Ridership Patterns for RapidRide H Line

65 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for RapidRide H Line”

1. Comparing the ridership of H, which goes to White Center and Burien, to C which goes to the junction, I see a case for just running WSLE at-grade down Delridge and Ambaum.

   Not to mention it would likely be much, much cheaper. But also it would be serving more people with a one seat ride (eventually), and people who likely would benefit more materially from access to quality transit in life-changing ways.

   1. The stretch between the Westwood Village and the West Seattle Bridge is quite low compared with volumes in Westwood and White Center and stops south of there.

      Delridge is also narrow in this stretch. It’s not a street like much of Rainier or Northgate Way with four through lanes and a two-way left turn lane. Putting a light rail vehicle other than a subway looks tough.

      To me, the effort to go further south from the current West Seattle planned line following Delridge may be a nice idea but I don’t see a clear value added in terms of ridership.

      1. As one of the advocates of diverting the then-120 to Westwood, and creating a de facto transit center there (sans the obligatory park & ride, the walling off of riders from nearby businesses on three sides, and a loop de loop to serve the de facto transit center), I have to point out that:

         1) The southeast corner of Westwood is now a de facto transit center;

         2) Delridge is a food desert. The H Line addressed this dearth not just by stopping close to the Westwood QFC and Target, but also by having a stop a block away from the Roxbury Safeway.

         3) There is a large multi-story apartment complex across the street from Westwood to the east.

      2. @ Brent:

         The points you make are good. It’s important to have a frequent bus route on Delridge that has stops at local spacing and serves local destinations.

         Cam’s post is about extending light rail. That’s generally fewer stops and more geared to serving longer distance trips.

      3. Elevated? Then our favorite city council member can pick up his kid. Win win.

   2. There have been increasing calls to reroute Link to Delridge, both to serve a lower-income and higher-ridership area, and to minimize hills and expensive tunnels, and to position it better for an extension to Burien and Renton. But we voted for the current routing in 2016, and it serves the largest urban center in West Seattle, which Delridge wouldn’t.

      1. Reroute link down Delridge. Build a gondola connection that links the Junction to Delridge station with a stop at Avalon using the money saved by avoiding tunneling. Win-win.

      2. I don’t think this would be a particularly good use of a gondola. Gondolas work best for point-point transportation, but what Link feeders should be making regular stops along a corridor, not just connecting two specific points. This maximizes the number of people that can have a one-seat ride to Link, rather than forcing people to take bus->gondola->Link to go downtown. And, the best way to serve regular stops along a corridor is to just run a bus.

      3. I think going down Delridge would face similar concerns to the current one that would ultimately force it underground. There’s not enough room on Delridge to run long trains on the surface, and going aerial looks very controversial. Even RapidRide H cannot create bus only lanes on long segments because it’s just not that wide.

      4. @ asdf2:

         Yes I concur. It’s already been documented that most West Seattle Link boardings are coming from buses. And ST has a terrible track record building easy transfers.

         If ST started planning and building seamless transfers it could work as a horizontal platform elevator, but that’s not the way ST lays out stations. No doubt ST would want to force riders to another vertical device just to get to the gondola at each end. So it would probably be street to elevator/ stairs to gondola to a second elevator/ stairs just to get to the 3 Line.

      5. > There’s not enough room on Delridge to run long trains on the surface

         There’s enough space on Delridge. It was actually the original alternative for west seattle link extension to go down Delridge.

         https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/C-03c_DtSeatoDelridge_FTemp.pdf

         > This project would provide light rail from Downtown Seattle to White Center via Delridge Way SW with both elevated and at-grade sections, a new rail-only fixed span crossing of the Duwamish River, and five stations.
         > Two elevated stations: SODO and Delridge; three at-grade stations: Stadium, Thistle, and White Center. Stations accommodate 4-car trains

      6. @ WL:

         I trust a Google map aerials and street views about the right of way on Delridge more than an ST sketch planning study with a wide range of concepts. We already know how wrong ST has been with the costs and designs for their ST3 project development already.

