Ridership Patterns for RapidRide E Line

57 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for RapidRide E Line”

1. The obvious improvement for the E line is to make the bus lanes bus lanes 24/7, rather than just rush hour.

   Even just a few cars parked in the bus lane means every time the bus does a passenger stop, it has to wait for an opening in the traffic to start moving. With stops every 1/4 mile in North Seattle, this adds up fast.

   1. I agree. I think this would be the best option for Aurora – much simpler, cheaper, and faster than reworking the whole street like SDOT seems inclined to do.
      Security issues aside, the E line works very well. Let it continue to do its job, with fewer cars in the way.

   2. That would be the cheapest thing to do, although you would probably get some push back. There are also gaps in the BAT lanes as well as backups that occur in certain spots. While not in order of importance (necessarily) these are some of the ones I remember:

      1) The Aurora/South Lake Union Interchange. This is a really bad one. The buses have to leave the curb side lane and move over into the middle. This not only causes big delays but it also means you can’t have bus stops between 7th & Thomas and Aurora & Prospect. That is a big gap in a very urban area.

      2) Northbound between South Lake Union and the bridge. When a bus finally merges onto Aurora and moves over into the curbside lane it doesn’t have BAT lanes.

      3) Both directions on the bridge. This is a classic example of the limitations of BAT lanes. There are backups southbound as people take the exit to head to the north end of Queen Anne. There are backups northbound as people exit to Fremont. There is only so much you can do if you want the bus to run curbside.

      This is why center-running bus lanes would make such a huge difference here. It would revolutionize transit and general mobility along the corridor. The buses would be able to connect to South Lake Union (both directions) from the transit lanes. You could add bus stops at places like Aurora & Roy. People in the neighborhood could cross the street without having to make a huge detour (no more of this BS: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RATKqKQmXQAQ4ERo6).

      It would save more people more time then West Seattle Link, despite costing billions less. Along with adding BAT lanes (or FAB lanes) only Denny, it really should be highest priority in the city. Opening up Aurora (to allow pedestrians and bikes to cross the street in more places) would mean that a lot of trips are faster on foot (or on self-propelled wheels) then via a car. From Green Lake to South Lake Union there are no traffic lights — a distance of over four miles. Eliminate congestion and it is basically the same as light rail. There are plenty of stop lights north of there, but it would still be plenty fast for the bulk of the riders.

      1. RossB,
         how would intending riders reach the E Line in the segment without signalized intersections? What right of way is available for stations?

      2. Overpasses and underpasses. They are already there.

      3. @eddiew

         SDOT has a few ideas on their ideas page (link below). I think a signalized intersection would be necessary to help people cross the road; an overpass/underpass would be annoying and likely wouldn’t be ADA accessible. It seems that shrinking the size of the lanes and removing the center median leaves enough ROW to add a station.

         A crossing at Aloha (and/or Roy) would be nice. That segment of 99 is fairly urban and it would be nice if it 1-2 more crossings.

         https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/aurora-ave-project/aurora-community-ideas-hub#centerrunningbuslane

      4. how would intending riders reach the E Line in the segment without signalized intersections

         You add signalized intersections. With few exceptions (the bridge and Woodland Park) you would add surface crossing (used only by bikes and pedestrians) the whole way. Every few blocks there would be a crossing that has a beg button (buses would stop only at these places). Some of the other intersections would have midblock islands. Some of the intersections would not have either.

         Basically the southern part of Aurora resembles the northern part of Aurora, except without cars going east-west. For example you can see that 77th has a complete crosswalk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wSN7K7U1P12Fbe4c7). You can’t see it from the air, but there are beg buttons and a traffic light there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rtgnT7BuQzjnrPFVA). At 78th there is a little island, but no crosswalk markings and no signal. Some people are fine crossing here, some people will walk to a different intersection. But for those who will cross anyway, this is much safer than nothing. At 79th there is nothing (or at least close to nothing). There is a sign there saying “Use Crosswalk”. In other words, don’t cross there, cross over at 80th.

         It is quite possible they take advantage of existing over and underpasses. That is the case already. Notice that there is no crosswalk at 102nd. But there is a midblock island to go along with the overpass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/HV5WwztfrLeSRPk49). My guess is without that overpass they would have added a signalized crosswalk and beg button there.

         For the same reason I wouldn’t except many crossings on the section a bit south of the bridge. It is similar to the area next to the cemetery (to the north). There just isn’t much there to warrant a lot of crossings. The crossing become largely geared towards the bus stops and nothing more.

         In any event, this is the basic idea of “Reimagine Aurora”. Imagine the freeway part of Aurora being more like a regular street. Not like a quiet boulevard, but at least like the part of Aurora north of Green Lake.

         Of course the drawback is that this means a lot more traffic lights. But again, this is just for pedestrians (and bikes). It is common to have really long cycles for pedestrian-only crossings. It is tricky timing buses with traffic lights, but it is much easier if the buses don’t have to deal with congestion and the buses have short dwell times (since they have off-board payment). Even with lots of new pedestrian crossings I am confident that the buses would move fairly quickly through there (and much faster than the cars).

      5. The existing Aurora underpasses are decades-old deteriorating narrow staircases. They’re not that good during the day, and dark at night, and if leaves collect on the shallow steps they may get slippery.

      6. The existing Aurora underpasses are decades-old deteriorating narrow staircases.

         The exception being Mercer. The problem with Mercer is that it doesn’t connect well with the streets to the east and west (and Aurora itself). Thus people walking or biking have to go all the way around (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mbu5GedDDKGmQfu16). This is why I think a surface crossing of Aurora at Roy is necessary (but not at Mercer).

      7. I think it is interesting how few signalized crossing you would actually need. Partly it is the same phenomenon as stop spacing in a narrow area. For example consider the stop spacing between Galer and Lynn. This is quite a ways. The obvious reason for this is because there are no crossings in between. But what if there were? Would it make much difference?

         Not really. To the west (Queen Anne) there is nothing. So the only reason to have a crossing there is if you added a bus stop there. To the east there is a row of buildings, but it is not easy to access the streets further east (Dexter and Westlake). Thus the vast majority of people who would use a bus stop there are people who live right along Aurora. For them the walk north or south is really not that far. So without a bus stop on both sides there is little reason to add a crossing. With that in mind, here are the signalized crossings I would add:

         Roy, Aloha, Highland Drive, Galer*, Lynn, Hallady, 38th*, 40th, 42nd, 43rd**, 46th*, 49th.

         *There is already an over or underpass here, but a surface crossing could be worth it.

         ** The streets are kind of messy here. They don’t quite line up. The crossing would be somewhere in there (roughly midway between the other two crossings).

