King County Metro’s RapidRide G, Seattle’s first center-running bus rapid transit (BRT) line, will start running this Saturday, September 14. The route features 24/7 service with all-door buses enabling boarding on both sides allowing transit riders to access the new center stations, bus only lanes, transit signal priority, and off-board payment with ORCA card readers at stations. The route will also be the only route with a stop on 1st Avenue in Downtown since service there was cut in 2020.
Here’s a summary of the route’s planned service frequencies:
| Period | Peak & Midday 5 am to 7pm | Evenings 7 pm to 10 pm | Night 10 pm to 5 am |
| Weekday & Saturday | 6 min | 15 min | 15-40 min |
| Sunday | 15 min | 15 min | 15-40 min |
True BRT
Rapidride G, sometimes referred to as Madison BRT, has been in the works for over 12 years and represents a $133.4 million investment in new roadways, utility upgrades, and custom new 5-door articulated buses. Although the RapidRide lines were originally imagined in 2006 (pdf) as a set of BRT lines on “key travel corridors” to supplement the rest of Metro’s network, RapidRide G represents Seattle’s first “true” BRT service with almost 1.5 miles of two-way center-running bus lanes featuring stations in the middle of Madison Street.
RapidRide G connects Downtown Seattle to Madison Valley via Madison Street. In Downtown, the bus will run eastbound (uphill) on Spring Street, and westbound (downhill) on Madison. The dedicated center-running bus lanes and stations start where Madison crosses I-5, and end approximately 1.4 miles later at 15th Avenue East. The route continues to 18th Ave in dedicated bus lanes, then on to Madison Valley in general traffic lanes. Along the non-dedicated portions of the route, there are some “queue jumps” which let the bus skip to the front of the line at intersections.
The bus also represents the only transit service on First Avenue since the pandemic and the first frequent service on First in a long time. One of the key benefits is the connection to the ferries at Colman Dock. Riders will be able to ride a ferry, cross over the Marion Street Pedestrian Bridge to First and then walk a short way to the RapidRide station between Spring and Madison. This avoids the steep incline up to Third for those trying to get up to First Hill.
Bus Restructures
With the opening of RapidRide G, Metro is restructuring bus service to leverage this new service. Here is the approximate frequency on the weekdays:
| Time period | Peak & Midday 5 am to 7pm | Evening 7 pm to 10 pm | Night 10 pm to 5 am |
| Route 3 | 30 min | 30 min | None |
| Route 10 and 12 | 20 min | 30 min | 30 / 60 min |
| Route 11 | 20 min | 30 min | 30 / 60 min |
| Route 49 | 20 min | 20 min | 20 min |
| Route 60 | 12 min | 20 min | 20 min |
For the 10, 11, 12 and 49 the service is the same weekdays as weekends. For the 3 and 60 it is a bit different. Weekend service:
| Time period | Peak & Midday 5 am to 7 pm | Evening 7 pm to 10 pm | Night 10 pm to 5 am |
| Route 3 | 30 min | None | None |
| Route 60 | 15 min | 30 min | 30 min |
These are approximate. The specific schedule is accessible via the appropriate link. Other altered timetables can be found at the Metro service change page. Unfortunately, much of this restructure represents a degradation in service for major swaths of Capitol Hill which will hopefully be improved in future restructures as ridership patterns on RapidRide G take shape.
Shared Sections
Many of the routes share a moderate section with another route, creating greater frequency along the corridor than it would have by itself. Unfortunately, one potential hiccup with combining routes like this is the actual frequency experienced isn’t as great if the routes aren’t coordinated.
Pike and Pine Street
The Route 10 and 12 are branched for alternating buses to combine for higher frequency. Combined with the rerouted Route 3 and Route 11 will enable even higher frequency on the Pine / Pike Street segment closer to downtown, albeit at the expense of frequency further east.
| Pike/Pine | 3rd Ave to Bellevue Ave | Bellevue Ave to Broadway | Broadway to 15th |
| Routes | 10+12, 11, 3, 49 | 10+12, 49 | 10 + 12 |
| Shared Peak+Midday | ~6* minute (14 bph) | ~9* minute (9 bph) | 10 minute (6 bph) |
| Shared Evening | ~8* minute (11 bph) | ~14* minute (5 bph) | 15 minute (4 bph) |
Street segments with multiple bus routes will technically have a certain number of buses per hour (bph), but frequencies may not be as good as implied. For example, if one route runs 5 bph (every 12 minutes), and a second route on the same street runs 5 bph, that would total 10 bph and average to a bus every 6 minutes, but if the two routes arrive at the same time, the real frequency may be 2 buses every 12 minutes, or something less predictable. The schedules for Route 10 and Route 12 are the only ones which will be timed to try to avoid bunching.
Meanwhile, the frequency on the Pike and Pine corridor is will increase to the point where waiting for a bus at the Convention Center to Westlake station might be generally worthwhile as opposed to walking. Further east in Capitol Hill, the frequency will greatly depend on how well the Route 10 and Route 12 can coordinate. Assuming the schedule holds well, the 10-minute frequency serves decently well to 15th Avenue.
E John St and E Thomas
The combined east-west section of Route 8 (4 bph) and Route 11 (3 bph) from Bellevue Avenue to MLK Way on John and Thomas, covering about 1.5 miles. With a total of 7 bph, that segment could ideally have a bus every 8.5 minutes, but in practice would more hover around 10-minute frequencies.
Shared Stops
The G will share several stops with buses like the 2, 8, 11 and 12. Specifically on Spring at 4th and 8th and on Madison at 17th, 22nd, 24th, and 28th (shown above). This stop will be shared by RapidRide G, Route 11 and Route 8 which means that heading westhbound a rider could use any route to reach a Link station without waiting very long for a bus. These shared stops are a mixed blessing. While they increase effective frequency, they also increase the chance that the RapidRide G (which has off-board payment and rear-door boarding) could be delayed by a regular bus.
The 60 and G will both run on Madison. But for the area in which they overlap the G will use a center bus stop while the 60 will stop curbside.
Am I catching that correctly, that service starts Friday? Understood it was very early Saturday morning.
Silly mistake. Should say Saturday, September 14. Corrected.
I recall this line was planned based on the Central City Connector happening and having a shared stop on 1st. Curious if it should extend a couple blocks direct to the ferry dock, granted there is the foot bridge but there could be a benefit to a more direct connection.
I think the answer to that question comes down to two points:
1) Availability of layover space next to the ferry.
2) At 6-minute frequency, even a very tiny increase in running time can force Metro to add an additional bus to the route, which is expensive. For instance, if this bus has to be pulled from some other route, that could force the other route to run every 30 minutes vs. every 20 minutes certain times of day. This is why Metro was so opposed to extending RapidRide G another mile to Madison Park.
And it can’t be just any bus, due to the left platforms.