         The needed real-world space is just not there.

      7. @ Al S.

         Perhaps you can expand or explain why the real world space is not there?

         I checked google maps and there is space.

      8. Well let’s see….

         At the surface ST likes to have 30 feet of cross section. Any tighter on a street they risk having cars and trains sideswipe each other. They need room for power and train signal poles too. Plus the speeds of the trains would need to be restricted even more than MLK – probably like 20-25 mph. Delridge appears to have 50 feet of width total but it gets much narrower the further south one goes and it looks like it drops to about 40-45 for quite a distance. Take a look at Delridge and Thistle to see how narrow it gets. So that would require taking all the parking — and there would end up being just 10 feet of pavement on either side on the northerly blocks but the trains would be running in traffic lanes in more southerly blocks because that’s the only way they could operate without taking lots of homes. While it’s possible to have a single 10 foot travel lane on a two-way street because there are two of them. on a single lane with light rail tracks adjacent it’s just not practical. That’s on top of older residences and small businesses with nowhere to park.

         Closing the street one way or both ways would create a “transit mall” so the speeds would drop to something like 10-15 mph. And of course the lack of parallel streets means that fire trucks could not get down the street.

         The surface option narrowness could be remedied by taking a whole half-block of homes on the entire stretch. I don’t see that happening politically.

         That leaves going aerial. That’s technically much more doable but residents would be unglued living underneath a light rail track. Plus there would be some serious equity concerns as the street has more affordable housing where less wealthy people live that would get negative impacts. And there is quite a nice tree canopy on many blocks so the tree advocates would complain. With the loss of so many trees. Trains could operate faster on aerial tracks. But adding the structures increases the cost significantly.

         In either situation the street would be closed for at least a year at a time. And Delridge is the only way to reach homes or businesses not only on Delridge but on several side streets that only open out to Delridge too.

         And that doesn’t even get to how any train stopping for any reason would block about 2 blocks backwards. That includes stopping at pedestrian crosswalks which would need to be signalized.

         It really is a nice idea. It’s just an expensive ir disruptive one.

      9. Maybe at-grade until it approaches White Center, then elevated.

         I’d take disruptive to have a freakin’ train in front of my house.

         We will never build an affordable, quality transit system if we don’t want to be “disruptive.”

         Break some eggs. Enjoy a forever-omelet.

      10. > Delridge appears to have 50 feet of width total but it gets much narrower the further south one goes and it looks like it drops to about 40-45 for quite a distance. Take a look at Delridge and Thistle to see how narrow it gets. So that would require taking all the parking

          The light rail will redo the road so we can expand out to the limits of the sidewalk. It’s can get to 50 feet by removing all the vegetation buffer between the sidewalk and the road. All the parking will have to be removed.

          But it is definitely buildable.

          > In either situation the street would be closed for at least a year at a time. And Delridge is the only way to reach homes or businesses not only on Delridge but on several side streets that only open out to Delridge too.

          The same is for all the other construction. If you want no construction impacts, then basically it’s saying to never build transit

   3. I see a case for just running WSLE at-grade down Delridge and Ambaum.

      Yep. It is about cost and value. The cost to just get to the three stations is extremely high because you have to gain so much elevation. Meanwhile, you don’t add much value because there are only three stations and all three are very close to the expressway — right at the point where the bus ride is about to get fast. Thus someone from say, Westwood Village slogs along and just when the bus is about to run in express mode to downtown it quits. Riders have to get off the bus and wait for the train.

      In contrast you could easily build subway line to Westwood Village. It would not go high over the Duwamish, but be a relatively low drawbridge. Stops would be added every half mile or so. The train would be faster than driving (even at noon) because it would avoid the various stop lights (as well as traffic). I’m not saying it would be a great line, but it would certainly be better than what they have planned.

