Ridership Patterns for King County Metro Route 7

55 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for King County Metro Route 7”

1. I’ll be sad to see the prentice loop go – it’s totally incongruous watching an articulated trolleybus wind its way through a neighborhood full of single-family residences. But on the monthly or so occasions I end up on the outbound 7 instead of the 106, there’s a good chance I’m the only one on the bus the entire loop. And I’ve never taken it inbound from home – I had no idea there was a northbound layover. I know it’s tempting to connect the new rapid tide to Link but I can’t help wondering if it would be better to directly serve the whole commercial and multifamily area southeast of rainier and Henderson – loop down rainier to Seward park Ave, Henderson and back up rainier.

   1. As Jarrett Walker has said many times, one way loops are bad for ridership in general. The reason is obvious – the extra transfer in the inbound direction is a pain.

      1. It is not the typical type of loop that Walker complains about. It is not a circulator. It is basically just a live loop. The problem is, it isn’t live. For example consider the 22. It is a coverage route. It does a big loop in Arbor heights. The loop is one-way. This means that someone at say, 100th & 35th heading to the Junction has to ride south and west before they can start going north again. It is a huge detour. But they don’t have to transfer. They just stay on the bus and it eventually gets them to where they want to go.

         That isn’t the case here. As a loop it is actually very tight and the detouring isn’t bad. This would work quite well as a live-loop, but of course it can’t be a live loop because the 7 is too long.

   2. I doubt that metro will abandon the Prentice loop. I expect it to just be served by another route.

      It’s worth noting that most Route 7 buses aren’t using the Prentice loop. It’s only getting 30 minute service. So of course it’s boarding totals will be much lower because it only gets about 35% of all the a Route 7 buses.

      To change it to another bus will seemingly require some general route restructuring.

      With trolley wire already provided, the easiest change would be to connect it to Route 36. However, connecting trolley wire on Othello between MLK and a rainier would be needed. It would however create a one-seat diagonal movement possible in the neighborhood.

      Another option: Both Routes 106 and 107 are quite long so one of them could be split and shortened to make the Prentice loop — with the Skyway area being served by a new route or route extension from Renton.

      If that can’t work, a Route 50 extension is also a way to provide service. However, as with Routes 106 and 107, Route 50 is also pretty long.

      Finally, I’d note that it’s really difficult to travel by transit between Rainier Beach and SouthCenter. It requires going miles out of the way to Renton or SODO or TIBS for a single transfer. Some route to provide a direct connection would be great!

      1. So of course it’s boarding totals will be much lower because it only gets about 35% of all the a Route 7 buses.

         Yes, but the main reason it runs so infrequently is because it wouldn’t get many riders (even if it ran more often). Ridership is suppressed because of the low frequency, but not that much.

         In any event it gets complicated. Assuming the 7 is sent to Rainier Beach Station then we are really talking two areas (two loops if you will). The first area is the south of Henderson and north of Fletcher. This is the tiny loop that is only performed inbound. It gets quite a few riders. Then there is the infrequent Prentice Loop. This doesn’t get as many people.

         It would make sense to basically continue current service levels which means frequent service for the northern loop and infrequent service for the southern loop area.

         I like the idea of splitting the 106 and 107. Here is one option:

         1) Southern 107 ends at Rainier Beach Station (RBS).
         2) Northern 107 is sent on to the Prentice Loop.
         3) Southern 106 also ends at RBS.
         4) Northern 107 makes the smaller loop (that every 7 currently makes).

         This would cost some money, but not break the bank. The overlap doesn’t look too bad. You essentially create a “spine” on Henderson between the station and the neighborhood (near the high school). It is a bit awkward (with one-way loops) but that is the case today as well. Of course this assumes there is enough layover space close to RBS.

   3. the term “poaching” is used in the post. Duplication stems from route spacing that is too close. Metro service guideline four discusses route spacing. Route 7 pre-dates Route 106. in the first third of the 20th century, there was a streetcar to Renton, but it did not climb South Hill. The current service pattern was implemented with the initial Link alignment in 2009. in the early 1990s, routes 106 and 107 were Breda routes in the DSTT with long weak tails; they served Rainier Beach and reached the DSTT via Beacon Hill. They were truncated in 1996. They were changed again in 2009 and 2016. Does the current version of Route 106 poach riders from routes 7, 14, and 36 on Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson Street? yes.