1) This bus doesn’t layover downtown. It does a live loop.
2) I’m not sure why they decided to turn around on First. Looking at some early plans it isn’t clear: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/RapidRide/Madison/MadisonBRT_FINAL%20Boards_WEB.pdf. It did save a little bit of money (fewer stops and faster running time) but unlike going to Madison Park the difference was minimal.
[Edit: Original comment had the wrong URL.]
SDOT planned the G Line. The noun of the last asdf2 sentence should be SDOT.
Yes, SDOT assumed the CCC (now CC) Streetcar. It seems to have died of its own fiscal weight.
I think they looked at running to the waterfront but felt it wasn’t worth it. I think there were issues with right-of-way (or something similar) but I don’t remember the details. The only difference the streetcar caused was that the bus was supposed to run in the middle of the street on First (with a bus stop there) but instead they went with curbside there.
Yeah, the ferry foot bridge may have been the reason they chose First instead of the waterfront. An Urbanist article at the time (https://www.theurbanist.org/2015/11/17/limited-madison-brt-will-still-deliver-great-benefits/) suggested there was more support for First. That seems meaningless to me, as you would still serve First on the way to the waterfront. In that same article they had this to say about the streetcar stop (that was supposed to be shared with the RapidRide G):
…when passengers disembark from ferries, there are high pedestrian volumes at First Avenue and Marion Street. The stop location between Spring and Madison allows for these pedestrian volumes to be distributed as passengers wishing to transfer to the streetcar progress to the shared BRT/streetcar stop. If the stop were located at Marion Street, the pedestrian volumes generated by streetcar and ferry riders would likely exceed the capacity of the sidewalks at this intersection.
Thus by having it a bit farther away people get more spread out. The same thing is true when it comes to waterfront versus First. It takes a while for people to walk from the ferry to First and thus they spread out more than they would along the waterfront.
Of course it was also cheaper (to build and operate). They have just wanted to avoid the issues along the waterfront, given everything that is going on there. Maybe they ultimately want to extend it to the waterfront but figured it made sense to wait.
A mild hot take: The bus restructure should have deleted the 12, and in exchange doubled frequency on the 10. It’s an extra 5 min walk from any stop along the 12, in exchange for 5 min less average wait for everyone. And if you live between 15th and 19th, you wouldn’t need to guess which stop to walk to.
Yes, definitely. That is one of several changes I suggested here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/. The other “no brainer” in my opinion is moving the 2 to Pike/Pine.
There are alternatives besides the one you suggested. One is to keep the 10/12 branch, but make the split later. Thomas is one option, but you would need to add bus stops. The bus stops on 15th are north of Thomas and there aren’t any stops south of there until Pine. Thus riders wouldn’t get the ten minute frequency unless they are close to Pine (which basically defeats the purpose). Another option would be to branch at Aloha. That would work, but they would need to run wire (and maybe harden the street to allow buses on Aloha).
If you just kept the 10 (and got rid of the 12) I can see other variations as well. You could make the dogleg to 19th via Aloha. At that point there is actually more on 19th then on 15th, and 15th is essentially walled off by the park. You could then just end at 19th & Galer (like the 12) or better yet loop back around to 15th (via Galer) and end where the 10 ends. That is just a bit longer and you have some apartments on 15th close to the park.
Any of these variations (including the one you suggested) would be much better than the 10/12 combination they settled on.
I rise to counter both individuals’ assertions of benefits (for Metro 10 riders) of the Metro 12 had been eliminated.
While I often walk either east from 15th or west from 19th, I have found the cold windy slippery (leaves) walks to be a hassle and arriving at the medical clinic for an appointment, I have seen the majority of those waiting would find the longer walks acceptable. Additionally, the 12 turns around pauses (driver break) at a good access point to walking trails. There are a high percentage of seniors riding on both routes, from the neighborhood, as well.
That would be the advantage of going on Aloha or branching on Aloha. Riders would not walk east or west, but north or south. 19th is practically flat as a pancake north-south between Thomas and Aloha (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TDkZ5fYWzRHU4Ezg6). So is 17th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UzGHzDYwkGZgkzLGA). There is more of a slope as you go north, but it is still nothing compared to going east-west. The routing right now is the worst of both worlds. It forces riders to walk east-west (up or down steep blocks) and then to compensate it increases coverage which largely just make for horrific frequency. Holy cow, 20 minutes to wait for a bus — all day long. That is absurd for such an urban area.
There are only 5 new routes and Route 12 needs to be deleted or revised I thought routes 12 and 43, 8 were unchanged, but why the routes 20, 73 need to be deleted? We’re losing routes 41, 42, 55,47, 63, 64, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78,320,342,373 but the routes need to be restored in the future or spring so it is supposed to eliminate route 106 because it duplicates routes like 7, 9X, or 107 I think the routes 8 or 48 needs to revised to the Rainier beach
And we are losing the routes 5X, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
I’m wondering how this load of buses on Pike and Pine will work now that there are one lane segments. If I counted correctly (did I?) that’s 14 buses an hour on each street. With one lane and trolley bus wires buses can’t really hopscotch.
Then the two left turns on and off Third Ave pose another potentiel bus bottleneck.
With the routing set and opening imminent, the situation can’t be changed — so it will be interesting whether or not an operational bottleneck happens.
Weren’t the buses on Pike/Pine always trolleys? If so then they couldn’t pass each other before. I think there were always a lot of buses on Pike/Pine. I’m not sure when we’ve had the most (per hour) but my guess is either before the pandemic or before UW Link (not now).
Yes, the 10, 43, 49 (7), and 3 (14, 47) have been trolleybuses since at least the 1970s. The 11 is the odd man out, although it had apparently been a trolley route in the 1960s and was dieselized sometime before my time.
I think this will be the most Pike/Pine runs, although in the late 2010s it was higher than today. The ex-tunnel routes (101, 150, 550) will move off Pike Street when the Eastlake layover facility opens from what I understand, so that will free up some space. That might happen as soon as Saturday.
When Pike/Pine become (or have become) a couplet in Capitol Hill what street will the 10 and 12 jog back over to two-way on Pine on? Now the Pike/Pine buses jog from the loop on either Bellevue or 8th but the couplet is going in east of that? I know there is some existing wire on Pike east of Bellevue but not sure how far east it goes.
Do I understand there are no #10 stops on 15th between Thomas when it returns to its original route?
**Between Thomas and Pine
@poncho.
Extending the couplet is not funded as part of the waterfront project.
SDOT did have it in their draft transportation plan to extend it further to Madison Street.
> This project will extend previous improvements in this area to the east, better supporting access for people walking, rolling, and biking to destinations like shops, restaurants, and cultural centers in the area. It will also complete the connection between two community hubs: Capitol Hill and Pike Place Market.
https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Prelim-Draft-STP_Project_List-2023-10-17.pdf
I am not sure what was in the final draft/ what was actually funded, though remind me to check sometime
> what street will the 10 and 12 jog over
They currently jog over on bellevue ave. When it is extended I assume the 10 can jog over on madison and then head north on 15th.