         Not all the crossings would have the same priority. Several would be added over time (like the northern part of Aurora). Oh, and note that I don’t have a crossing north of 50th. Just north of 50th there are the three Woodland Park Bridges. I think 63rd is a pretty good underpass (https://maps.app.goo.gl/akCQuSPyBFnXkJNL7). North of there you have the pedestrian crossing at 68th. Overall I think that covers that area well.

         So that is basically twelve additional signalized pedestrian crossings (give or take). That is enough to change the character of the neighborhoods (for the better) but not so many that it would substantially slow the buses down. The buses would still come out way ahead if they ran down the middle of the street.

      8. I also think it is interesting to see how many bus stops you might add to the RapidRide E if Aurora becomes a regular street (with abundant surface crossing). Interestingly enough, not that many. I would definitely add one at Roy. But that is it south of the bridge. The 5 would serve stops (like Halladay) that are made much better with the crossings.

         North of the ship canal I would add a stop just south of 38th. This is the connection to Fremont that people have been requesting for over a decade now (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/04/04/connecting-fremont-to-rapidride-e/). The next stop is 46th. It is tempting to add a stop in between there, but it really isn’t needed. Better crossings of Aurora actually make it easier to live without it. That is because the 5 runs one block over, until it turns on 43rd. The stop at 46th is essential as a connection to the 44. North of there you only have five blocks before the park. Maybe you add the stop at 49th — but it certainly isn’t essential. To the west you have the 5. To the east you have a diagonal street (Green Lake Way) which goes directly to 46th. As with the gap between 39th and 46th I wouldn’t bother.

         So that means only two new stops. One at Roy (a very high density area) and one at 38th (above Fremont). Both stops would get a lot of riders.

      9. The Aurora Reimagined Coalition is pushing WSDOT/SDOT to put in three at-grade crossings between 38th and 50th. Even though SDOT is bringing the 41st overpass up to seismic codes, it’s not ADA accessible at all, and apparently the impetus behind starting the seismic work this year is that next year ADA would require the city to actually bring it up to code if they did any work on it. Obviously, far better would be an at-grade crossing, but the likelihood of drivers blowing a standalone light is very high (see the crossing at 68th), so the preference would be for a series of lights that would help change the character of Aurora from a freeway to something closer to a street that you would actually walk along.

         Once the lights are in place, it would also be much easier to convince Metro to add a much-needed stop on the E Line too, since there’s ~1.5 miles between Lynn and 46th (largest spacing on the route). I would love a stop at 41st since we live at close by, but even if it ended up at 38th it would be a huge improvement in accessibility.

      10. The 41st overpass doesn’t seem that old. But then again, maybe it was there for a while and I just didn’t realize it.

          I agree that it will take a while for people to get used to a new traffic light. But does the one at 68th really have that many people running it? If so they should add a red light camera there. They have added similar crossings at 15th & 53rd as well as Lake City Way & 82nd. In all these cases there is a long gap before you encounter the light (although a smaller gap for Lake City Way). Drivers historically drove really fast as well. So it is a bit of shock the first time you encounter it, but people get used to it. I agree though, a series of lights would be ideal. If that results in a bus stop closer to (lower) Fremont it would be a huge bonus.

      11. I would go with:
          – Crossing and center stop at Aloha (or Roy, but I think Aloha has slightly better spacing)
          – Potential crossing at Roy (no stop; lower priority)
          – Close the Lynn and Galer stops (so the E can run in the middle lane; there are no major destinations and the 62 and 3/4 already run parallel to the E here)
          – Crossing at 38th and major crossing improvements nearby (similar to the 44 TPMC project). Potential center stop (lower priority; served by the 5)
          – Crossing and center stop at 42nd (or 4st)
          – Crossing and center stop at 46th (close the nearby stop and move the 44 stop)
          – Crossing (no stop) at 49th

      12. Good point about Roy. Aloha is probably better for a bus stop. Then again, it is a ways from Harrison. I could see splitting the difference (Valley). But for now I’ll go with Aloha.

          There is also the 5 to think about (and to a lesser extent the 28). These could be rerouted, but I would keep the 5 as is. You want the buses to use the same center lanes and bus stops as the E (if possible). The good news is that it looks fairly easy. There is a big gap from the last curbside stop to the first potential center-station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/sSVibqbVr3o6KUf67). That is enough room to change to lanes and join the E (in the middle lane).

          I could definitely see dropping the Lynn and Galer stops from the E, but they make sense for the 5. Here are some ridership numbers:

          E: Galer 113, Lynn 55
          5: Galer 44, Lynn 13

          Based on ridership I could see the E skipping Lynn but serving Galer. That would mean:

          Aloha: 5, 28, E
          Highland Drive: 5, 28 (replaces the stop at Prospect)
          Galer: 5, 28, E
          Lynn: 5, 28
          Crocket: 5, 28
          Halladay: 5, 28

          But these don’t have to be built all at once. Some of the existing ridership on these routes is very low. I would probably stage it like so:

          1) Aloha, Galer, Lynn. This is your starting point. All bus stops would be center stops. These would be the only bus stops between SLU and the north end of the bridge. Center bus lanes would go that whole way (and farther) on Aurora.

          2) Highland Drive. There is a decent amount of ridership at Prospect (with the 5) and it would get better ridership with an easier crossing. But not so much that I think it needs to be added at the very beginning. It isn’t that far to Galer or Aloha.

          3) Crocket. Only about a dozen people use this stop, but it is close to a homeless shelter. Adding a crossing here would help improve ridership since right now you have to go up to Lynn anyway when crossing the street (https://maps.app.goo.gl/hkCQYnGfXyDiFyqU8). At the same time, it isn’t that far to Lynn. There is a greenbelt south of the shelter (on the west side) and if you are on the east side you can go to Dexter. Some of the property on the west side is underdeveloped (that might change over time). This is one where I could see them adding a surface crossing and if you are going to add a surface crossing you might as well add a center bus stop (for the 5).

          4) Halladay. Same idea, but even tougher to justify. Ridership is low, but unlike Crocket there is a decent underpass there (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wYj72yyh55wmPdRz7). Halladay doesn’t go through (west of Aurora) so people trying to get from one side to the other are forced north to Raye even if there was a crossing at Halladay. The only thing there are some apartments close to Aurora and the walk to Lynn is not that far (which would explain why Lynn has much higher ridership). It seems like a crossing is tough to justify without a bus stop on the other side and with such low ridership, that isn’t likely to happen any time soon. This seems like one of those “maybe someday” projects.

      13. Are those numbers daily? That is higher than I expected to be honest, though still not that high.

          It’s not really clear to me that any of the other stops are worth adding a dedicated crossing. I think having the 5 serve them will be enough. With only an Aloha crossing I would have the 5 serve all the outer stops except Prospect and I would have the E skip all outer stops.