      Note that SDOT and Metro did not agree on layover for Route 7 on South Henderson Street near the Link station. The issue was discussed again in the teens; it has funding in the R line budget. I hope it is implemented ASAP.

      The Prentice loop could be served by a standard trolleybus route if it was oriented to Rainier Beach Link station. That could be accomplished with the new Henderson overhead.

2. It will be interesting to see how the Judkins Park station impacts this. As slow as the 7 is, I would probably transfer to Link if coming inbound on the 7.

   1. Yes. I expect to see lots of on/off activity at Judkins Park.

      It’s not just the station that will add riders. There is something like 3000+ new apartments opening just south of Massachusetts and I-90. They are mostly just opening in 2024 and 2025. There is also plans for ground level retail that may become new destinations.

   2. My guess is very few people will transfer to Link if headed downtown. The train only runs every ten minutes and it will take a while to get from the bus stop to the platform.

      But people will walk to the Link station and others will transfer to Link to get to the East Side.

   3. The big advantages to transferring at Judkins Park northbound from Route 7 (versus Mt Baker) are:

      1. No busy Rainier Ave crossing
      2. New escalators and elevators to take northbound riders quickly to the platform.
      3. Same frequency of both 1 Line and 2 Line.
      4. Link will take just 3 minutes to get from Judkins Park to CID. It takes 9 minutes from Mt Baker (in addition to the extra time waiting to cross Rainier Ave).

      The negatives are being on the bus a little further. I’m not sure if it would be 6-8 more minutes (9+ crossing versus 3) though.

      The more likely change I see if from southbound Link riders going to Route 7. I think that many of those riders will eventually just take whichever Link train is next (1 Line or 2 Line) and transfer to a Route 7 at the corresponding station.

      1. I think a lot of the the people who do transfer to Link (going downtown) at Mount Baker will switch to using Judkins Park. So if you are at Hillman City heading to Northgate then it definitely makes sense to stay on the bus until Judkins Park. But I also think the people who currently stay on the bus until it gets downtown will just stay on the bus.

      2. “The negatives are being on the bus a little further. ”

         The problem is, the section between Mt. Baker and I-90 is the slowest part of the entire route. Bus stops are extremely frequent, and the volume of passengers getting on and off, quite high. The red light at 23rd takes a long time to get through. And, on top of all that, the curb lane is clogged with cars trying to get onto I-90. Driving this section, I can get through it quite a bit faster using the left lane, but of course, the bus can’t do that without missing it’s stops. Switching to the train at Mt. Baker avoids all this mess.

         The good news is, these a problems that converting the #7 to RapidRide could really help solve. Off board fare payment matters most at stops with high passenger volume. Bus lanes matter most on roads that are congested. They could even put the bus lane (and bus stops) in the center of the road, like they did for the G line, to keep the bus lane clear of cars queuing up for I-90.

         Maybe, at some day in distant future, when the R line opens (depending on how it’s implemented), staying on the bus to I-90 to go to downtown/Cap Hill or points north will be worth it. But, today, you save a lot of time making the switch back at Mt. Baker.

      3. SDOT is planning to extend the Rainier bus lane to Judkins Park, that should help. The 7 often also gets stuck before reaching Jackson. By switching to Link you can avoid that. I guess it mostly depends on where you want to go. If you need to go on to Northgate, then switching earlier is better.
         I also expect people coming from the Eastside going to South Seattle or airport to switch to the 7 even if they want to switch at Mt Baker to the 1 Line.

      4. I suspect transferring via a bus bridge will always be faster than transferring at CID for trips between South Seattle and the Eastside. There are 4.5 bus routes (7, 8, 9*, 48, 106) that directly connect Mount Baker Station and Judkins Park Station so with the right schedule there should never be a long wait. From Judkins Park riders will have to choose between going to Rainier (7, 9*, 106) or 23rd (8, 48) so the southbound frequency is arguably lower. In Mount Baker the northbound stops are adjacent (one on Rainier, one in the transit center), so riders can wait in the middle and get on whichever bus comes first.