For the 12, it will probably join madison for a couple blocks then continue as before. I guess there might be a bit more interlining there.
They all jog on Bellevue Avenue now. 8th is no longer viable now that Pine Street is one-way west of Bellevue Avenue.
There was a northbound 10 stop at 15th & Pine when the 10 was operating there; I assume it will be revived. It has to be for people taking the 10/12 alternatingly. Westbound there’s a shared stop on Pine between 15th and 14th.
I haven’t heard anything concreate about when the one-way system might be extended east of Bellevue Avenue. It may not happen until something like Ballard Link opens, which is so irrelevant to near- and medium-term trips it’s not worth thinking about now.
@poncho.
I checked the levy list of projects https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/Funding/Levy/Seattle_Transportation_Levy_SUMMARY_20240821%20.pdf
and it wasn’t listed in there so it’s probably won’t be funded in the near term.
Do I understand there are no #10 stops on 15th between Thomas when it returns to its original route?
That is my understanding.
Google maps is usually fairly accurate when it comes to bus stops. Another source for bus stops is this one: https://pugetsndtransit.org/kingmetro/route/10-capital-hill (although they spelled “Capitol Hill” wrong). I can’t find a listing of stops on the Metro website.
But based on these sources (and looking at “street view” with Google Maps) there are no stops on 15th between Thomas and Pine. Making matters worse, the stop on Thomas is north of 15th (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zemc4HRAceZZsVmc6). This means that although the 10 and 11 both go to the same places (Pike/Pine downtown) and overlap for half a block, they don’t share a bus stop. You are going to have to use OneBusAway (or a similar app) to decide which stop to use. One possibility is to stand on the west end of 15th and look north for the 10 or east towards the 11. If you see the 10 you head towards it. If you see the 11, go south on 15th and around the corner to wave it down on John.
The 15th Avenue East tail of Route 10 loses its direct service connection with Link at Capitol Hill station and has longer headway and waits. What does Metro assert to be the advantage? Route 11 is shifted to Thomas-John streets; its riders get direct access to Capitol Hill station. Route 12 will need a bit of new ETB overhead to reach East Pine Street. But Route 11 could serve the Pine Street corridor without new wire; it did last week? Why the flip?
The vehicle itself deserves a mention in the article. I can’t seem to find a video that provides an internal look at it. I find isolated clips like this one instead:
https://www.instagram.com/kcmetrobus/reel/C-6HzzapfbI/
I’m surprised there isn’t more PR about the vehicle coming from KCM. It really is unique!
Its procurement wasn’t exactly easy. It will have five doors — three right and two left. Bicycles will be allowed on board too. That’s all great — until maybe when the bus is crowded and climbing or descending Downtown at up to 18-19 percent slope, along with open areas in the bus where the only thing to grab is the occasional pole or strap.
Will bicycles and luggage go flying down the aisle? Will it easily climb the hill when fully loaded?
We will start knowing answers next week! I hope it goes well for riders and that in-vehicle accidents aren’t a big issue.
Yeah, I don’t think they should allow bikes on the bus. Nor do I think you should be able to put bikes on the front. In both cases it is a niche use that is not a requirement. We have a moral responsibility to provide space for wheelchairs — that isn’t the case with bikes on buses. The same issue exists with bikes on Link cars as well. I suppose they don’t hurt when there are few riders. You could just ban them during peak (like BART does). That works to a certain extent, but if there is crowding outside of peak (e. g. for a ballgame) it is an issue.
Part of the problem is that we have a really poor bikeshare system and a really poor bike security system in the city. It is crazy to me that you can park your car at various publicly funded lots next to light rail stations but they don’t have free and secure bike parking at places like the UW Station (which is right on the Burke Gilman). So instead of people biking and then taking the train (the standard way to do things) they feel it is critical that they take their bike with them, even though it takes up a huge amount of room. (Or in the case of a lot of buses, delays the bus as cyclists hassle with the racks).
So I understand why a cyclist would want to take a bike on the bus (or the train). But there are alternatives. Just get a “Bike Friday”. A folding bike is a bit bulky, but it is nowhere near as bulky (and unwieldy) as a regular bike. This particular bus is not going from city to city. Again, I can understand why you would want to take a bike on Sounder (or a similar regional bus). But this bus only goes a couple miles — and in a very urban area at that. It is the exact opposite of the type of transit that should allow full size bikes on board.
Just to be clear, I’m not particularly worried about the bike sliding around. I assume that cyclists will hold on to it or put it in the rack, just like they do on Link. Same goes for luggage. Sure, someone could lose track of it and it could slide down the aisle, but the same thing could happen today on the buses. I’m more worried about it taking up too much space and adding to extra dwell time as they try and maneuver it around on a crowded bus. Then again, maybe cyclists will have the good sense to avoid taking the bike on the bus during times when it gets crowded. As you wrote, I guess we will find out.
“Part of the problem is that we have a really poor bikeshare system”
Well we killed the good bikeshare system we had, Pronto which was a big mistake in hindsight. But Seattle has always had a problem of being good in terms of planning for the long term where the bikeshare would’ve likely fared well had it been allowed to stay alive and grow instead of being killed.
Yes. We basically killed Pronto and ignored the reason it was performing poorly (lack of stations). We essentially ignored the science and came up with silly theories (the weather, etc.). Then we thought the free market would solve the problem. It has done OK, but the prices they charge are ridiculously high. We like to think we are special and refuse to copy cities that do things really well. In this case that would probably be DC. They have a very successful system with very extensive coverage and it costs $95/year (with the first 45 minutes of a bike ride free). Even just a single trip is a good deal ($1 plus a nickel a minute).
Pike/Pine is a much gentler slope for bicycles — and now has dedicated bike lanes! It’s not like you’re taking the 150 from Kent and would otherwise have to bike fifteen miles: nothing in East Seattle is more than two miles or so from downtown.
“A folding bike is a bit bulky”
My roommate’s brother got a folding bike for last-mile access to Kent warehouse jobs from the 150 or 181, and said it was robust enough for convenient riding and light enough to carry around. He did that for six months with shifts all over the 24-hour clock.
“but they don’t have free and secure bike parking at places like the UW Station”
Actually they do have secure bike lockers at UW station. I’ve parked my e-bike there before when visiting Capitol Hill to avoid needing to leave the bike out on the street in capitol hill, itself.
It’s technically not free, but the cost to use them is so little it makes no difference, and some nonzero cost, however small, is probably necessary to prevent abuse.
Yes, SDOT really wanted bikes to be loaded on the G Line; that was one reason they chose hybrid articulated buses; they could have had standard ETB with left side doors. Once they chose hybrid, why did not they not change the pathway to pass Capitol Hill station and extend to Madison Park?