2. Metro has forced the remaining Burien-downtown riders onto the H Line, 131, 132, or 1 Line, by getting rid of routes 121-123.

   The 131 is pretty fast except for the loop-de-loop to get across the 1st Ave Bridge.

   The main barriers to taking the 1 Line as the express option are lack of unlimited parking at Tukwila International Boulevard Station and the lack of quick and frequent transit between Burien and TIBS.

   The Federal Way Link bus restructure offers no help in this regard.

   .

   There is only so much there there in downtown Burien. The real job center is the airport. Indeed, SeaTac Airport Station has boomed up to second in ridership.

   Getting there from Burien Transit Center is a menagerie of semi-frequent F Line service, the semi-frequent-during-peak 161, or the infrequent ST Express 560.

   The Federal Way Link bus restructure offers no help, despite the increasing gravity well of SAS and TIBS.

   .

   I would like to see the F Line frequency improved to address both of these problems.

3. Given that Metro is collecting feedback about South County changes, you should review the ridership patterns of the affected routes. It’ll give us a better insight on whether the changes are justified or need… changing.

   1. Michael Smith, that might be a good idea. We have had some articles on those routes, although not in this series:

      RapidRide A, the surprising efficiency thereof (Andrew Bowen)

      RapidRide corridor 1049 (Route 150) (Martin Pagel)

      RapidRide corridor 1052 (Route 181) (Wesley Lin)

      Yes, all frequent routes in the South Link restructure are RapidRide candidate corridors: A (already implemented), 150, 181, 160 (not in the restructure but I Line construction starts next year).

   2. This is a great idea, thanks Jordan. Independent of the upcoming restructure, I’m working on a ridership patterns article for RapidRide A that should be posted within the next few weeks. I think a second article that covers the routes affected by the restructure would be useful as well, I’ll add it to my list.

4. It would help the Burien situation somewhat if the H at least took a direct path to the West Seattle bridge. The White Center detour serves no purpose except to shunt bus riders away from a business district – it should be eliminated. Even Westwood Village, the added walk if that detour were eliminated would be under half a mile, and the 21 and C could be extended to Delridge, avoiding the need for people making connections to do even that (while also providing an option for mobility challenged people to continue to access the Westwood Village shopping center). What makes the Burien to downtown situation so bad is that there are three routes, but none are straight or direct, and all of them are primarily interested in other parts of the route, with Burien added as a captive-audience afterthought.

   1. ” The White Center detour serves no purpose except to shunt bus riders away from a business district”

      The White Center routing is going to a business district. The Westwood Village routing serves an urban center, the largest in West Seattle after the Junction, and which is expected to grow.

      1. The White Center jog does take it off the main-drag business strip (16th). Though 15th is faster and less people backing out of their parking spots in front of the bus.

      2. Exactly, Cam. 16th in White Center’s heart is a parking lot with only back-in angled parking and a barrier separating the traffic lanes. A bus would be unable to move when someone parks.

         And some of those blockfaces have almost entirely business storefronts on the sidewalk so removing their on-street parking would mean disaster for them.

   2. Do you know where White Center is?

      It is right on the straight path from Burien to Delridge! The 120 has always served it because it is the busiest business district on the once-pretty-straight 120 line between Burien and downtown.

      1. The direct route through the White Center business district is 16th, but the bus detours to 15th. 15th is a dark street with no much around, and the detour adds turns to the route, which adds time. It would serve everyone on the bus better to just take 16th and go in a straight line, stopping right in front of the stores.

         My guess is that the reason for the detour is that business owners asked for it because they don’t want parking in front of their store displaced for a bus stop, and they want the riffraff riders waiting for the bus a block away so that car- driving customers don’t have to see them. Our former commenter, Daniel Thompson would have identified with this view 100%. But, I say, tough. Outdated prejudice against bus riders should not be used as an excuse to make the bus slower and less useful for everyone.