         * Route 9 only runs in the peak direction.

      5. Judkins Park link station will have an entrance on MLK Jr. Way South; it could be served by routes 4 or 48 or their successors. It will have an entrance on Rainier Avenue South; it could be served by routes 7, 9, or 106 or their successors. The 23rd Avenue South entrance will be closer and more level; the Rainier approach will be longer, steeper, and have a crossing of the Link track; crossing Rainier for the southbound bus trip is not trivial.

3. I agree with the interpretation that the 50 doesn’t generate many transfers to the 7, but just wanted to point out that Genesee Street is another reasonable transfer point, maybe even more likely depending on direction of travel.

   Anecdotally, I think a lot of people try to get on a Prentice Street bus to get to locations along Rainier Ave past Henderson. That’s probably why 51st and 54th are by far the highest used stops on that loop.

   1. That’s true about Genesee and Rainier. There are two 50 transfer stops rather than one. Most southbound / westbound 50 riders transfer at Genesee.

      I think that the bigger reason that riders don’t transfer to Route 7 is that Link is just two stops away. So unless the rider is traveling a short distance they will prefer Link. There are lots of riders that transfer between Route 50 and Link at Columbia City.

      1. It is also worth noting that the 7 is just a lot bigger than the 50. It is hard to spot the ridership of the 7 that is related to the 50. In contrast you can see it for the 50 (or at least what might be transfers). Consider a bus that starts at the Othello Station and loops around to serve Seward Park before heading towards Alki. At Othello & Rainier about twenty people get on the bus and forty get off. At Rainier & Genesee about fifty people board and twenty-five get off.

         These numbers are tiny for the 7, but fairly big for the 50. It is worth noting that not that many people ride the bus east of Rainier. It is quite likely a significant number of these riders transfer to the 7, there just aren’t that many people riding the bus there.

      2. @ Ross:

         Aaron’s and my comment is directed at the author’s misinterpretation that Route 50 transfers occur at Alaska and Othello. Genesee is a much higher transfer point than Alaska is. That’s where more 50/7 transfers happen.

      3. They happen at both. At least it looks like it (you can really tell if anyone is transferring at all — maybe they are just heading to those locations). But the numbers (on the 50) aren’t that different (58 to 76).

      4. Combining the 7’s reliability issues with the 50’s 30 minute frequency is almost guaranteed to lead to a miserable transfer. To make sure you can make a connection, you probably need to aim to arrive at the connection point a good 10-15 minutes early, which means, if the 50 is even just a few minutes late, you can easily find yourself stuck at the bus stop for 20+ minutes.

         If the distance you would be riding the 50 for is sufficiently short, it makes more sense to just walk, rather than wait.

      5. @Aaron B and Al S – You both are spot on about 7 <-> 50 transfers at Genesee. I think riders would use different stops based on the travel direction:
         7 (northbound) <-> 50 (eastbound): Alaska St (Shared stop)
         7 (N) <-> 50 (W): Genesee (need to cross Rainier). Alaska St requires a short walk up to 35th.
         7 (S) <-> 50 (E): Genesee (need to cross Rainier). It’s probably faster for riders going from 50 to 7 on Alaska but that requires walking downhill from 35th to Rainier.
         7 (S) <-> 50 (W): Genesee (shared stop).

         While Route 7 does have more ridership at the Genesee stops than at the Alaska stops, I still doubt most of these riders are coming from the 50. As Al S said, most Route 50 riders would transfer to Link unless they are going somewhere specifically on or near Rainier.

4. Route 7 experiences pretty bad bunching on outbound trips, especially in the afternoon. One idea I had to minimize this is to turn some inbound trips around at Mount Baker Transit center. Riders continuing downtown can transfer to Link. From my personal observations, I was under the impression that Route 7 primarily served local trips in Rainier Valley and riders going downtown used Link. From the ridership data, this is not the case. A lot more people use the 7 to get downtown than use it within Rainier Valley. This may also speak to the preference of a one seat ride over a slightly faster trip. Excluding early morning and late evening trips, Link is faster between Mount Baker and International District, even accounting the transfer time and waiting for Link.