Bikes on board BRT lines is so good for transit-enhanced bicycle travel.
Semi-related: I enjoy using transit+bike to travel from my home in North Seattle to my ancestral homeland in South Everett. This used to involve a 512 trip from Northgate to South Everett Fwy Station and a bike ride on each end. Now it’s a Link trip from Northgate to Lynnwood and a transfer to the Orange line with a bike ride on each end. Trip length is essentially a wash at ~1hr 15min with similar bike routes, and despite the transfer, the quality of life boost is huge.
The bike feels like a first-class passenger now that I can bring it on board all modes without having to remove bags or fumble with racks, which holds up the ride for other passengers. I’m eager to try the journey during peak commute times to see how if scales with traffic, as the 512 did not.
I was prepared to mourn the declawing of the regional workhorse that I’ve been taking for the better part of a decade, but sometimes change is good. For the south-county Snohoman, the 512 is dead, long live the Link 🍻
“For the south-county Snohoman, the 512 is dead, long live the Link”
Ya, there is a reason we built Link, and a reason we are expanding it. And that reason is that it works, and works exceedingly well on a variety of different metrics.
Supposedly CT has seen a 50% drop in ridership on commuter routes into Seattle. That is after just one week, and most CT commuter routes don’t even originate at LCT. People are voting with their feet.
As per bikes on buses, I have yet to see anyone try to put one of those massive, tank-like e-bikes on a standard Metro bike rake. And I certainly won’t miss the delay caused by people fumbling with trying to secure their bikes on the front rake.
Bikes on board BRT lines is so good for transit-enhanced bicycle travel.
I disagree. I said so up above (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/09/10/rapidride-g-and-bus-restructures/#comment-940396). I won’t rehash the arguments but it is at best a niche case. At worst it represents a failure in the system. There is a fundamental disconnect here because bikes on transit don’t scale (except maybe for regional transit — you can always add more train cars). It will be common for half a dozen people to get on at a bus stops with several people already standing. Now imagine they all have bikes. This becomes a major problem.
In contrast if we build a bike cage it can be huge. The space needed to park a bike is tiny compared to the space needed to park a car. And we have that! We have massive garages for cars and very little for bikes. We also have a second-rate bike share system. But even lacking all that it just doesn’t make sense for this bus — of all buses — to allow full sized bikes. A foldable bike (properly folded down and secured in a bag) is fine. But a full size bike just doesn’t make sense on a BRT line like this.
If it’s a niche case then what are you so worried about?
The potential benefit is a niche case. The potential harm is much bigger.
“Bikes on board BRT lines is so good for transit-enhanced bicycle travel.”
It makes less sense with the G than with other routes. The G only goes a short distance. Part of the reason people will use it is they don’t want to walk up the steep hill. But the hill is much gentler on Pike-Pine, so much so that when there’s snow on the ground I can walk from 1st to 14th no problem. (The steepest part is one block from 14th to 15th, and the I-5 overpass can be icy, but other than that it’s OK.) If I can bike it without walking my bike, other people can too, and if they have a bike, they presumably intend to ride it, so ride it on Pike-Pine!
It’s one thing to put a bike on a bus when a route isn’t that busy and the slope isn’t that steep and there aren’t larger open areas because the bus has doors on both sides. It’s a whole other experience on a crowded bus going up or down an 18% slope when there’s very little to hold on to.
It’s all about context.
“If [bicycles on board] a niche case then what are you so worried about?”
That’s a larger problem. Our 3-bike racks in front of buses only work because less than 1% of the riders use them. If a third of the riders brought their bikes it would completely melt down. If we prioritized transit/bike/ped infrastruture enough for bike+bus to reach its natural level of what passengers would ideally want, it would rise to a third of passengers or more. That’s what happens in The Netherlands in other countries, where trains have entire bicycle cars, and major destinations like UW have gigantic bike-parking facilities.
It’s a similar problem with transit as a whole. Metro’s/ST’s network only works because only 20% of trips are on transit. If everybody who might want to use it if it were fully comprehensive tried to board, it would melt down with overcrowding. We’d need two or three times more transit service than we have. Of course, our approach is wrong-headed. We should try to maximize ridership and make transit a viable first choice for most trips, and provide enough capacity and coverage that it could rise to that level. Not limit ridership to only the most dedicated by having only partial or halfhearted service.
I agree with your overall point, Mike, but this is erroneous:
Metro’s/ST’s network only works because only 20% of trips are on transit. If everybody who might want to use it if it were fully comprehensive tried to board, it would melt down with overcrowding.
If the buses were crowded we would just run more buses. This is a good thing. It means that riders don’t have to wait as long. The per-rider subsidy is lower. Eventually you start looking for alternatives. You run express buses or add rail. This is what I mean by saying transit scales.
In contrast, all it takes is half a dozen people on bikes and this whole system falls apart. It no longer works for the people biking. It becomes a big mess for those without bikes. The solution becomes running special buses just for bikes. But this really doesn’t make sense for this route (or most routes). It makes sense when a critical bike path is out (they have special vans with trailers to put your bikes). It makes sense for ferries. It makes sense for regional trains (just add a train car). It could even make sense for regional bus service. Frequency is not as important since the trips are not as spontaneous. Having special “bike buses” a few times a day is fine.
But mixing the two on a regular route was always a mistake. As Jarrett Walker put it, bike racks on buses only work if they’re not very popular. https://humantransit.org/2012/07/email-of-the-week-more-bike-racks-on-buses.html
“If the buses were crowded we would just run more buses. ”
We can for small increases, but Metro’s current revenue structure and bus/base capacity can’t scale to doubling service across the board.
“bike racks on buses only work if they’re not very popular.”
That’s exactly my point and what I was thinking of, although I didn’t remember Jarret addressing it. We don’t have a transit network that could fit everybody like we did in the 1920s. We don’t have a complete bike-trail network, which is part of the reason people are putting bikes on buses. We haven’t addressed 10+ mile bus+bike trips a large part of the metropolitan area except with those 3 bike racks per bus(hope they aren’t full).
It’ll be interesting to use the rapidride g from symphony station to reach first hill. Or also from the waterfront to capitol hill.
For westlake to capitol hill (pine/pike), I guess I might actually use the shared bus segment, as I wouldn’t have to backtrack from capitol hill station on e john back to pine/pike. Though it will be a bit annoying to have to remember which bus to take given there’s the combination of 3/49/10/12.
I’m not sure how I feel about the route 49 drop from 20 to 15 minute frequency (maybe we should edit the article to clarify which routes dropped). It will definitely be a bit annoying — though at the same time I rarely took it. To reach uw/udistrict I always used link and on eastlake it was route 70 there.