          I think the main reason to add additional crossings would be to spur development. For that, I would close all the outer stops and go with three stops at Halladay, Crockett, and Galer (in addition to Aloha). Two stops at Lynn and Galer would also be an option, but that leaves a long gap, and I think that Crockett is a better stop than Lynn because of the stairs to the east/west.

          Halladay, Crockett, and Galer all have a decent amount of developable land to the west, though Halladay and especially Galer could use an upzone. Galer and Crockett seem the most promising since they have pedestrian connections from Queen Anne all the way down to Westlake.

      14. @ross

          Maybe we could write up an article about potential new intersections; especially since Seattle is actively looking into it

      15. Ross, the 41st crossing at Aurora I think dates to the 50s or 60s, and is steep enough to be uncomfortable to use even for abled people, and is completely inaccessible to people who can’t walk. Closest at-grade crossings are 4 blocks to the south, or 5 blocks to the north, so it definitely is a barrier.

          I rarely use the crossing at 68th, but bike by it pretty often and have seen drivers blow the light on a few occasions, which is still saying something since it doesn’t take long to bike past it. The more stop lights there are on Aurora, though, the less it will feel like a highway and the more density we can build up along it. It might slow down the E a bit, but there’s so many easy ways to speed it up we haven’t implemented like enforced 24×7 bus lanes and better signal priority that we could speed it back up if we really wanted to.

      16. Ross, the 41st crossing at Aurora I think dates to the 50s or 60s

          Interesting. I used to live in Fremont, back in the early 80s. I must have used it then. But my big memory is of jaywalking across Aurora (a young-person’s sport — I do not recommend it). I guess I’m getting old and forget the overpass from back then. About 20 years ago I worked in Fremont and got to know the area again. I became familiar with the bridge then. It is definitely not ADA accessible. They added a little thing for bikes but it didn’t seem to work that well (it had mixed reviews).

          Speaking of bridges, the crossing of Aurora at Galer is officially known as the Ray Moore Bridge. It was built in 2004 (relatively recently) but it doesn’t seem like it is ADA accessible either.

          It might slow down the E a bit [to add a bunch of crossings] but there’s so many easy ways to speed it up

          I agree. Pedestrian crossings have several advantages over regular intersections:

          1) There are only two phases. In contrast it is quite common for traffic lights to have multiple phases so that people cant take a left turn.

          2) The phases for pedestrians tend to be relatively short. I haven’t crossed 68th often enough to get an idea of a typical wait time, but similar crossings at Lake City Way can take well over a minute. At the same time, the phase for pedestrians can be relatively short. So you can get by with something like 90 seconds for Aurora traffic, followed 30 seconds for pedestrians.

          3) It is much easier to control the timing of these lights then it is regular traffic lights because they are completely independent. In contrast if you modify the phases at 85th it could create a big mess on that street and then a bunch more.

          Meanwhile, the main thing for buses is to avoid congestion. It is like riding the Paris Metro. Sure, it stops all the time. But it never gets stuck in traffic.

      17. Are those numbers daily?

          Yes. They are daily averages for boarding (both directions). About half the riders go north and half the riders go south.

          It’s not really clear to me that any of the other stops are worth adding a dedicated crossing. I think having the 5 serve them will be enough.

          Are you talking about Fremont or the section between the ship canal and South Lake Union? For the latter the 5 would run in the center lanes just like the E. To have the 5 run curbside (after investing money in the E) would be a huge waste. So to serve a bus stop of the 5 on this section is similar to serving the E. You need a dedicated crossing and center bus stops. But that doesn’t mean that the E stops at every stop.

          I would close all the outer stops and go with three stops at Halladay, Crockett, and Galer (in addition to Aloha)

          I could definitely see Crockett instead of Lynn, but Halladay is just too fundamentally weak for me. Just to back up here, between Galer and Raye things are problematic. There is no access to the top of Queen Anne. This means that on the west side of Aurora, you at best will serve a small strip of land (next to Aurora). There are also sections where you can’t build anything. To the east it is a bit better, but still not great. Various roads don’t go through. One exception is Crockett. To the east riders also have an alternative (as mentioned) which is Dexter. This means that if you consider service along this section to be coverage-oriented (and I think you have to) then there alternatives for coverage service (for everyone to the east).

          The underpass at Ray is fairly good (https://maps.app.goo.gl/gTz3WNTJ3eneNRei8). It isn’t ADA accessible, but there are dozens of higher priority projects from that perspective (including sidewalks on 6th — as you can see it doesn’t have them). While Ray does connect to the rest of Queen Anne, there just isn’t much there. The hillside is very steep, which limits what can be built.

          Thus I really don’t see the need for two stops north of Galer (and south of the bridge). One should do — at least for now. It looks like Crockett is the closest to midway between Ray and Galer. It is a bit far from the last major development along Aurora (just south of Halladay) but still not horrible: https://maps.app.goo.gl/gTz3WNTJ3eneNRei8.

          Thus I could definitely see Aloha, Galer, Crockett as the starting point (for both bus stops and crossings). After that the next priority would be Highland Drive (for both a crossing and bus stop). Highland Drive is actually better for accessibility then Galer (but Galer has better spacing for stops to the north). Galer is connected on both sides with stairways. At Highland drive there are stairs to the east, but a sidewalk to the west. To be fair, it is very steep (probably too steep for a lot of wheelchairs) but at least it isn’t stairs. There is plenty of development along Highland Drive (on both sides of Aurora). It sits roughly midway between Galer and Aloha. Without the stop at Highland Drive the gap between Aloha and Galer is too big. With the stop the gaps are a bit on the small side, but worth it, given the development around there. As I wrote before it wouldn’t be necessary to start with it, but one of the first things you add (after Aloha, Galer, Crockett/Lynn).

      18. None of the answers address the segment south of north 46th street. Also, stations need to be wide enough to be ADA accessible.

      19. None of the answers address the segment south of north 46th street

          Yes they do. It is all basically the same idea. Add surface crossings. Put bus stops in the middle. That’s it.

          Look at theSDOT proposal for “Center Running Bus Lane”. (Click on that link and scroll down to see the images.) Remember, this is not a fantasy proposal. This is a realistic proposal from engineers at SDOT. Notice the sections and the associated maps:

          Segment 1 – Harrison St to N 38th Street — Notice that life is the same for cars coming in from the side. They can’t go across. They can’t turn left (into a middle lane). For a driver, that could easily be a street like Ward (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YuKyTfWDGjcwG4JN9).