   1. A lot more people use the 7 to get downtown than use it within Rainier Valley.

      Not really. Here are some numbers of people alighting inbound (rounded):

      North of Mount Baker Station: 1,500
      Mount Baker Station: 400
      Between MBS and Jackson: 600
      Jackson east of 5th: 800
      Downtown: 2,000

      Again, these are the people getting off the bus headed downtown. If you look at boardings (going the same direction) you can see a significant number of riders getting on the bus on Jackson (about 800). Overall it is big mix. I suppose it depends on how you define “downtown” and “Rainier Valley” but there are a lot of people who ride the 7 for every segment. This is part of the reason it is such a good route. It works for a lot of trips that a lot of people take.

      1. “Overall it is big mix”…

         I agree with Ross. The amount of people doing intra-Rainier trips and downtown trips are not much different. Which is why I opposed previous ideas to redirect the 7 to Broadway. There is a significant demand for service between Rainier and Chinatown. Forcing people to switch to another bus or take Link (which will have degraded headways when it’s connected to Ballard) is a disservice to a transit-dependent community. The best way to serve Rainier Valley is to maintain a one-seat ride to downtown.

      2. @Jordan –

         There should always be a one seat ride from Rainier Valley to downtown. One minor issue I have with the routing today is that Rainier Ave solely depends on Route 7. It would be great to slightly reduce the frequency of the 7 and have a second route along Rainier that goes somewhere else north of I-90. This could be running Route 9 all day or a new route that goes down Boren. A configuration with two (or more) routes on Rainier would allow one seat rides downtown and to more destinations, while still providing frequent service for local trips in Rainier Valley.

      3. @ Michael Smith:

         I’ve long argued that Route 7 should remain as is with the Prentice loop but with the minimum frequency, while service hours get shifted to Route 9, which would become the more frequent bus.

         The main issue with designating it as RapidRide R is however with the service frequency. I’m not sure a bus every 10 minutes can be done given the service hours that would be needed to both keep Route 7 and add this RapidRide R at 10 minute frequency. Roy and Broadway may save a few minutes compared to Virginia St Downtown — but not many.

         I think it’s easy to overlook how Route 106 duplicates Route 7 from Mt Baker to CID. There is more than enough service on the 7/106 path north of Mt Baker. With Route 7 today running at about 10 minute all day service and 106 running about 15 minute all day service, the net effect is a bus every 6 minutes on average.

         To get to a 10-minute RapidRide R between Capitol Hill and Rainier Beach Link stations would require taking service hours from elsewhere. So that puts the idea DOA in a budget constrained scenario..

         However, if it wasn’t branded as RapidRide and ran as Route 9 proportioned as two buses to a Route 7 then with one bus it could work. After all, to get from Mt Baker to CID has no less than four options in 2025:

         Route 7
         Route 106
         Link 1 Line
         Route 7 or 106 to 2 Line at Judkins Park

         That’s 22 different paths to get between Mt Baker and CID in a typical weekday midday!

         And from the main corner in Rainier Beach of Henderson and Rainier, there’s also Routes 106 and 107 that go Downtown too. Most people that far from Downtown prefer to take Link.

         Meanwhile there is literally no direct bus from Mt Baker to Harborview or Capitol Hill except for a handful or Route 9 trips each weekday. You must transfer to get there.

      4. How about keeping the 7 as is, but sending the 106 to First Hill, rather than downtown? You could even continue the bus past First Hill down Boren to South Lake Union, plugging another longtime transit hole.

         Given that the First Hill Streetcar already connects First Hill to Capitol Hill and that Link already connects Mt. Baker/Rainier Valley to Capitol Hill, I don’t think Capitol Hill needs to be a priority for this bus also. I’d rather it focus on First Hill and South Lake Union, serving trips that aren’t served well by existing routes, rather than trips that are.

      5. Interesting idea. That would be one way to solve the problem with the tail of the 7. The 7 would follow its current pathway. Another bus would run just as often, but opposite the 7. This other bus would go to Rainier Beach Station (RBS) to the south and some non-downtown location to the north (via Rainier Avenue). If you are traveling within Rainier Valley you still have frequent service (e. g. every 7.5 minutes). But for a one-seat trip to areas south of Henderson or RBS you have fifteen minute service. Same is true the other direction (you have fifteen minute one-seat service to downtown).

