/3 of the service hours could be shifted to a RapidRide R.
There has never been a concern about wire space in the decades of the trolley network that I’ve heard. The 7 and 36 are already ultra-frequent, so any frequency increase would be minimal. SDOT’s long-term goal is more bus capacity with fewer bus vehicles on 3rd. The way to get there is more RapidRide lines on 3rd, and more routes through-routing all the way through downtown to SLU or Pioneer Square. A total conversion of the 7 to RapidRide addresses that goal, and in the future it could be extended to SLU or attached to the J.
Obviously I’m not very sympathetic to a perceived need for a one-seat ride from the Prentice residential area to downtown. I am more sympathetic to connecting the east-west part of Rainier at Safeway to the rest of Rainier Beach and further up the valley, so I’d be open to a route that does that, not necessarily a 7 solely on Rainier.
Yeah, connecting the 7 to Link (at the south end) adds quite a bit. For example Hillman City to the airport. Or Tukwila to Rainier Avenue. There is no obvious way to backfill the Prentice tail, though. I can think of a few options, none of which sound great:
1) Extend the 36. If it becomes RapidRide, then it could run express (no stops) along Othello between MLK and Rainier. Then it could reuse all of the RapidRide R “stations” until it did the existing loop. This would likely mean skipping Waters and Prentice though.
2) Extend the 50. In this case the bus would go down MLK and then turn on Henderson and pick up the existing pathway of the 7, likely all the way to Prentice.
3) Have the 106 branch and then join together again. So one branch would follow the existing pathway, while the other does this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/43M2gqr6xr3rVgyGA. You would probably want to rename the routes. It means each branch would have half the frequency.
4) Have the 106 detour that way. That probably picks up more riders, but it is slower and you create a different service hole.
5) Split the difference and have the 106 go in between the current 7 and 106. That looks rather messy and slow (https://maps.app.goo.gl/m69UjCDvgAqurV5s7).
6) Do nothing. That creates a service hole. Waters is largely single-family housing, but there are people that live in apartments/condos that would have a long walk to a bus (https://maps.app.goo.gl/z3a829VLJfZy4ReSA).
I think the best options would be the first two. It depends a bit on whether you are focuses on ridership or coverage. Extending the 50 gets you more coverage. Extending the 36 (just to Rainier Avenue) gets you more ridership. None of the choices look easy or great though.
Because Route 106 seems overly long, I could see moving it to be the Prentice loop instead of going all the way to Renton (with a new two-digit number maybe?).
Then the Skyway- Renton segment could lay over in SE Seattle and maybe tie into something in Tukwila or elsewhere in SE Seattle as a new route (if a new shortened 106 keeps its number. Alternatively, new route could be Route 106 if the other shortened route is given a new two-digit number.)
I wouldn’t extend Route 50. It’s already too long. If the route was severed in SODO then it could make more sense even though it ends near Othello and MLK today.
In another scenario Route 36 trolley wire could be extended to Rainier on Othello then turn south and become the Prentice loop.
The bigger issue is whether RapidRide R should be a trolley bus or not. No RapidRides currently run on trolley wire.
I like the idea of extending the 36 wire to Rainier and having it do the Prentice loop. But if turning the 7 into a RapidRide means that it will not be ETB, then “No; just NO!” ETB’s are by far the most efficient transit vehicles known because they’re so lightweight. BEB’s are obese porkers by comparison. The wire is there; USE IT!
Because Route 106 seems overly long, I could see moving it to be the Prentice loop instead of going all the way to Renton (with a new two-digit number maybe?).
I could definitely see that. Here is another idea: Start with the idea of extending the 106 to Uptown (via Boren and SLU). Obviously that is too long. So split it. Send the Boren bus to Prentice (in the same manner as the 7). Meanwhile, the 106 follows the same path from Renton, but is truncated at this new layover close to Rainier Beach Station (RBS) or Othello (where the other buses lay over). You’ve got a bit of overlap on Henderson (if not on Rainier between RBS and Othello). This is good, because it means that existing trips on the 106 (e. g. Renton to MLK & Orcas) would involve an easy same-stop transfer. Riders on the 106 would then transfer to Link to get downtown, or this new Boren bus to get to First Hill. Overall that sounds really good.
The clever thing about using Route 106 for the Prentice loop is that it is also the Route 7 routing north of Mt Baker. But unlike the current bus, it also goes by Link at Rainier Beach and Othello. It has usefulness even without RapidRide R restructure implementation.
Then the Skyway- Renton segment can then connect to other things. It could go to Seward Park, Georgetown or West Seattle. Or it could connect with one of the routes in Renton like Route 105 or 153 or even 160 (RapidRide I) although the last one may be too long. That way, more of Renton could have a direct hus to Link.
I don’t know how committed the neighborhood is to trolley buses. That’s why I suggested adding wire to Route 36 as another possibility.
Then the Skyway- Renton segment can then connect to other things.
I thought about that, too. I was going to suggest some options, but frankly, none of them sound great. You could head to Georgetown, but the 107 does that. You could extend the 36, but then you are close to where you started (with a route that is too long). And you are running wire. And you are overlapping between Othello and Rainier Beach Station. You could go to Seward Park but then you are overlapping on what is likely the weakest part of the 50.
Part of the problem is that there are only so many ways to go east or west. Westwood Village is literally due east of Rainier Beach Station (on Henderson). It would be great to have the 106 turn and make a bee-line east, but it can’t (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HQwhibH9LKKQnuNUA). So buses are funneled into the handful of east-west routes that are largely covered already. To get to the segments that aren’t covered (e. g. Graham east of I-5) requires overlapping routes in areas that don’t need it. This costs a lot.