          But for pedestrians (or people on bikes) it is a completely different world. They can walk across the street. They can access a bus stop in the middle of the street. Again, this is between Harrison and 38th. But the next image for the next segment is quite similar:

          Segment 2 – N 38th St. to Winona Ave N — Again, no benefit for cars, but pedestrians, cyclists and transit users have a whole new world of access.

          It is only when you get north of Winona that they start showing roads going through. This is the area where they allow cars to go across now anyway. Thus between Winona and Harrison the street grid would be dramatically different for pedestrians and cyclists, but for drivers it would be remarkably similar.

          Also, stations need to be wide enough to be ADA accessible.

          Of course. They would be as wide as a bus lane. That is clear from the images.

          Now it is possible that SDOT could use this opportunity to open up some of the streets for cars. There are only a handful of places where this is practical though (most of the streets don’t go through). I don’t see them doing that on residential streets (they wouldn’t want to send traffic that way). That basically just leaves Roy. The only thing I could see them doing is sending buses there. This would be similar to the long-term plans for running a bus on Thomas. But the two ideas compete with each other, which means it would likely be one of those things that doesn’t happen for decades (if ever).

      20. Oh, and we’ve spent a lot of time getting into the weeds when it comes to particular stop locations (e. g. Crockett versus Lynn). Most of the discussion has been about stops south of the ship canal. But I did mention crossings north of there. I suggested crossings at 38th, 40th, 42nd, 43rd, 46th and 49th. In terms of bus stops I would likely have them at:

          38th — As far south as possible so that walking down to Fremont is easy.
          42nd — Midway between 38th and 46th.
          46th — Essential stop for the connection to the 44.

          I could see having a bus stop at 49th, but that is too close to the zoo (giraffe don’t ride the bus).

      21. @Ross Bleakney

          I meant that I could see two scenarios:
          1. A center stop at Aloha, served by the 5/E. All other stops (except Prospect, which would no longer be served) stay on the outer lane and continue to be served by the 5 but not the E.
          2. Center stops at Aloha, Galer, Crockett or Lynn, and (potentially) Halladay, served by the 5/E. All other stops would be removed.

          A possible third option would be:
          3. Center stops at Aloha, Galer, and Crockett or Lynn, served by the 5/E. Halladay continues to be served by the 5. All other stops would be removed.

          It’s not clear to me that option 2 or 3 is worth it over option 1. Galer is already fairly well served by the 62 and the 3/4, and Crockett/Lynn/Halladay are served by the 62. It is quite a hill at some spots, but it’s really not that far of a walk. I don’t think the crossings are worth it unless the end goal is development on the west side of Aurora, and that may not even be desirable (do we really want large buildings on a relatively inaccessible hill without many nearby amenities?)

          Galer and Crockett do have some potential, since any developments could add a pedestrian connection to the west. For example, I could see a complex at Galer adding a connection to Lee or Galer; or a building at Crockett adding a connection to Newton, Crockett, or Boston. But again, there aren’t really any nearby amenities to the west, so unless the new development contains a bunch of commercial space (especially a grocery store) the area would likely be car-dominated out of necessity.

          On Halladay: It’s not clear to me that it is worth it either, but there is a fairly large undeveloped plot across from the Domaine Apartments

          On Roy/Aloha/Highland: I’m not sure about adding two stops here. This area is already fairly well-served by the 3/4 and 62, and so the stop would be mainly for travelling from Aurora to LQA/SLU. Additional crossings might be nice to reconnect the grid, but otherwise I think one stop would be enough

          @Eddiew

          North of 85th the stops seem fine to me. There are typically pedestrian crossings every 5 blocks (400m). A 10-block spacing (800m) is almost certainly too wide; a 5-block spacing is maybe slightly to close at points (see: 160th through 180th), but seems reasonable to me.

          The main area I would consider moving around is the Linden detour. I’d consider keeping the E on Aurora and doing one of:
          1. Move the 65th stop to 68th (at the crosswalk); consolidate the 76th and 80th stops at 77th (at the crosswalk)
          2. Move the 65th stop to 68th (at the crosswalk); move the 76th stop to Winona

   3. I’m surprised the Aurora Ave bus lanes only peak hours. RR E is clearly used all day and Aurora would still have two general purpose lanes in each direction. I wonder why Metro has not successfully pressured SDOT to make them 24/7. Perhaps they are just waiting for the street redesign.

      1. My understanding is that the bus lanes turning to parking was SDOT caving to business owners who argued that street parking on Aurora was essential to their business, even though there are other places to park, and the number of cars that actually park in Aurora when it’s allowed, very tiny.

         It is standard practice among business owners to argue that every additional foot you have to walk between the front door and their car entails a huge drop-off in customers, while, of course, customers who walk, bike, or ride the bus simply don’t count. Even in Pike Place Market, I’ve heard arguments from business owners that the very tiny amount of parking on Pike Place is somehow essential, and that businesses would go bankrupt if Pike Place were pedestrianized (never mind that tourists gawking at the market out their car windows don’t spend anything, but people walking through the market do).

      2. Businesses routinely make two arguments: One, it is for customers. The other is that it is for loading and unloading. From what I can tell though, there is very little load/unload or even “limited time” parking. I don’t know if anyone has bothered to do an assessment. It is time consuming. But it is quite possible that only a handful of businesses would actually object to the removal of regular parking. At most it should be load/unload (with permit) for those rare times when that is the only decent place to unload things. I think mainly it is just one of those things that hasn’t been high enough priority. I’m afraid that once a street is has bus lanes for only part of the day it is hard to put in the work to make it all-day transit. We just passed a bit levy, and my guess is not a dime of that money will go into work like that.

         It does seem quite possible that they will look at it as part of the street redesign though.

      3. “the bus lanes turning to parking was SDOT caving to business owners who argued that street parking on Aurora was essential to their business”

         Exactly. Shoreline prioritized BAT lanes, and urban villages around all stations. Seattle got talked out of it by business car interests. There’s an activist there who’s relentless about it. She may have passed away, although I can’t keep track of the Aurora one vs the Fremont one. I’ve seen a flyer there marketing the neighborhood to businesses; it said Aurora is car friendly and has plenty of free parking and is one of Seattle’s lowest-cost commercial districts.

         Peak hours Aurora and 15th Ave NW bog down substantially, so BAT lanes are essential then to avoid slowing down the bus. Off-peak it’s more debatable. But BAT lanes guarantee speed even if a slowdown occurs when it’s not expected.

2. Thanks, it’s quite interesting to see the rapidride e data and that in shoreline it’s more for local trips.

   Also fyi King County Metro is talking about extending Rapidride E to some link station — likely mountlake terrace station. Though shoreline north station is also possible.