         For this other bus I could see a couple possibilities:

         1) The 48 could be extended to Rainier Beach. One issue is reliability (due to the bridge). It would be hard to keep it in sync (southbound). This also builds a dependence between the 7 and 48. We may want to run the 48 every ten minutes — that would mean five minute frequency in Rainier Valley, which seems like overkill.

         2) The 9 runs every fifteen minutes opposite the 7 (but makes all the regular stops). That would mean the 9, 60 and streetcar all basically run on Broadway (or near it). While forming a spine, it is an awkward one (since they all take different pathways). This to me is a much bigger issue. Right now we have two frequent routes doing the same basic thing (going more or less on Broadway). The streetcar curves around between Jackson and Yesler while the 60 curves around between Yesler and Pine. As a result they don’t complement each other. Sending another route there seems like ignoring the main issue (inefficiency).

         I’m not sure if it is worth it. It solves the 7-tail problem, but I wouldn’t consider that a very big issue. The biggest problem — by far — in our system is lack of frequency, which is due to inefficiency.

      6. How about keeping the 7 as is, but sending the 106 to First Hill, rather than downtown? You could even continue the bus past First Hill down Boren to South Lake Union, plugging another longtime transit hole.

         Yes, that would make more sense, but it would also cost money. I think there would be sufficient service along Broadway if the 60 was shifted there. The streetcar and 60 could run opposite each other* for combined frequency of six minutes. The 49 could be combined with the 60, saving service hours**, which could then go into running the 49 more often. Additional service to First Hill (along Broadway) seems like overkill.

         On the other hand, additional service along Boren would be great. Sending the 106 to Boren would be a huge improvement in transit mobility in the area. It would cost money though. It would also be a challenge, given the length of the 106. One option would be to split the 106 in Rainier Beach (which would also solve the 7-tail problem).

         * The First Hill streetcar routing is flawed. The little button-hook between Yesler and Jackson does more than just delay through-riders. It also makes a transfer there difficult. Imagine you are riding the 7 (or 14) from the southeast but headed up to First Hill. You get off at 12th and Jackson, but the stops are completely different. It probably isn’t the end of the world, but it is definitely bad.

         ** It would be too long to literally combine the 49 and 60. You would have to break it up. One option would be to send the 36 to First Hill (and then on to the UW, replacing the 49) while the 60 would be sent downtown.

         Another (more radical) approach would be to get rid of the streetcar. Have the 49 continue on Broadway all the way to Jackson and then head west to downtown. Run the bus more often (essentially replacing the streetcar). Then just straighten out the 60 (have it stick to Broadway). Run the 49 and 60 opposite each other on Broadway (for good combined frequency).

         I sometimes wonder if Seattle will ever have good transit or if we will be stuck with routing that is poor and infrequent because “we always did it that way”. We also run the risk of fixating on one-seat rides in part because the system is so inefficient. Transferring to a bus (or set of buses) running every few minutes is no big deal. But if the transfer requires a long wait then you want the bus to take you directly to your destination (which then becomes a vicious cycle).

      7. While on paper turning Route 106 into a crosstown route looks great, the current routing is actually better connecting the several different East Asian communities between CID and Skyway than using Route 7 is.

         Rainier Ave has a very diverse set of ethnic communities on the route. There is a large East African community between Rainier Beach and Mt Baker for example.

         The communities along MLK seem much more East and Southeast Asian in composition. That not only includes the ACRS at Walden but also shopping areas near Graham and Othello.

         IIRC there was considerable opposition to not having a bus directly between ACRS and CID several years ago.

      8. asdf2
         Yes, I have suggested shifting Route 106 to 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way from Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson. The fall 2016 extension was at the suggestion of ACRS to save the 42. It duplicated Link and routes 7, 14, and 36 too much and ridership fell and productivity fell further. the concept was based on a piece of the 2013 reductions network; in the context of routes 14 and 27 being deleted, Route 106 was shifted to Yesler Way. This is a better Route 106 extension; it still reaches the CID but it also serves the better Judkins entrance, Jackson Square, and the activity centers along Yesler Way. Yesler Terrace should have more service; this could be part of a strong network.