The travel time estimates are amazing: 5 minutes from 1st to Broadway, 5 minutes from Broadway to 28th. That’s much faster than the 2, 3, 4, or 12 slowpokes have been, and faster than the Pine Street routes. It will really open up travel to First Hill and Madison Valley, and enable trips that weren’t feasible before.
Yeah ‘real brt’ is quite nice. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2024/09/131621-van-ness-brt-speeds-travel-36-earns-silver-designation the other “Van Ness BRT Speeds Travel by 36%” is quite nice.
I wonder if we’ll have center median brt on any corridors.
SDOT considered center lanes for part of RapidRide 44 (between I-5 and 15th) but later backed down. So it’s a hard sell to get them anywhere else. But if the G is wildly popular and gets a lot of positive feedback to politicians, that may help move the needle for other routes.
Though it will be a bit annoying to have to remember which bus to take given there’s the combination of 3/49/10/12.
Yes, although that is nothing new. It seems like every so often they shuffle things a bit. The 10 is actually back to what it used to be (before UW Link). But there has been some combination of buses creating a “Spine” from Pike/Pine up to Bellevue for quite some time.
I’m not sure how I feel about the route 49 drop from 20 to 15 minute frequency (maybe we should edit the article to clarify which routes dropped).
Yeah, although then the tables get pretty messy. Pretty soon the 10, 11, 12 and 49 run every 20 minutes at best. The 10 and 49 currently runs every 15. The 11 runs every 20 (so that is the same). The 12 is weird — it is inconsistent.
It is also a bit “apples and oranges”as the routing on a lot of these buses have changed. I also think it misses the greater point. Is this the best we can do (given our funding)? In my opinion it isn’t — not even close. A few buses are getting worse and a few are getting better, but overall frequency isn’t nearly as good as it should be here.
I regret that I didn’t make a frequency map like the ones here: https://humantransit.org/2014/05/houston-a-transit-network-reimagined.html. You don’t need to know the details of Houston (I certainly don’t) to realize that there are a lot more frequent buses (routes in red). The same was the case here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/ although the actual maps have been lost. Still, I remember the frequency map. It would have been nice to create something similar (in my case you had to wade through the text).
Keeping track of routes:
– Pine Street: 10, 12, 43*, 49 (Current: 11, 49. Historic (1970s-2016): 10, 11, 49 (7)).
– Olive Way: 3, 11 (Current: 10, 43. Historic (1970s-2016): 43, 47 (14).)
*If the 43 will still exist, which I’m not sure. It’s peak only now.
Frequency changes (daytime):
10: Decrease 15 to 20.
11: Remain 20 weekdays & Saturdays. Increase 30 to 20 Sundays.
12: Decrease 15 to 20 weekdays. Increase 30 to 20 Saturday & Sunday.
49: Decrease 15 to 20 daytime.
3: Restore at 30 minutes. (Currently no service.)
Historic (1970s-2016) ~ (2016-2020) ~ (2020-2022) ~ (2022-2024) ~ (2024-):
10: 15 minutes weekdays; I don’t remember about weekends. 15-minute evenings was added in 2016 from Seattle TBD funds. Reverted to 30-minute evenings around 2020, later re-added. Future: 20 daytime, 30 evening.
11: 15 minutes weekdays, 30 minutes weekend/evening. Added 15-minute Saturday in 2016 from TBD. In 2020 dropped to 20 minutes weekdays, 30 minutes Saturday. In recovery added 20 minutes Saturday. Future: 20 daytime, 30 evening.
12: 15+ minutes weekdays (with extra short runs to 15th). Increased in 2016, decreased in 2020, partly recovered in 2022. Future: 20 daytime, 30 evening.
49 (7): 15 minutes daytime, 30 evenings. (The southern half of the 7 had more daytime runs.) In 2016 increased to 12 minutes daytime, 30 minutes evenings. During the pandemic decreased to 15 minutes daytime, 30 minutes at least some evenings. Later recovered evenings. Fiture: 20 daytime & evening.
3 (47, 14): 30 minutes. Suspended in 2014 cuts. TBD restored it to 40 minutes (what one bus could do in a round trip), daytime only. Suspended again in pandemic. Future: 30 daytime only.
It is a bit apples and oranges because the buses go different places. I would summarize the frequency changes like so:
Much better: Madison to MLK (obviously).
Better: Pike/Pine from 15th to downtown; Summit (at least they have something).
Still sucks: Broadway; Summit (although not as bad); 10th north of Republican; 15th north of Pine to downtown*; 19th north of Pine to downtown; Madison Park to anywhere.
* 15th/19th is interesting. Up around Thomas you are in no-mans land. Farther north it is worse. But close to Pine (when the 10/12 finally combine for decent frequency) you also have a good alternative: The G. It looks to me like the G is going to poach a lot of riders. These buses don’t try and complement it; they largely ignore it.
Anyone remember the U-Link restructure? It was fantastic. Metro focused their buses on serving Link, not competing with it. It was a challenge. Trips to downtown often took a lot longer. But frequency was great. Pretty much the entire northeast part of the city went from half hour service (sucks) to fifteen minute service (better). Metro should have done the same thing with the RapidRide G. They didn’t, which is why service in much of the area still sucks.
Yes RapidRide G will gain some riders from the slow 10/12. (“Poached” isn’t exactly the best word) The better speed and frequency will be one apparent in a few weeks.
Routes 8/11 draw riders away already. A rider can get to Capitol Hill Station directly and 11 also ends up on Pike-Pine in Downtown.
North of John there are residents between 14th and 23rd but it’s not as dense as around Broadway or 12th. It certainly seems like overkill to serve this area with two routes at 20 minutes each. One route at 15 minutes could serve these areas around Aloha Street north.
For that matter I’ve always been amazed that no bus goes into Volunteer Park — although I understand how the wires would negatively affect the park ambiance.
Rather than us second guess what the residents in this area need/ use the most, I would ask them! Where are they going Downtown? What are their preferred Capitol Hill and First Hill destinations?
Meanwhile the RRG opening is a real-life case study over the next few months. I advise being patient to see what happens first. It’s happening no matter what so let’s wait and see!
The situation reminded me of how everyone was obsessing about Route 48 improvements before U-Link opened. After the opening, Route 48 ridership lowered significantly and the concern significantly faded.
“It looks to me like the G is going to poach a lot of riders.”
The G doesn’t go to where a lot of people want to go. They’d have to go downtown to Madison Street and then make their way to Pike/Pine, whereas the 10/12 go to Pike/Pine directly. Madison downtown just doesn’t have that many destinations or much of a variety: there’s the library, the ferry terminal, and office buildings.
The key to complementary routes that feed a major route is the transfer. A poor transfer can greatly hinder the use of transit whereas a really good transfer enhances the service. A lot more priority needs to be made to quality transfers especially as we move more to a grid based system and feeding Link and RRs.