   It’ll be interesting if in such case would lynnwood/everett to shoreline (aurora ave) riders opt to use link then transfer at mountlake station instead. Or stick with the swift blue / rapidride E

   1. As a former Shoreline resident, I can concur that many use the E-Line to for intra-Aurora trips to access grocery stores, employers and other retailers between Shoreline and North Seattle. I observed that many people who board in Shoreline don’t stay onboard all the way to downtown.

      With the opening of Link, I’ve wondered about the value of keeping Aurora Village. If the Blue Line stayed on Aurora and used 185th (rather than Meridian) to access North Shoreline Station and the E-Line did the same – we could ditch Aurora Village and probably sell off the land.

   2. Yes. That was one of the first things I noticed when I looked stop data for the E (many years ago). A lot of people are just taking it for trips along Aurora. Back in the day, a lot of the people were just going to or from downtown during peak (so much so that express overlay buses made sense). But it still had lots of people making relatively small trips along the corridor.

      But there are also plenty of people who take the bus downtown. In general the bus has an interesting pattern (due to the design of the street). It is a regular bus (making regular stops) north of Green Lake. But south of Green Lake the bus is an express. Thus you see a lot of people taking advantage of this express. I can’t tell for sure but my guess is a much higher percentage of the people that board in Seattle are headed downtown.

      I think this pattern has only increased since Link has gone further north. Aurora Village is both a transit center and a park and ride. For those parking and heading to Seattle it makes sense to just drive to Link. In terms of buses, there were only two major routes serving the station — Swift Blue and the E. For those who used to transfer from Swift to the E it depends on where they are headed. If it is another stop on Aurora then it makes sense to take the E. But if they are headed to the UW, downtown (or any Link destination) then it makes sense to just stay on Swift until 185th and take Link. It will be very interesting to see the numbers in a few months.

      The other takeaway is that the stop spacing north of Green Lake is pretty much ideal. It is fairly standard (with 400 meters between most stops). But there are no huge ups and downs in terms of ridership. For example imagine you wanted to build an elevated train through there. Which stops do you skip? It isn’t clear at all. This means that if you did skip a significant number of stops you would lose a lot of riders. Overall the ridership pattern confirms what you would expect. This is not an area where the limited-stop/shadow combination (e. g. Swift Blue/101) is the best choice. The existing stop pattern on the RapidRide E is much better.

      Even the big peaks in terms of ridership are a bit surprising. Some of the really popular stops are because of the network (46th: Metro 44, 85th: Metro 45, 105th: Metro 40). But some of the stops just happen to have a lot of riders (e. g. 135th). Basically there are just a lot of people who live there. But this is changing all the time. As much I laud the bus for having standard (international) stop spacing, it does skip a few potential stops. But some of these have basically nothing. Or at least they have nothing now. Maybe in the future they will.

      1. “The other takeaway is that the stop spacing north of Green Lake is pretty much ideal. It is fairly standard (with 400 meters between most stops).”

         Is it? It’s definitely the international standard for a local bus, but this one is branded as rapid. And the ridership data shows that most of them serve just one passenger on average per trip. Stopping every 400 meters for one passenger each time is not what I would consider rapid at all. Granted, there is no shadow local bus, and I wouldn’t remove stops now, but I think in retrospect we should’ve just started with the stops north of Green Lake being: Aurora Village, 200th, 192nd, 185th, 175th, 160th, 145th, 137th, 130th, 115th, 105th, 97th, 90th, 85th, 77th (with infill stops if the car dealerships and auto repair stores get redeveloped in places transit riders will actually want to go).

      2. It is rapid because it has off-board payment. My point is that the stop spacing is ideal from a service standpoint. Imagine some alternatives:

         1) Skip some stops. OK, now you’ve lost most of your riders.
         2) Skip some stops, but run a different bus — a shadow — that makes all the stops. OK, now most of the riders have to wait a lot longer for their bus.

         It is a balancing act but they got it right. It manages to run frequently while serving about forty bus stops. As the data shows, there are plenty of people getting on and off at each stop. That means there are hundreds of trip combinations that are fairly fast and very frequent which explains why it works so well.

         Express service only makes sense when you have more stop stratification, or huge numbers of riders going a long distance. We actually had the latter for a while, before the pandemic. That is why they ran an express overlay (the 301). But it was never as cost effective as the E. It only made sense because the E was crowded, and we might as well alleviate the crowding by running an express.

         But after the pandemic, ridership collapsed on it. With Northgate Link we ran express buses to Northgate, but they still didn’t get many riders. Ultimately there just aren’t that many riders interested in an express.

      3. “It is rapid because it has off-board payment.”

         Rapid means significantly faster than a regular bus. Off-board payment hasn’t made it rapid because it still takes 45 minutes to get from downtown to Aurora Village. It should be around 30-35 minutes. It’s the expressway section that makes it faster than surrounding routes.

         When the E was designed, Shoreline asked for so many stops and promised urban villages around all of them. Seattle was going to have stops every 10 blocks between 73rd and 105th but the community asked for stops every 5 blocks and got it. Unlike Shoreline, Seattle didn’t promise urban villages around all of them; it just got them anyway. Seattle also doesn’t have much transit-priority lanes, another distinguishing feature of rapid transit.

      4. “It was never as as cost effective as the E”

         I guess it depends on how you evaluate cost effectiveness. If the decision was to not run a trip on the 301 and convert it into a regular E line trip, you probably would have increased cost and reduced ridership.

         Northgate and Lynnwood Link and their park and ride eventually played the role of all day express, especially when 301 were pretty much unusably unreliable with trip cancellation and introducing a transfer to an infrequent bus means passengers incur a time penalty for leaving time just so they don’t miss their transfer.

   3. “If the Blue Line stayed on Aurora and used 185th (rather than Meridian) to access North Shoreline Station”

      CT is already planning that. It’s waiting for some Shoreline street improvements that haven’t been prioritized yet.

      Rerouting the E to not go north of 185th is a bigger issue, and I doubt Metro would do it. That would abandon service to the apartments on 200th and the shopping center. More likely would be extending the E to Shoreline North station, following the current Blue Line alignment. That wouldn’t be fast for Aurora riders, but it would avoid a 15-minute transfer wait for the last mile to reach the station.

      1. “That would abandon service to the apartments on 200th and the shopping center”

         Yes and no. If the Blue Line continues down Aurora, a stop can be added at 200th St. This would not only serve that area but maintain a connection to route 331. The both the Blue and the E can use 185th to terminate at Shoreline North (with both making a stop at 185th & Aurora to ensure connections).

         The downside, rather, +55 residents at the condos at 192nd will have to walk to either 185th or 200th for the closest bus.

      2. I think for your idea to work the Blue Line would have to have the same stops on Aurora that the RapidRide E currently has. So that is 200th, 192nd and 185th.