      9. Yes, I have suggested shifting Route 106 to 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way from Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson.

         While not really the focus of my efforts, I have the same thing with this proposal: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/.

         Right now the 106 is largely redundant from Mount Baker Station to downtown. The 7 is far more frequent and you don’t have enough buses to form a spine. Thus the extra service along that corridor is largely wasted. Once the 7 gets to 14th & Jackson, you actually do have a spine along Jackson (with the 14, streetcar and soon thereafter the 36). But at that point the 106 isn’t adding much, especially since it only goes a short distance (unlike the 7, 14 and 36 which go through downtown). Sending the 7 up to Yesler doubles up frequency on a corridor that should have more service.

         It works quite well and unlike some other proposals doesn’t cost much (if anything). In contrast sending the 106 to South Lake Union (via Boren) would be great, but cost money.

         I could also see the 106 help solve a couple related issues. One is this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2017/06/22/metro-wants-out-of-james-street-gridlock/. It would be much better to move the 3/4, but folks objected to the lack of service on James. One way to backfill service would be to send the 106 that way (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YYhBvuC9TimZoTEy9). This means the 106 would experience the traffic the 3/4 is now avoiding, but the 106 is a not nearly as important a bus. Moving the 106 in this manner would also make it easier to move the 60. It could just go straight up Broadway, since the 106 would be covering much of the area. There are other variations, but I think this is the best option for the 106 unless we can afford extra service.

5. I wish we would build a Link line on Rainier. It would evidently outperform anything we’re currently building.

   1. Let’s say we actually built a subway underneath Rainier Ave. Due to the high cost of tunneling, Link would probably have opened as:

      2009: downtown to Columbia City
      2015: Columbia City to Rainier Beach & downtown to UW
      2023/24/25: Rainier Beach to SeaTac & UW to Northgate

      Then ST3 would probably include Federal Way and Bellevue.

      1. Well, what’s done is done. I’m just thinking Rainier Link would be better than Ballard Link or West Seattle Link. I really don’t see how it requires any tunneling at all, to be honest. Run it from Chinatown along Dearborn to Rainier. I have seen surface lines in other cities on narrower streets.

      2. To be clear, I am not saying that we should have built Link on Rainier instead of MLK. I am saying to build a line on Rainier in addition to the existing MLK line. They are not the same corridor, and the continuing high ridership of the 7 demonstrates this.

      3. A little while ago Jarrett Walker mentioned some city (I forget where) that was adding a light rail line. They are putting the mass transit line on a secondary corridor — not the cultural center of things. Their argument was that it was less disruptive. Others pointed out that it would get fewer riders. Walker pointed out that Seattle had a similar decision with MLK and Rainier.

         I think you can make a very good case that Link should have gone down Rainier instead of MLK. It should have had more stops and it would have been easier to add more high-quality stops. As for whether it would be built elevated or underground that is a completely different matter. Personally I think cut and cover (like the Canada Line) would probably be the best approach. Very disruptive but not that expensive and quite effective when all is said and done. But a surface alignment would have been fine, and likely got more riders (especially if it had a lot more stops).

         As for the order of construction that was largely arbitrary. The logical approach would be to start with downtown to the UW or maybe UW to Rainier Beach. Interestingly enough, that was what one of the ST board members recommended (I think it was the mayor of Edmonds) since it would get the most riders per dollar. But instead they really wanted to prove to the suburbs that they could build this thing a long distance, so that is why they went south first.

         It should be noted that Christopher’s argument is different. He is saying we should build a Link line now — or at least building a Link line on Rainier Avenue is a better value than any of the things we are currently building. I don’t think it would be better than Ballard Link but I think it would be better than West Seattle Link.

      4. As great as it would be for me personally, I don’t think Rainier would make such a great subway line. These are the reasons:

         1. The high density areas that aren’t near Link stations appear to have height limits. There isn’t a cluster of 10+ story or 20+ story buildings anywhere.

         2. The commercial activity is mainly local serving in nature. There isn’t a clear spot that’s a major hub. The biggest is the Safeway with Ross, and it’s not profoundly more active than other areas of the city.

         Subways usually mean stations every 1 to 1.5 miles. What probably works for Rainier better is spacing in the 1/4 to 1/2 of a mile range.