The key to complementary routes that feed a major route is the transfer. A poor transfer can greatly hinder the use of transit whereas a really good transfer enhances the service. A lot more priority needs to be made to quality transfers especially as we move more to a grid based system and feeding Link and RRs.
I agree. Sometimes the transfer is fundamentally difficult. You can’t really pull it off without delaying the bus. But other times they can move a bus stop here or there and making things a lot better.
“It looks to me like the G is going to poach a lot of riders.”
The G doesn’t go to where a lot of people want to go. They’d have to go downtown to Madison Street and then make their way to Pike/Pine, whereas the 10/12 go to Pike/Pine directly.
Except the 2 goes to pretty much the exact same place as the G which is why the 2 should be shifted to Pike/Pine. It really isn’t complicated.
Of course there are variations, but the key thing is to have the routes complement each other, instead of competing with each other. Right now the 2 is competing with the G (it will lose). Move it to Pike/Pine and it complements it. North of Pine the 10 and 12 compete with each other. Branch later (if at all) and they complement each other more. The 3, 49 and 10 all compete with Link. They all go downtown. The problem is, only one of them (Link) is even close to frequent. Every other bus runs every 20 minutes (or worse). In contrast if you sent the 49 to Beacon Hill then it no longer competes with Link or the 10/12. It instead complements all of these, as well as the G. The 3 and 10 could run more often and complement Link. If you are close to Link (and headed downtown) you take it. If you are to the west, you take the 3. To the east, the 10. Even along roughly the same pathway you have routes that needlessly compete with each other. The 2/G is an example, but there is also the 60/streetcar. They both run roughly as often and roughly along the same corridor. But rather than complement each other (creating a six-minute all-day spine) they needlessly compete, forcing riders to pick one or the other for a simple trip along one of our most urban corridors.
> Except the 2 goes to pretty much the exact same place as the G which is why the 2 should be shifted to Pike/Pine. It really isn’t complicated.
They’ve already moved many routes over to pike/pine, I guess maybe it could use that same path as well but I think it’s alright for the 2 to stay there.
> Right now the 2 is competing with the G (it will lose).
It’s 2/3/4 is more from queen anne/ bell town to central seattle on that segment. Using the G involves transferring so most would stay on instead.
If I’m in central district and heading down madison to downtown sure use the G, but if heading to belltown/queen anne would use the 2 instead.
Today the G failed me in both directions. Left one hour early from 13th/Madison to go to a 1:00 meeting on 5th, a few blocks from the G stop on 5th/Madison. Waited at the stop for 36 minutes for a westbound bus. 36 minutes is absurd! We watched 9 or 10 busses going East up the hill, sometimes less than 2 minutes apart.
On the way home, I was at 4th/Spring where the 2 and the H both stop. Again, no G for 15+ minutes. When the 2 bus came I sure as hell got on it. Wasn’t going to risk waiting for who knows how long for the G to arrive. The 2 was very crowded and got me home before the G. I watched the bus tracker to see if G was on route. Tje G passed me on Madison as I was entering my apartment building.
All that to say- the 2 is doing what the G is supposed to be doing and that is whack.
It feels like we’ve been in a long transit recession since 2020, as those fluctuations in Capitol Hill attest. The reasons have changed over the years but it’s still feels like what transit does in a recession. Right when we were finally on a roll and catching up to peer cities.
Agreed. Good way to put it as well.
Agreed, but Link has pulled a lot of riders (and Metro used to justify butchering the 43 and now 49 service levels) and the G is pulling a lot of service hours from the other Capitol Hill lines. But also many people use lines on John/Thomas as a feeder to Capitol Hill station. Pre Link they would have ridden the whole route downtown, now many hop out/on at Capitol Hill. 20 and 30 minute headways don’t cut it in a neighborhood like Capitol Hill especially as a feeder/last mile extender.
What remains of the 43 is actually a good route providing a solid north-south crosstown on 23rd, John/Thomas, and now Broadway to Little Saigon/Jackson. Shame it runs such a terrible infrequent schedule.
The frequency is lower because Seattle’s TBD downsized 2020, and SDOT is reallocating some of the TBD hours from the 10, 11, and 12 to the 49, 60, and 125.
Before the TBD, the 5, 8, 10, and 49 and other routes always had 30-minute evenings. It’s not Metro’s base hours that has been making them more frequent; it’s TBD hours. Metro doesn’t have enough base hours for that without cutting into daytime frequency. There’s long supposed to be a countywide Metro measure to give it more base hours to fill in these frequency gaps, but after ten years of talking it still hasn’t happened.
A general comment:
Any discussion of the “bus restructures” occurring on Sept 14th needs to at least mention what is happening in SnoCo with CT’s commuter service into Seattle.
The complete elimination of CT’s commuter service into Seattle represents a tectonic shift in travel patterns between Seattle and SnoCo. This is easily the biggest change in travel patterns between the two locals at least since Community Transit was formed in 1976. This is not a small change.
Supposedly ridership on CT’s commuter bus routes dropped 50% within a week of LLE opening. That is a huge change in ridership in a very short time.
On Sept 14th we get to see the rest of it. And we also get the Swift Blue extension to North Shoreline Station.
That is a massive amount of change in a very short period.
I thought it could be a different post.
I am still curious to know how crowded Link is before the restructure kicks in at CT.
Tbh, I feel like they’d be fine talked about together as that is a lot of busses being rearranged and shuffled on the deck to serve people differently and their commute habits now that a new transit mode has opened.
We’ll have an overview of all the changes Friday or Saturday, although it may not get into every CT route or frequency. We’re looking for an author for a CT-specific article. We’re a bit short staffed now since I’m still recovering and Martin is going back to Germany for a few weeks, and none of us has the in-depth experience a Snohomish resident would have.
“I feel like they’d be fine talked about together as that is a lot of busses being rearranged”
It would make the article very long and we couldn’t get as in-depth about all the routes. The Capitol Hill restructure is a half-dozen routes on two streets. I’ve been following it closely since I’ve been living there for 21 years and they’re my routes. The Snohomish restructure is an entire county involving several different cities and the routes between them. There’s also the North Seattle/Shoreline restructure.
@Zach B,
“ Tbh, I feel like they’d be fine talked about together”
It’s actually a bit confusing; is this a post about restructures JUST in support of RRG? Or a post about restructures occurring on Sept 14th in the urban core?
But I’d argue that focusing just on a Metro restructure in support of RRG doesn’t make sense anyhow. The amount of new ridership on Link will easily be 3 times the ridership of RRG. It doesn’t make sense to focus just on a restructure in support of the smaller system, while ignoring the elephant in the room.
And ultimately both need to be supported anyhow, and in some sort of an integrated approach. Metro just isn’t going to deliver a very good restructure product by focusing just on a restructure for RRG and then just on a restructure in support of LLE increased ridership in the urban core. The real world doesn’t work that way.