I think the best option for a bus coming from the south is to just layover by Rainier Beach Station. Maybe you take over the northern tail of the 107 (since that would effect fewer people) but that would also cost more (since the 107 runs less often).
1st Avenue has electric trolleybus overhead with connections to Lenora, Virginia-Stewart, Pine-Pike, Union, Madison-Marion, and South Jackson streets. The CC Streetcar is dead; it died of its own fiscal weight and foolishness. Between 1940 and 1963, there was ETB service on 1st Avenue in Belltown; routes 15 and 18 served both Ballard and West Seattle. Until fall 2012, routes 10-12 served 1st Avenue.
If the FHSC was truncated at 5th Avenue South, allowing it to be more frequent and reliable, routes 7, 14, and 36 could be shifted to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue.
The XT40s and XT60s can go on and off wire quite quickly. The UWMC construction has had every eastbound 44 going off-wire on 15th all the way to its layoevr for the past few years, and at this point drivers have had enough practice that they can do it in well under 20 seconds. It seems if they’re aligned under the wires properly, they can go back on-wire quickly as well, and can go far enough that they can make the attempt at a light or large stop where they’re not blocking other ETBs behind them.
If we still want trolleybuses on Rainer Avenue, it would make the most sense to through-route the J and R. Through-routing the R with the D or E would require discontinuing the wire or the use of dual-mode buses (will probably never happen). For the remaining routes, I’d pair the C with the E and the D with the H. Possibly even alternating between routes.
Jacob, through-routing the J and R, C and E, and D and H, would make those routes much more unreliable.
There’s a bit of a trade off where to turn around takes extra time as well. The J and G are the two routes that are relatively short and could be paired with another line.
The E is already pretty long. D and H probably just run into the same issues the D and C used to have being paired together. The R and J, I think is fine
https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/travel-options/rapidride/r-line/r-line-corridor-planning-and-upgrade-report-executive-summary.pdf?rev=a92a9d02295b42a6853a31bfbcebabdb&hash=2076C001EE2704CBB27E3FC6B2B00E5A
it seems out of 90 million around 15 million will be spent on trolley wires so I assume it’s at trolley bus.
“”””
Improvements at the northern and southern termini to support layover needs, including OCS infrastructure
and comfort stations. Extension of the OCS system along S. Henderson Street from Rainier Avenue S. to MLK Jr Way S. Installation of passing wire at the northbound and southbound stations
at S. Bayview Street and S. Walker Street to allow R Line buses to travel around other trolley buses stopped at these zones. Extension of the OCS system along 5th Avenue S., Terrace Street, and Yesler Way to support the revised northbound routing from S. Jackson Street.
“”””
Thanks, Wesley. I’m happier now.
There was an earlier concept in the mid 2010s of truncating the 7/R at Mt Baker, and extending the 48 on Rainier to Rainier Beach to compensate. It was in Seattle transit master plan in 2012, and Metro Connects in 2016. Later, support for it waned and it was removed from the plans. RapidRide R to Rainier Beach now supercedes it.
Old timers will remember that in the pre-Link era, there was a period where the 48 was extended on MLK to Rainier Beach.
There were once variants of Route 48 that served Beacon Hill (before my time).
Before the initial Link restructure in fall 2009, Route 48 had three variants in SE Seattle; on weekdays, one variant served Rainier Beach via MLK; one variant turned at South Oregon Street; the night and Sunday variant turned at South Walden Street. Route 42 provided radial service on MLK.
The initial Route 8 turned at 16th Avenue East. In June 1997, the weekday variant was extended to South Walden Street via MLK.
I know this is probably a flawed idea in many ways, but could the R be sent down Dearborn like the old 7X?
Dearborn has been given over to the bicyclists.
Oh, maybe they could construct those bike lane stops that are up at Roosevelt Station? I’m not sure how well those work but Jackson is very congested during most hours of the day, which could cause extensive delays on the R.
Dearborn is an overly wide car sewer. It used to be the I-90 terminus, and cars went on Dearborn to get from I-90 to I-5.
The very western edge of Dearborn is getting mixed-use development, and the city is considering closing the last block of the street except for one lane halfway for the Uwajimaya parking lot. The rest of Dearborn I don’t have much hope for. But it would be a fast street for a bus, and there’s plenty of room in its excessive width for transit lanes and a cycletrack and an espresso hut in the middle.
I’m not sure what that gets you. It looks like you lose some density, as Dearborn abuts a lot of freeway dead space. There is maybe one good additional stop (8th & Dearborn). It is nice to have a stops at 5th, but with a bunch of buses on 4th, it doesn’t seem that great. The big hit is that you go under 12th, which means you lose your connection to First Hill (ouch). Dearborn has freeway on-ramps and off-ramps. Jackson does not. I feel like we should push cars towards Dearborn, and not the other way around. Eventually it would be nice to have buses (in bus lanes) there, as well as many other places; but for now we should try to make Rainier and Jackson transit streets instead.
If it wasn’t for the streetcar being center-running, it would be easy and effective to install bus lanes on Jackson St between 3rd ave and Rainier/Boren.
Yet another reason for me to begrudge the streetcar…
I hope we rip it out and replace it with a bus.
That would be a lot simpler and cheaper (although not quite as fast). Center running is ideal as you avoid backups due to people turning right. But it is way more complicated.
If the 36-49 combination route ever comes to life, it probably will be. The only unique coverage spots the FHS has are 14th Ave (literally one stop) and Broadway from Yesler to Madison (served by the peak only 9X and 43 Capitol Hill trips). If Metro wants to keep building streetcars, they need to make them useful.
@Buckley – Metro decided against hooking the 36 up to the 49 as a RapidRide. We have an article reviewing that RapidRide corridor coming up this week.