      2. I doubt it is only pushback from the business owners. That stretch has gotten better, but is still pretty rough. I remember not too long ago prolonged shootouts in the middle of 16th. Not to mention arson and a whole bunch of concerning shit. The bus riders might actually take 16th up a notch.

         The parking is a different story.

         That stretch is all back-angle parking on a narrow road. It’s slow going through there as you wait for cars to back in or pull out. It is likely, on average, slower as it’s currently configured.

         Yes, the obvious answer is to reconfigure the parking.

      3. The White Center DSHS office is on 15th Ave SW.. That is probably the largest source of ridership on route 60 west of Cleveland High. and, the data shows, the busiest stop on the H Line between 128th and Westwood.

5. A good RapidRide route provides great local service and great regional connectivity. The challenge with this route appears to be whether it’s connecting residents with local destinations versus regional ones. Diverting to Westwood Village is essential for local trips but it does add travel time.

   These things are often trade offs. However it does seem time consuming for a rider between northern Burien and Downtown Seattle.

   1. I think the answer is pretty simple: add express buses from Burien. The problem is cost.

6. One of the issues that I never see discussed is whether just ending at the Burien Transit Center is the best option or if Burien’s expansive retail district should be served by additional RR-H stops. It’s quite a long walk to Fred Meyer or Trader Joe’s from the BTC.

   Certainly suburban transit centers are useful for transferring and driver breaks. And I don’t see an obvious way to reroute or extend this route. But since the BTC gets so much demand I thought it would be interesting to mention the topic.

   1. Now that you mention it, it looks like Burien doesn’t have any local cross town routes. All routes (except the 560) start or end in the transit center and only travel one direction into/out of Burien. Given the transit center is needed for layover space and driver breaks, an existing route could be extended past the TC, then loop back around to still end at the TC. This would still require a transfer for riders traveling in one direction (similar to Route 7’s Prentice St loop).

      1. Now that you mention it, it looks like Burien doesn’t have any local cross town routes. All routes (except the 560) start or end in the transit center and only travel one direction into/out of Burien.

         I think that is mainly because of how far it is to Seattle. I could see the 131 combined with the 165, but that gets very long (too long, really). Same thing goes with extending the H. The F isn’t too long, so it could maybe take over the 631 loop. But I think only a handful of riders would actually benefit.

         Overall I would say that the transit center is fairly close to the heart of things. The other places (like Fred Meyer) aren’t likely to have that many riders. Coverage is also pretty good. I think Bellevue Transit is where a little extra lollipop loop would make add way more value. Plenty of buses just end there even though it is a long walk to skyscrapers.

      2. “ The other places (like Fred Meyer) aren’t likely to have that many riders. ”

         That conclusion seems wrong. How can a city’s biggest retail store that’s a giant supermarket plus a home goods, pharmacy and low cost clothing store in a less wealthy neighborhood not be an important rider destination?

      3. How can a city’s biggest retail store that’s a giant supermarket plus a home goods, pharmacy and low cost clothing store in a less wealthy neighborhood not be an important rider destination?

         Because there is very little around it. And there are other stores. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be service there (there is) but I’m saying it is a bit much to suggest that a frequent route be sent there as well. How exactly would you serve it?

      4. Al, it wouldn’t make sense to extend the H Line to Fred Meyer. There’s already a route that goes to that store from the Burien TC. The routes 131 and 132 alternate, and combine to make frequent service to Fredy Meyer. The route 131 stops in front of the store, and the 132 stops a block away.

      5. I think it would be worth doing an entire post someday about the value of having transit serve big-box retail destinations, such as Target or Fred Meyer, because I think the issue is really nuanced. On the one hand, it has a lot of essential stuff that people need. On the other hand, access to any particular store is unimportant for customers if there’s a close substitute. And, of course, people can always order stuff online and have it delivered, and not go to the store at all.