         There would still be people who object. If you are close to Aurora Village you have the best of both worlds and have had that for a long time. You can take a bus north or take a bus south. With the change you would have to transfer to go south (along Aurora). But riders along 185th would be able to go south on Aurora without a transfer. As I wrote above, I could see it working if 185th has BAT lanes and is a lot more developed.

         Until then, the obvious thing is for Swift to just take the faster, more straightforward way to the station (staying on Aurora until 185th). It would get rid of the Aurora Village bus stop and replace it with a bus stop on 200th. This would make same-direction transfers much better (riders wouldn’t be detoured off of Aurora).

      3. 192nd and 185th are pretty much a given. I guess CT could be talked into a station at 200th, given its strategic location and the shopping center (which some lower-income Snohomish constituents take the Blue to). It would be close stop spacing on a type of service that isn’t supposed to have it. CT isn’t responsible for a shadow route there, so if King County decides to withdraw the E north of 185th, I don’t see Swift bailing it out. But we may end up with all three of Ross’s Swift stations anyway due to the strategic nature of the area and the closeness of 200th to the county border. 200th is the closest place to the border to shop or visit people or walk between destinations because of the junction of two state highways, so that could give Swift a reason to serve it — because the Snohomish area next to the border doesn’t have it.

      4. 192nd and 185th are pretty much a given. I guess CT could be talked into a station at 200th

         We might be talking about two different things here. There are basically two ideas here:

         1) Swift moves to the pathway they should have used from the beginning (Aurora to 185th). In this case they only need to add the stop at 200th & Aurora. A stop at 185th would be nice (for Richmond Beach/Snohomish County trips) but not essential, since those 348 riders can always transfer at 185th station. Same goes for 346 — they can always walk from Aurora Village to the stop at Aurora (which is not that far away).

         2) Jordan’s idea, which is to basically have Swift take over the northern part of the E Line. To make that work, Swift would have to cover all the stops along that part of Aurora (185th, 192nd, 200th). No, that isn’t the typical stop spacing of Swift Blue. It is better. Ridership would suddenly take a significant leap, as Swift joins the big leagues (at least for this section). Ridership per service hour would also take a big leap, perhaps putting Swift in the same category as an above-average Metro bus (like the 48). At the same time, the stop spacing is still huge. It is higher than typical for the E (which usually stops every five blocks there).

         But convincing CT to do this could be difficult. Both Metro and CT have buses that provide unique coverage in the other county, but none of them are RapidRide/Swift. Metro might have to volunteer to pay for the new stations (which would mostly just consist of changing them from RapidRide to Swift) and do some horse trading (in the form of more service in Snohomish County). I don’t know how the agencies manage that.

         But I also don’t think any of that makes sense until 185th gets a lot more developed. Consider the area around 185th & Aurora. If we did this, then there would be three buses from the station to that area (RapidRide, Swift and 348). That is a lot of service land that is mostly just parking lots (https://maps.app.goo.gl/3xfs6Vj7xsLQh4Nm9). Meanwhile, the other potential stops for the E are worse. Ashworth and Meridian are mostly just single family homes on big lots. As you get to First you at least have the Shoreline Schools complex, but that still isn’t great. Besides, by the time you are there you are close to the station. Speaking of which, there really isn’t much by the station at the other side of the freeway either.

         Jordan’s idea is intriguing. There are a lot of pluses, but a lot of minuses as well. For example rider close to Aurora Village/200th lose their one-seat ride to the E. Riders at 192nd lose their one-seat ride on the E, but gain a one-seat ride to Swift. I think most would consider this a loss. A transfer from Swift to RapidRide E would require crossing 185th. My guess is there are a lot of people who currently do that*.

         In contrast CT just implemented the first idea (have Swift continue on Aurora until 185th and a stop at 200th & Aurora replace the stop at Aurora Village) then the Swift/RapidRide transfer is great. Riders avoid the detour to Aurora Village and they use the same bus stop to make the actual transfer. Riders in the area retain pretty much everything they have now (at worst they have to walk a bit farther to 200th instead of walking to Aurora Village). But then some riders would come out ahead (there are apartments and shows to the west). The first idea is a simple win. The second idea has some potential, but I don’t think it makes sense until there is a lot more development along 185th.

         * Looking at the numbers we can at least guess how many people transfer from Swift to RapidRide. Ridership at Aurora Village is huge. Given what it there this seems excessive. There is a stop at 200th & Aurora as well. This means that people closer to Aurora are better off using that stop. Thus there just aren’t that many places that are closer to the Aurora Village stop.

         The other thing that jumps out at me is that at 185th there are about 150 people a day who get off the bus there. That means they rode the bus at most about a mile. The longest walk is less than a mile and along a nice path most of the way (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2zmhwUfUWXCR8XRU7). Swift is frequent, but it is unusual for people to take a bus for such a short distance. It wouldn’t make much sense if you had to walk a few blocks to the station. But it does make sense if you just consider one bus an extension of the other. It is just a different mindset. You’ve already paid your fare — you are already in “bus mode”, might as well continue the trip. All of that suggests that the vast majority of rides at Aurora Village came from Swift Blue. Providing a much better transfer (at 200th & Aurora) would be worth it.

   4. WL,
      it seems obvious that such an extension would not be cost-effective; the scarce service hours, operators, buses, and RR capital would be better used elsewhere in the network. Before Covid, the E Line needed more trips. The planners have mused about an extension to Mountlake Terrace Link; that seems obviously silly; the I-5 and SR-104 interchange has very few potential riders. It is better to consider the E Line as a parallel side rail of a ladder and the local routes as rungs in the network.

      The Lynnwood Link project has made some obvious errors. First, the CT Swift blue line should use the Aurora Avenue North pathway rather than the Meridian Avenue North pathway; it has one turn rather than three; it has BAT lanes; it serves the Shoreline P&R with 400+ stalls; it would have a common stop transfer with the E Line; it would attract more riders and fare revenue for CT. (RossB covered this issue on the STB). This could be changed easily; it is up to CT. Second, Route 333 has a weak pathway; North/NE 175th Street has little ridership potential; it has Ronald Bog and a full I-5 interchange; it is a fast four-lane arterial that is difficult for pedestrians to cross. Both North/NE 155th and 185th streets would have better rungs between Link and the E Line. Note the great common stop transfer that former Route 330 had with the E Line at North 155th/160th streets. Route 333 serves the small local streets of Route 331 between SCC and North 175th Street; this is overkill and a poor use of scarce hours. The network could have beefed up the pathway of the former Route 330 between Lake City and SCC via South Shoreline. A reborn and revised Route 347 would use only part of the Route 333 hours; it could connect Mountlake Terrace Link and Bitter Lake via Ballinger Terrace, North City, Ridgecrest, south Shoreline, and NE/North 145th Street. Third, the network provides inadequate service to the NE 130th Street station expected to open in 2026; there is time to improve it. Routes 5, 75, 77, 345, and 365 could be changed. Route 77 would miss the Lake City hub stops forcing more walking transfers than is optimal. The pairing of the Route 522 markete fill in with the east-west service does not work well geometrically; it only responds to the ST timing.