         The street would be a good candidate for a streetcar with median boarding islands. But given how bicyclists hate crossing steel tracks, maybe it just needs something like RapidRide G vehicles and concept — but without the awful bus bunching problems.

      5. The original Link concept was on Rainier. When ST studied the alignments, it switched to MLK saying Rainier was too narrow and congested for a surface line. At the time ST wouldn’t consider underground or elevated in flat terrain.

      6. > Well, what’s done is done. I’m just thinking Rainier Link would be better than Ballard Link or West Seattle Link. I really don’t see how it requires any tunneling at all, to be honest. Run it from Chinatown along Dearborn to Rainier. I have seen surface lines in other cities on narrower streets.

         Rainier Avenue for light rail was more of the smaller two-car light rail variants aka more like san francisco muni variant. For the longer train 4-car set that was chosen only mlk way actually fits for at-grade.

      7. I agree with Al S. The frequent stops on the 7 are a feature, not a bug. For local trips, you want the stop close to the destination. This could be achieved with Link + a bus, but the bus would absorb some of the Link ridership. The best stop placements along the corridor would be at:
         Mount Baker TC
         33rd (Safeway/Ross)
         Edmonds (Columbia City)
         Orcas (Hillman City)
         Graham
         Rose
         Henderson
         Either Rainier Beach Station or Rainier/52nd (Rainier Beach).

         With stops that close, Link doesn’t make sense. A streetcar or Rapid Ride makes more sense here.

6. This two-different-routes-under-one-number situation is even worse than the one I like to complain about from personal experience, the #3. If you cannot count on the route number to tell you whether a given bus will take you where you want to go, what use is it? Metro has no problem with overlaid routes in other contexts; they should use two numbers for the different routes here as well.

7. I ride the 7 between Bayview and Dearborn (Charles SB) a few times a day and I see people using almost every stop southbound. Not as much between 23rd and Grand northbound.

8. I miss the days when the 7 was a Rainier-Broadway route (7-49 today). It basically ran two routes that were overlaid:

   1. Graham Street to the University District – every 15 minutes
   2. Prentice Street to Roy Street on Broadway – every 15 minutes

   This meant the segment between Rainier Ave/Graham St and Broadway/Roy St every 7 to 8 minutes.

9. Great job. Thanks for doing these.

10. One issue with routing RapidRide R is the lack of places to lay over buses at the Link station there.

    Metro has been laying over buses on Henderson east of Rainier. It predates Link.

    Rainier Beach Link station connectivity to Metro probably could use some rethinking no matter what. Henderson and MLK gets congested and there’s a ton of fast moving cars traveling through the station area. So it has a number of safety and congestion issues.

    The largest available property appears to be at the northeast corner of Rainier and Henderson (north edge at Trenton and east edge at Chief Sealth Trail). However that would force riders to cross both Henderson and MLK to cross Link as well as is a hassle to use for any through-routed southbound buses.

    There are some properties south of Henderson that could be acquired — as long as buses could enter it off of Henderson directly or with a cross street. The next Link track crossing is Merton Way so bring able to turn around a bus isn’t easy unless access from Henderson is possible.

    One other out-of-the-box concept is to shift the traffic away from Henderson and MLK. Can any of the traffic approaches be moved to Trenton to the north, or the MLK crossing at Merton Way? Shifting the through traffic could then free up Henderson to be redesigned to be a de facto transit center.

    Note too that Rainier Beach Link Station is 4 miles south of Mt Baker TC. That’s a further distance than Bellevue and Overlake TCs, or Northgate TC and Shoreline South are.

    Of course, there is not any study nor construction funding to do the interface well. Before creating a RapidRide R, a targeted effort to improve Metro connectivity to Link as well as better station area circulation appears needed to me. I can’t suggest a specific solution; I’m only suggesting that a major transit center investment is needed.

    If done well, it could even provide a great place for general bus transfers and layovers. It could even make drop offs and pickups safer at the station too.

11. @Michael — where were you able to get this raw data? I’m doing a research project for a class at UW, and would love to have access to the actual underlying information you used to generate this analysis. I was hoping it’d just be on the King County data portal: https://data.kingcounty.gov/browse?limitTo=datasets&q=metro&sortBy=relevance&page=1 — but I don’t see anything remotely as detailed as the information you shared. Any pointers would be great!