         Looking at service patterns systemwide, I don’t think Metro has a standard policy. There are some retail centers where Metro detours buses to get closer to (e.g. Westwood Village), and others where it seems Metro could care less about how easy/difficult it is to get there on transit (e.g. Fred Meyer just east of Marrymore Village station, or the Target/REI/Home Depot/Best Buy just across the freeway from downtown Bellevue).

         Another complication, of course, is that people work at these stores as well as shop there, and workers often have different needs from shoppers (e.g. substitutes don’t work, and you need buses that run late, as store employees often need to work later than the store is open to customers). Retail workers are also typically low-income, and could stand to benefit a lot financially if they can get away with not needing a car.

      6. @ Ross and Sam:

         I’m merely pointing out that the expansive north-south retail district is seemingly not adequately served by just a transit center that’s a block away.

         Solutions can take lots of forms. RR-H doesn’t appear that easy to extend. Maybe it’s one of Route 131 or 132, or 161 or a split 165 (proposed w FW Link restructuring). Maybe it’s a circulator like Route 631 that would extend to serve more retail.

         Perhaps RR-H and Route 131 should simply swap paths at White Center (with 131 earning RapidRide status).

         Changing local transit service l requires community input and rider surveys and analysis. Residents who can’t afford cars make residential and job choices partly on bus routes. Regardless, having one route (any route) that serves the entire strip between 136th and 160th looks appealing for those doing shopping and errands on transit.

      7. “ I think it would be worth doing an entire post someday about the value of having transit serve big-box retail destinations, such as Target or Fred Meyer, because I think the issue is really nuanced.”

         With all the boarding data being analyzed it would be curious to see the nearby bus stop boardings at every Fred Meyer location, Target location and Walmart location in King County. In many cases it would be hard to assume that all stop users are going to the stores to work or shop — but the aggregate info may shed light on how important to serve this type of retail.

      8. @ asdf2:

         I’ll add that there seems to be a huge difference about what is “big box”. Home improvement supplies and bulk packaging purchase stores probably get fewer shopping bus riders than blended supermarket + low cost dry goods do.

      9. This is getting into a Burien restructure, which is far beyond what Metro is prepared to do in the South Link restructure. Somebody can write an article about an integrated Burien network and improving Delridge/White Center if they wish. Then we can recommend it to Metro and ST. The Stride 1 restructure later this decade would be an opportunity for it.

         The strongest argument I hear is that Burien needs through service so that people can get to several parts if it without a gratuitous transfer. The city has grown since Burien TC was built, so more people are going to all parts of Burien and need through service. In particular, people are going from all parts of Burien to the airport, Seattle, and the Burien Fred Meyer.

      10. RR-H doesn’t appear that easy to extend. Maybe it’s one of Route 131 or 132, or 161 or a split 165

          It is served by both the 131 and 132. The 131 stops across the street from it. The 132 is not that far away (https://maps.app.goo.gl/rcNV9zwBy9MmUvdu8).

          Look, I’m no fan of transit centers. You basically create a hub-and-spoke system instead of a far more useful and efficient grid. But as far as transit centers go, this is one of the better ones. It isn’t that far from the library (which is close to the retail center). You are very close to what is probably the biggest cluster of density in Burien. You are also about half way between a Safeway and a Grocery Outlet. Meanwhile you’ve got a spine of sorts to the library/retail center (for those mobility impaired). No, it ain’t Brooklyn, but it is about as good as it gets for Burien and there is room to grow.

          We can’t forget the main purpose of transit centers: It is a place where buses can turn around and layover. That’s it. By all means if there was a good place to do that by the library I would extend the H. If there was a good place to do that by the Fred Meyer than you might as well extend the 165 and 631. But there is really *nothing* by the Fred Meyer other than the store itself. I think it has enough service with the 131/132.

          Oh, and if you were wondering, there aren’t that many riders that use the stops close to the Fred Meyer. The stop at 112th & 1st (served only by the 131) has way more riders than the combined ridership of the stops close to Fred Meyer.

      11. “Oh, and if you were wondering, there aren’t that many riders that use the stops close to the Fred Meyer.”