      1. it seems obvious that such an extension would not be cost-effective

         I agree. One of the problems with going up to Mountlake Terrace is that there is very little along the way. You could run as an express, but that still takes a while (and is problematic during rush-hour). You would have to get a lot of riders at Mountlake Terrace to justify an extension like that.

         You aren’t going to get a lot of riders at Mountlake Terrace. Neither of the two Snohomish County Stations serve destinations. They are basically just big parking lots. In contrast, it is Swift that serves the destinations (like Edmonds CC and Swedish Edmonds). Meanwhile, the RapidRide E only serves one big destination (Downtown Seattle). There are plenty of people taking *short* trips in the north end, but the key word here is “short”. Taking Link from Lynnwood and then transferring to the RapidRide E so that you can get to a store on Aurora isn’t short. There may be people who would walk to the Mountlake Terrace and then catch the bus but not that many. Oh, and there are also clearly a lot of people who take the E and then transfer to other buses. But again, that makes no sense if you are at Mountlake Terrace. There is also the potential for “wrap-around” riders (e. g. someone from the 185th Station taking the train north and then the bus south). I doubt very many people would do that either.

         It would be a huge decrease in ridership per service hour. I just don’t see it.

         Looping around to 185th is only a little bit better. It is closer, and the wrap-round isn’t quite as bad, but it has other problems. You are competing with Swift with some of your potential ridership (Aurora Village to the 185th Station). You still have the same basic problem. Few riders from the north will take Link to get over to the E. Very few will do the wrap-around (take Link north and then the E south). It doesn’t make sense unless you are heading to a destination at the north end of Aurora and (other than Aurora Village) there just aren’t that many destinations up there.

         Now Jordan’s idea is a different story. It is basically a swap (part of Aurora for 185th). You aren’t increasing the travel time. But I only see it happening if 185th adds BAT lanes *and* 185th (from Aurora to the station) gets really developed.

      2. Note the great common stop transfer that former Route 330 had with the E Line at North 155th/160th streets. Route 333 serves the small local streets of Route 331 between SCC and North 175th Street; this is overkill and a poor use of scarce hours.

         I agree, but I think that is a bit off topic. Metro has ridership numbers for October (the first full month after the restructure). I don’t want to make too many conclusions based on a very small sample set but I think it is worth discussing on an open thread.

3. While I could see some riders shifting to Link upon the Shoreline stations opening, the decrease is not very much as stated in the article. I suspect that many longer distance trips were already on feeder buses to Link at Northgate beforehand.

   It should be mentioned that both Shoreline stations were getting only about 1,000 weekday boardings each in the first full month of operation — and they both have large parking garages! It’s rather disappointing. (2 stations x 2 directions x 1000 average weekday boardings = 4000 daily transit corridor trips)

   And it should be noted that Swift Blue did not reach Link until the middle of September. October data will be more revealing. With so much demand created at Aurora Village TC as the charts show, there may be a bigger ridership drop coming for this line.

   1. I’ve never seen more than 4-5 people get on/off at Aurora Village, so that massive surge must be peak hours. Some people who live in Shoreline may want to stay in Shoreline for shopping and activities. If somebody from elsewhere goes to Fred Meyer/Sky Nursery/the ice-skating rink on 185th and then to Pioneer Pies/Safeway/the fabric store on 155th, it would show up as a local Shoreline trip even if they’re from elsewhere and go back to elsewhere afterward.

      What I’ve repeatedly observed is 2-3 people boarding at Aurora Village, and the same at almost every stop along the way. In both Aurora Village and downtown off-peak there aren’t many people, but somehow in the middle of the route the bus gradually gets full, and then it gradually empties again.

      1. Yeah the high Aurora Village activity in the chart seems a bit counterintuitive given what you and others have observed. I even wonder if it is an error created by balancing ons and offs — but it appears strong in both directions so I don’t think it is.

      2. I have the data (gathered independently) from the latest time full period (3/30/2024 to 9/14/2024) and it shows the same thing. It isn’t particularly peak oriented either. The highest average boarding — per bus — was in the afternoon, with 8.8 riders per bus.

         I agree that seems a bit high. Swift Blue doesn’t have as many riders as RapidRide E. Then again, maybe a high percentage of Swift Blue riders are riding on the southern end and transferring there. Consider people traveling south (inbound). If you think of Aurora Village as the start of the line then this looks like a really good anchor (maybe too good). But if you think of the buses as simply part of the same route (Blue/E) then it is just part of a gradual increase in the number of people riding along the corridor (and nowhere near the peak). It just so happens that at that particular spot they ask riders to transfer. If they asked riders to transfer at 100th the boardings would be much bigger.

         We aren’t talking about a huge number (it is less than ten). It isn’t like the old 41, where twenty to thirty people would get off the bus at Northgate Transit Center. Swift isn’t the only factor, either. Figure a rider is just using that stop for the same reason someone used the stop at 192nd. There are other buses that connect as well. Add it all up and it seems quite reasonable.

   2. “While I could see some riders shifting to Link upon the Shoreline stations opening, the decrease is not very much as stated in the article. I suspect that many longer distance trips were already on feeder buses to Link at Northgate beforehand.”

      The problem is before Lynnwood Link there really weren’t any good options for that.

      • The freeway expresses that went to Northgate, but for the most part you had to drive to a park and ride lot to use them from anywhere that actually had anything.

      • The local buses. The E takes an hour from Aurora Village to Seattle.

      Before Lynnwood Link, if I was in Everett and wanted to get to somewhere in Shoreline, the trip planner suggested routing was 512 to Seattle then the E to Shoreline, taking some 2 hours. With Lynnwood Link there are enough connections from the freeway stations to the outside world the slog into downtown Seattle isn’t suggested as the best option now.

      1. Yeah, but the point is that the things haven’t changed that much for that many people. Consider some trips:

         1) Everett to UW
         2) Some random place in Snohomish County to downtown
         3) Edmonds CC to some place on Aurora
         4) Edmonds CC to downtown
         5) Edmonds CC to UW

         The first one has changed (for the better) but it really isn’t that different. Either way you take the 512, it is just a matter of where you transfer. In the second case you probably drive to a park and ride — you just don’t drive as far now (or you avoid a transfer involving the 512). In the third case your trip is the same (nothing has changed). In the fourth case you save a fair amount of time. In the fifth case you save a lot of time. In both the fourth and fifth cases you avoid taking RapidRide E.