    1. I submitted a records request to King County for the Automated Passenger Counter (APC) data per stop for various routes. If you prefer, I can send you the dataset via email. With your permission, I’ll ask one of the editors to send me the email address you used to submit your comment.

       1. @Michael – I would like to review this APC data per stop for the now terminated Bus20. I’m particularly interested in how Bus20 ridership changed when UW and North Seattle College were in session versus when they were on vacation. So, for example, I would like to compare APC data for May 2024 versus July 2024. Our community outreach suggested that these college / university students were reliant on Bus20 (SaveBus20Service.com). Is it possible to compare APC data for these two different time periods? I would also like to compare APC data for stops between 45th and 65th in May 2024 for Bus20 and Bus62. Who would I email to obtain this data?
          Thanks

       2. I don’t think you can get stop data for particular months. You can get it for particular time periods. These are defined by service change, which has a particular associated change number. For example:

          153 23-Mar 3/18/2023 6/10/2023
          154 23-Jun 6/10/2023 9/2/2023
          155 23-Sep 9/2/2023 3/30/2024
          156 24-Mar 3/30/2024 9/14/2024
          157 24-Sep 9/14/2024 3/29/2025

          The first column is the change number. Second column is service change date. Then the start and end date.

          I recently gathered up all the data for change number 156 (3/30/2024 to 9/14/2024). I will send you that. I didn’t get any data from before then. I think Michael got some of the data from previous time periods, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t gather data for the 20.

          I’ll send you some more information about how to get the data as well.

       3. It would be great if you could email me the dataset. My email is s dot c dot siciliano at gmail dot com. I will also do the public records request process but I suspect that could take a while. Thanks so much for your help!

       4. I have 2019-2023 data for some routes but not the 20. As Ross said, I don’t think month by month data is available. Instead, you could compare ridership from service change 154 (June-Sept 2023) to service change 155 (Sept 2023 – March 2024) as most students aren’t in session during the summer.

       5. Note: You don’t need to put in your email address (we know what it is). I’ve already sent some files to Jim. What exactly do you want, Stephen? I have data for all of the routes, but only for the latest time period. Micheal has data for various time periods, but not all the routes. I can get either (or both) to you.

12. Metro Transit and SDOT should consider a restructure around Link. The R Line as a red bus Route 7 does not make strategic sense. The seven Seattle RR lines in Metro Connects were adopted from the Kubly SDOT. The Kubly phasing failed and the whole RR program was delayed. The agencies like to blame Covid, but it was largely due to poor management decisions. Kubly attempted to implement monumental projects first (e.g., CCC Streetcar and lines G and J); routes 40, 44, and 48 might have been branded more quickly and would have fit with North Link.

    Through routes in dense urban centers make networks more efficient if they can be done reliably; headways and coach size have to match. The same bus trip is used for inbound alighting riders and outbound boarding riders. (Link is a through route). Without through routes, the buses have low and falling loads in the CBD core. The original Metro staff network had routes 70 and 7 turnback (to Mt. Baker) paired. It would have served SLU. But under the Kubly plan, lines J and R will be radial lines with layover and turnaround loops in downtown Seattle. The SDOT PBL on South Main Street disrupted the Route 70 layover; the FHSC congestion delays the Route 70 turnaround loop. The FTA agreements and branding of the J line fixes it. Routes 7 and 36 have a long and awkward turnaround loop on Virginia and Stewart Street; it takes several minutes. The buses make a south to west right turn to Stewart Street from 7th Avenue with a bike lane on their right. (ugly).

    The Route 7 draw area has several Link stations (Rainier Beach, Mt. Baker, and soon Judkins). Link can carry the radial load. Link is fast, frequent, and reliable. (We would like it to be even better on all those margins).

    Candidate network: Route 49-9, between the U District and Rainier Beach stations. (before 1995, Route 9 connected the U District and South Rose Street via First Hill and Capitol Hill). so, back to the past and feed Link, do not duplicate Link. do not waste scarce hours, buses, and operators duplicating Link.

Comments are closed.