          That doesn’t surprise me. It looks like it’s about a 2000 foot walk including crossing two major roads. While not great, I would think shoppers with perishables wouldn’t wait for a bus just to get to the TC and wait to board another one.

          It would be interesting where all those Burien boardings are coming from — local locations or from the several buses that converge there. Note too the stop data shows pretty strong midday, evening and late night use.

          I would agree with Mike that a Burien area restructure should be considered when Stride opens and 560 goes away. Meanwhile, Metro has its hands full getting ready for FW Link and full East Link in the next 18 months.

          I just thought it was a relevant topic when I saw the strong activity at Burien TC in the chart.

      12. “Perhaps RR-H and Route 131 should simply swap paths at White Center (with 131 earning RapidRide status). ”

          The 131 is a coverage route. There’s no way Metro would make it RapidRide. It’s paired with the 132 for 15-minute service on 4th Ave S. I take it to Costco. It and the 132 are 5-15 minutes late every day from 10am-8pm, so they often bunch. I looked at an adult family home in north Burien on the 131, but with its unreliability I might have to wait 45 minutes for a 30-minute route, and it was unsafe to cross 1st Ave S to get to the bus stop and there was no sidewalk or place to sit, so I turned down the home. The stop is at 1st & 120th if I remember.

          You want the H to go from 15th & Roxbury to 8th & Roxbury, then make the four turns to 112th & 1st Ave S and continue to Burien? And the 131 would take on the Ambaum Blvd routing? And the RapidRide stations would be moved, and the RapidRide street improvements abandoned to a coverage route? Or we could upgrade 1st, but that would be another RapidRide project, and Metro already has a half dozen in the queue.

      13. That doesn’t surprise me. It looks like it’s about a 2000 foot walk including crossing two major roads.

          No it’s not! It is literally right next to the entrance: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4v4LFU35eez4rK8i6.

          I just thought it was a relevant topic when I saw the strong activity at Burien TC in the chart.

          That’s fine. You had your theory but it was wrong. You clearly didn’t do your research. You didn’t bother to check to see if a bus served it (and it does). One bus goes right next to it and the other bus is pretty damn close.

          That’s fine. Everyone makes mistakes. But now you are simply ignoring the facts. The 132 comes close to serving it. The 131 has a bus stop right next to it. Yet none of those stops get a significant number of riders. It isn’t a major destination. Here are some sample numbers (includes people going both directions):

          Ridership for the 131 by stop:
          1st & 143rd (right next to Fred Meyer): 58
          131: 1st & 128th: 51
          131: 1st & 112th: 115

          Ridership for the 132 by stop:
          1st & 146th (closest stop on the 132 to the Fred Meyer): 42

          On neither bus does the Fred Meyer stop stand out. The stop at 112th (served by same bus) has more than twice as many riders. Even when you include the riders for the 131 (for those that missed the 132 and didn’t want to wait) you still have fewer riders. It just isn’t that big of a destination.

          Yes, ridership at the terminus of this bus is really high. It happens to be high for a couple reasons. First, there are transfers. That is the nature of transit centers — the transfers all happen at one place. Of course there are both local transfers and long distance transfers. But this is a good thing. It is not a problem to be solved.

          The second reason ridership is so high there is because lots of people live around there. There is also plenty of retail fairly nearby along with the library. Of course it is easy to imagine it being a bit better, but I don’t see how or why you would send another to the Fred Meyer.

      14. The 2000 foot reference is the distance between Fred Meyer the Burien TC — and not the nearest bus stop, Ross. Clearly you misunderstood my point.

          I’m actually partly agreeing with your earlier comment that the TC is close enough for some. My guess was simply that 2000 feet is walkable so some Fred Meyer patrons likely would just walk to the TC and not wait for 131/132.