         And yet ridership on the E is basically unchanged. In contrast ridership of Link at Northgate has plummeted. This suggests that the people who were transferring to the E were not headed downtown. They were headed to some other place on Aurora. The people headed downtown were taking a bus (or driving) to Northgate and now they take a bus (or driving) to one of the other stations.

4. I was just finishing reading the article of the RR D Line ridership from you (ST Blog and The Urbanist).
   You say RR D Line is the fourth busiest route (yet I don’t see which one is the third busiest KCM route, maybe A, C, G or H Lines)…
   However the Urbanist says it is the third busiest KCM Route with around 8800 riders per (week)day.
   ¿Or do you have the data which route is the third busiest one?

   1. It changes month to month. But as of last month, according to the system dashboard:

      E Line: 13,500
      7: 11,300
      A Line: 9,600
      D Line: 9,300 (8,800 in August)
      H Line: 8,600
      40: 8,500
      C Line: 7,500

      The D Line is the third in terms of RapidRide, but the fourth in terms of Metro buses (in October).

      1. Nice to read, and I kinda find it difficult to read at first, but got the hang of it, need more practice.

5. This data is interesting, but it is sort of hard to draw any conclusions from it since it is pre-LLE data and therefore out of date. LLE opened on Aug 30th and completely revolutionized travel in North King. Travel patterns will shift with LLE, and shift substantially.

   How much? Who knows, it is still too early to have reliable data. But we might get a clue from the 348.

   The 348 didn’t get any major changes in the restructure, yet its October ridership was up by a whopping 65%. That is a huge ridership jump that is statistically significant. This undoubted is a result of demand for east-west travel options connecting to Link.

   What’s the implication for the E?

   The highest boarding stop on the E in 2023 was at Aurora Village. Some of that is just the terminus effect, but there were also a large number of transfers from Blue Swift. Many of those transfers are now undoubtably being made to Link at North Shoreline instead.

   How many? Who knows. Metro undoubtably has ORCA card transfer data for the Aurora Village stop. Such data would give us a clue about what to expect with Blue Swift transfers, but Metro never seems to be too forthcoming with such data.

   The other interesting thing about the data is that the second highest boarding stop is not a terminus, but is actually at Third and Pike. There are two explanations for this:

   1). We all know what goes on at Third and Pike, so maybe this is just RR E riders using the system to do a little “shopping” on their favorite street corner.

   2). This is the first opportunity for RR E riders from North Seattle and a north King to transfer to Link. So maybe that is what is happening. Again, ORCA transfer data would tell us for sure.

   1. The 348 didn’t get any major changes in the restructure, yet its October ridership was up by a whopping 65%.

      Yes it did. It replaced the 347 in Seattle. For many of the riders (myself included) they was just one bus with a long name (“the 347/348”). Now there is just the 348. Basically they just changed the number, which meant that all those riders who only rode the bus in Seattle are now taking the 348. About half of the ridership of the old 347 was within Seattle. With ridership of about 1,200 a day, that means 600 additional riders on the 348, even if no one changed their habits. Ridership went up about 800 riders. Thus about 75% of the increase is simply because they changed the number (within Seattle).

      But they also doubled the frequency (in Shoreline)*. As you would expect, this has led to an increase in ridership on that part of the route. The Link extension probably accounted for some increase, but less than 25%, and probably much less than that.

      *It is worth noting that not all of the 348 got double the frequency. It now branches at 3rd NW, with half the trips going to Richmond Beach and the other half looping around in the Richmond Highlands. But this part of the route did not account for a lot of ridership (about 70 riders). So even if you doubled frequency on this part of the route it wouldn’t increase ridership that much.

   2. The highest boarding stop on the E in 2023 was at Aurora Village. Some of that is just the terminus effect, but there were also a large number of transfers from Blue Swift.

      The transfer from Swift is the terminus effect.

      Many of those transfers are now undoubtably being made to Link at North Shoreline instead.

      Right, but so far, it seems to have little effect at all. Ridership in September was the highest it has been since the pandemic. Ridership in October is just a little bit lower (and second highest). Whatever effect it has had is subtle to nonexistent.

   3. Many of those transfers are now undoubtably being made to Link at North Shoreline instead.

      How many? Who knows. Metro undoubtably has ORCA card transfer data for the Aurora Village stop. Such data would give us a clue about what to expect with Blue Swift transfers, but Metro never seems to be too forthcoming with such data.

      Wait a second. You are saying that instead of Community Transit producing stop data, you want Metro to produce stop data … for Community Transit? Seriously? That is absurd.

      Community Transit doesn’t release ridership data for their routes. Metro releases ridership data for all of their routes. It is a bit of a hassle, but you can get full stop data for Metro. I know of no way to get stop data for any Community Transit route. Yet the problem is Metro?

      Meanwhile, Sound Transit hasn’t released stop data on their buses in years. The only way to get that data is if the bus is operated by Metro (e. g. I can get that data for the 550 through Metro but since the 510 is operated by Community Transit I am out of luck). Meanwhile, it has also been years since ST released directional stop data on Link. Metro has more data available than any other agency, and yet they are the ones you criticize.

      I gotta give you credit, Lazarus, your Metro hatred shows no limit.

   4. The other interesting thing about the data is that the second highest boarding stop is not a terminus, but is actually at Third and Pike. There are two explanations for this:

      1). We all know what goes on at Third and Pike, so maybe this is just RR E riders using the system to do a little “shopping” on their favorite street corner.
      

      Wow, that reads like a comment from The Seattle Times. Riders of the E are all junkies.

      2). This is the first opportunity for RR E riders from North Seattle and a north King to transfer to Link. So maybe that is what is happening.

      If you are transferring north (to Capitol Hill) then it would make sense to transfer there. But if you are heading south then it would make sense to transfer later. Google suggests Symphony Station going south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2d6TtpjhmY7bjdqQ8) and Pioneer Square Station going north (https://maps.app.goo.gl/t4DoK7NcBPxkqNUp6). So basically this makes sense if you are headed to Capitol Hill (on Link) but otherwise there are better options. Other factors include:

      1) It is more or less the center of downtown. The route is linear through there, with pretty big gaps. Basically it is the closest stops to more places.

      2) It is a transfer point for buses up to Capitol Hill. Like the reverse transfer to Link, this probably doesn’t account for too many riders, but it still adds up.

      My guess is the biggest factor is the first one. It is just closer to more places. This is consistent with the handful of buses that I just looked at (3, 5, 24). Pike/Pine seems to be the stop with the highest ridership downtown.

Comments are closed.