@Al S,
“ I am still curious to know how crowded Link is before the restructure kicks in at CT.”
“D” posted some ridership info from CT for the first commute day of LLE. But such data doesn’t really address Link crowding in Seattle.
I have noticed standees on Link departing NGS SB in the morning on several occasions. And yesterday I observed the same thing departing South Shoreline SB, also in the morning.
And the evening commute should actually see more crowding than the morning commute.
I do not know if ST has deployed gap trains yet.
I don’t think we know about Link crowding in Seattle. I would be monitoring it on my trips and spending time on station platforms observing trains come and go, but the couple times I’ve been on a train or bus in the past week I get into a coughing spell from the bumps in the ride or the particles in the air, so I’ve stayed away. Others are working all day or are in other areas so they haven’t been able to observe central and north Seattle’s ridership firsthand. We’ll have to collect third-party anecdotes and agency data until we can observe it properly firsthand.
“The complete elimination of CT’s commuter service into Seattle represents a tectonic shift in travel patterns between Seattle and SnoCo. ”
Into DOWNTOWN Seattle. That was replaced by Link; the ridership didn’t just disappear.
There’s also north Seattle. Northgate Link and the 512’s and 8xx rerouting to Northgate drastically improved access from Snohomish County to Northgate, Roosevelt, and Capitol Hill. Two Snohomans I know have increased their ridership because of it. Lynnwood Link improved those even further.
“This is easily the biggest change in travel patterns between the two locals at least since Community Transit was formed in 1976.”
The biggest change in TRANSIT ROUTES. Travel patterns are what people do or want to do. Transit routes are what they can do.
This restructure is a huge missed opportunity. Cuts and reroutes make connectivity to Capitol Hill Station slightly worse for people in the 10th Ave and 15th Ave corridors.
Meanwhile, almost every N/S line in the area still turns to go downtown, making Madison a nearly impenetrable barrier on transit west of 23rd. The 60 and Streetcar at least cross it, but take weird turns and don’t go very far up Broadway/10th.
And of course, very exciting potential routes in the Long Range plan are nowhere to be found. When the economy is bad, it’s cuts. When the economy is good, they can’t hire drivers.
Agreed. I’ve been saying this for months (https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/). We have been fighting for a more frequent network for over a decade now (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/) and this restructure largely ignores that goal. It ignores common principles like the value of a grid, or consolidating nearby routes on the same corridor. It is just very disappointing given Metro seemed to be moving in the right direction after UW Link.
Yes, your 8/30/23 proposal was exceptional.
When I first took the 10 in 2009, I seems like it went much further south than now, sort of doing what the streetcar does only a few blocks north. It then went all the way west to 1st, before becoming the 12 and going back up the hill.
If unlimited funds were available, I guess I’d extend the 10 north to connect the wire to the 49 wire, and run it all the way to the UW.
On the south side, I’d like to see it get to a major corridor there too. Maybe Judkins Park station?
The 12 would then serve as one of the downtown routes.
The 10 and 12 were through-routed and extended to 1st for a decade or two, somewhere around the 90s and 00s.
I see that the area’s fundamental service challenge is the lack of any major destinations at the current ends of Routes 2, 3, 10 and 12. I’ll even note that this tail problem is true for Routes 27 and 14 too. There are major destinations on these routes — but not at the tails. So I think that it makes it hard to add value by restructuring the final route tails.
(It is such a shame that there isn’t a Link station between Capitol Hill and UW. That would have made restructuring much more intuitive. )
So that puts Metro in the tough spot of having a suboptimal network. It’s the urban form version of a suburban service design challenge albeit with shorter distances.
I do think that Routes 10 and 12 lack differentiation about where they go to help a rider choose one over the other. Running both slowly down Pine Street with all of its new stop signs every block seems very inefficient even with split lower frequencies. The median boarding islands now make using Madison for a long stretch awkward. Plus, the use of trolley wires makes it difficult to just set up a new route structure to see how it works.
My suggestion would be to run a battery bus trial route that takes either Route 10 or 12, turns it to use 14th or 12th between Pine and Jefferson Street, and enters Downtown on James or Yesler or maybe even on Jackson. But both buses would need service every 15 minutes to be useful (rather than every 20). That would increase destination options for the rider. Try it for 6 months or a year and assess how the riders feel about it.
Another version of this could be to simply move the Route 60 tail to end at 15th or 19th as the trial service replacement. That would also connect North Capitol Hill to the Link station as opposed to transferring to Route 8 or 11. The elimination of the slow Pike-Pine segment on one route would facilitate making the remaining route frequency higher. I realize how long Route 60 already is, but the added distance would be pretty minor.
This is all armchair stuff. Maybe the thing to do is just to wait the 2026 system is running before proposing any new route structures. That way, real time stop data can be annalyzed and the system can be better optimized.
I see that the area’s fundamental service challenge is the lack of any major destinations at the current ends of Routes 2, 3, 10 and 12. … So I think that it makes it hard to add value by restructuring the final route tails.
I disagree. Of course it is less than ideal, but it is not a major problem. Sometimes the tail of a route is carried along with the rest of it. The 44 ends at the locks — a fairly weak tail compared to the rest of it. It is no big deal.
Furthermore, if anything it strengthens the case for the type of restructure we have been pushing for. Say, for the sake of argument that the tail of the 2 is weak. The route is only really strong between downtown and 15th. Why then, is the bus running along the same corridor as the G through there! If this is where it is expected to get its riders, then this is clearly a big failure. To be clear, if the 2 was simply a branch of the G this would make sense. But it isn’t! The G runs every six minutes all-day long. The 2 runs every fifteen!
Same goes for the 10 and 12. The route is very strong to Thomas, but gets weaker as you go farther north. Why then, is it branching way down at Pike? Why branch at all, if this northern tail (north of Thomas) is so weak? Why are people close to Kaiser — a strong part of any route — supposed to check their phone and make last second decisions on which bus to take (the 10 or 11) — each running every 20 minutes, so that people north of Aloha — and we admit there aren’t many riders there — can avoid walking a couple blocks?
As for the 3/4 the tail is just fine. The truncated version (by Garfield) is less than ideal but it is meant to deal with the exact problem you mentioned.
Meanwhile you have buses like the 47 (now the 3) with an extremely strong tail (the Summit neighborhood). This sets a pretty good pattern if Metro is interested. First get rid of the tail of the 4. Have the 3 always run to Madrona, every fifteen minutes. Have the 4 always end at Garfield, also every fifteen minutes. This means the core of the route (downtown to Garfield) has 7.5 minute service, but you have only 15 minute service to Madrona and Summit. That is still a big improvement. Fifteen minute service to Summit is enough to get plenty of riders. Except there is a problem. Metro shot itself in the foot. Ridership in the area is being poached by the 49, which inexplicably still runs to downtown.
There is nothing at all weak about the tails of the 60 and yet the bus still manages to zig-zag its way through the neighborhood instead of combining with the streetcar for decent frequency on Broadway.
Look, I get it. I cut Metro some slack in various areas of the city. But this is just a major, unavoidable failure. Various people have up with various solutions, each of which would be a major improvement. I discussed that with the 10 above. I discussed it at a broader scale with the restructure map. I’m not saying that is the only way to do it. There are other variations that work. But Metro doesn’t seem the least bit interested in providing the kind of network that Martin Duke suggested we build.
Sorry, no. If you are searching for a theme, it isn’t “weak tails” it is just “inefficient routing”. This is common. Look at Houston. Look at the before and after pictures for it: https://humantransit.org/2014/05/houston-a-transit-network-reimagined.html. This has nothing to do with strong or weak tails. It has to do with reducing waste, as the article pointed out.
It is such a shame that there isn’t a Link station between Capitol Hill and UW. That would have made restructuring much more intuitive.
Of course it would. But even then that doesn’t mean that Metro would create a good network.
For years people have been waiting for the big change to happen: Bus Rapid Transit on Madison. A bus running every six minutes that avoids traffic. This is a huge deal — in many ways a bigger deal than Link (in this area) since it has a lot more stops. We just assumed that with it would come the type of network David Lawson wrote about ten years ago, or the one that a bunch of planners drew up on a weekend (as part of the long-range plan).
But rather than leveraging it, the routes basically ignore it. Holy cow, the 11 shares a stop with it, yet the 11 still goes downtown! WTF! Lest you think that Madison Park benefits from this arrangement, let me remind you that the 11 only runs every 20 minutes! It is just poor routing, plain and simple.
“move the Route 60 tail to end at 15th or 19th as the trial service replacement”
The 60 needs to continue north on 10th to the U-District. We can’t have any other experiment that may give Metro other ideas and jeopordize that.
Metro had a media briefing yesterday where I talked with a few planners and got material for a future article. I raised several of these issues about the East Seattle restructure. They said the new network is not set in stone forever but that they’ll be monitoring ridership patterns for possibly more adjustments. They said the Metro Connects concepts are still active, and while that’s not the only thing they base adjustments on, it is a factor.
They also said some of the Metro Connects concepts like the Broadway north-south route (U-District to Beacon Hill), the Denny-Madison route (8/11), and the 106 reroute to Boren Ave and SLU, would require additional resources that aren’t currently available. They equated the Broadway north-south route with the 49-Broadway-36 concept, but I said no, we’re thinking of a 49-60 concept, which wouldn’t affect the 36. Regarding the Denny-Madison concept, they said they want to keep Capitol Hill connected to the future Judkins Park station, which the current 8 does. They said Judkins Park’s opening would be another opportunity to consider more restructuring in East Seattle. I think Judkins Park and the full 2 Line is expected to open in late 2025 or early 2026.
Regarding 15th, the 10 was moved from Pine to John in 2016 to give 15th direct access to Capitol Hill station. That was expected to increase ridership and encourage some transfers to downtown. But instead many riders switched to the 11 to remain closer to 15th & Pine, and the 10’s ridership became mediocre. So 15th had its opportunity for direct access to Capitol Hill Station and didn’t use it, so I’m inclined to keep the 10 on its historic Pine & 15th routing.
I was going to ask about Ross’s concept of extend the 10 to Aloha and 19th to replace the 12, how important the 49’s turn at Broadway & Pine is, and some others, but I’d already asked so many questions so there wasn’t time.
The 12 will be temporarily dieselized until a 1-block section of wire and turns are installed on 16th to connect Pine to Madison.
I’m skeptical of a 10 that goes south in the CD to Little Saigon. That would bypass a lot of the destinations people want to go to, on Broadway and the retail core, in exchange for not much.
The 12 has been propped up by overvaluing 19th I think. There’s not much there, so it’s unclear why they should have a route to downtown. At the same time, the reason people want a route on 19th is the steep hill between 15th and 19th. Ross’s 15th-Aloha-19th concept would climb the hill for them. It’s not clear that Metro has thought about it yet. Metro Connects has other concepts for Aloha Street, but they’re east-west routes to Uptown and 23rd.
> 49-Broadway-36 concept
> we’re thinking of a 49-60 concept
Route 60 is not a trolley bus, while Route 36 is a trolley bus. That’s why only the 36+49 works.
There are trolley wires as far south as Beacon Hill Station. The southern half of the 60 can be split off. A full U-District to Westwood Village route may be too long anyhow. We mustn’t let trolley wires get in the way of a good network. The wires can catch up later, or routes can be split.
@Martin Duke,
“ Cuts and reroutes make connectivity to Capitol Hill Station slightly worse for people in the 10th Ave and 15th Ave corridors.”
This is unfortunately a bit of a pattern lately. And it is t making things better for the traveling public.
I suspect Metro is trying to protect their ridership base by focusing transfers more on RRG than on Link. I think that is foolish given that Link represents such a higher ridership level than RRG.
But bus routes aren’t permanent, and hopefully Metro makes changes in the future to improve things. How long that takes is anyone’s guess.
“I suspect Metro is trying to protect their ridership base by focusing transfers more on RRG than on Link.”
Don’t be ridiculous; Madison is a different corridor from Pine/John. It’s in the peripheral walking distance at Broadway — already beyond a tolerable transfer — and gets further apart further west.
The G allows transfers to 2, 8, 11, and 12 at various points, but most 2-seat rides don’t really require the G: there are other route pairs.
If Metro wanted to maximize ridership it would delete the 12 and redistribute its hours to other routes. It’s keeping the 12 because it wants to preserve coverage on 19th. The same could be said for the 3 extension.
yes, it is a very weak restructure.
The initial post parrots Metro: “With the opening of RapidRide G, Metro is restructuring bus service to leverage this new service”
Instead, it appears Metro may be reducing service on routes 10, 11, 12, and 49 in order to fund the G Line six-minute headway. SDOT and Metro probably signed an agreement with the FTA promising the short headway before Covid and before the STBD of 2020; its revenue stream is smaller; service was reduced in fall 2020. Routes 8, 11, and 60 are atop the G Line and are not changed; the routes that are reduced are in the area but it is not leveraging. Concepts that leverage the G would convert Route 11 to a shuttle and consolidate routes 8 and 48 that are only four blocks apart.
Why would they make the grant dependent on 6-minute headways on the G when other RapidRides are 10-15 minutes? Why would the feds reject a grant for 15-minute headways on the G when it allowed it for all other RapidRide lines?
I think Metro is trying to provide high-quality service someplace as a first step toward more widespread frequency, and in the G’s case it means 6 minutes, in north Seattle it means the 15-minute 61, and in Shoreline it means the 15-minute 333. Earlier attempts include the 62.