      15. The 2000 foot reference is the distance between Fred Meyer the Burien TC

          OK, but that is irrelevant. The point is, the Fred Meyer has frequent service. Yet despite the frequent service it has low ridership (compared to other destinations along the way). It is not important in terms of ridership and it already has coverage. You may think it is an important destination but the people who actually ride the buses do not.

   2. Isn’t every route’s terminus not close to some other part of town?

   3. I agree. The H should be extended a mile to cover the Burien business district.

      1. Do you mean the strip across from the library? If so it should be noted that isn’t that far of a walk and buses come fairly frequently (https://maps.app.goo.gl/3VeTfSEsrSR7u5b47). If there was a layover/turnaround stop there, then definitely. But I don’t think it justifies a loop given all the other service (F, 161, 165, 631). Personally I would just walk it (I’ve walked in the area quite a bit) but if there are great options if you can’t or don’t want to.

7. Does losing ST 560 to Stride 1 change what should be done here? Should the West Seattle – Burien segment be served another way (like an extension of ST 574 northward from SeaTac)? Should Sound Transit be on the hook for some RR-H service or improvements?

   1. I would love to see an extension of the 574 to West Seattle. I could even imagine it via 518/509 to Roxbury, and then perhaps on the Westwood and the Junctions.

      With the expected truncation of ST express routes at FWTC and elimination of 560, a trip from the south is turning from a 2-seat to a 4-seat ride.

      Nobody in their right mind would sign themselves up for a 4 seat ride.

8. Did anyone bother to collect data on how the H line has impacted car transit times? The reduction of Ambaum to one lane for vehicle traffic has added significant drive time for locals.

   Say what you will about connecting people to places via mass transit, folks seems to completely blind to how major transit redesigns adversely affect conditions for local vehicle traffic and actually disconnect us from our own communities. For instance, we are White Center residents and, since the Ambaum redesign, we opt to eat and shop in Burien less than half as often as before.

   I propose a simple fix: make the bus-only lane an HOV lane instead. This would dramatically improve the flow of traffic and get rid of the ridiculous single-file bottlenecking at traffic lights that the H line has cursed our community with.

   1. We’re a transit blog so unsurprisingly we’re more supportive of the BAT lanes (partial bus lanes).

      For the white center to burien segment there isn’t as much details as the seattle to white center segment. But I can find https://b-townblog.com/burien-council-endorses-metro-changes-to-ambaum-blvd-for-rapidride-h-line/

      > (during peak times) buses would travel 13 percent faster, but cars would take 5 percent more time to travel north on Ambaum. Southbound, buses would have a 13 percent improvement in travel time, but cars would take 8 percent more time to travel the same route.

      For

      > I propose a simple fix: make the bus-only lane an HOV lane instead. This would dramatically improve the flow of traffic and get rid of the ridiculous single-file bottlenecking at traffic lights that the H line has cursed our community with.

      It’s not unheard of. It’s what the rapidride A uses on pacific highway. Though the downside is that 1) enforcement of hov cars is a lot harder and 2) even if legal you can end up with too many hov cars as well

      1. I’ll also add to that a #3. When a bus stop is in front of an intersection, even a small number of cars waiting for the light in the curb lane can delay the bus an entire light cycle because the bus can’t reach the stop to opens its doors until the light turns green all the cars in front of the bus move out of the way, which leaves things perfectly timed for the light to turn red again, right as the bus is about to start moving.

         Granted, this can be avoided by putting the bus stops after the intersection, but that has tradeoffs. In particular, if the bigger activity center is on the side of the street the bus reaches first, then people getting off there get delayed by two additional light cycles (the first one on the bus to reach the stop, the second, crossing the street on foot the other direction).

         This phenomenon is particularly bad for streetcars, which have to be perfectly positioned to open their doors, so even one single car waiting for a red light in the streetcar lane delays the streetcar and entire light cycle. This happens in both First Hill and South Lake Union all the time.

      2. @asdf2

         It’s for that reason that king county metro likes to place the bus stops on the far side. also tsp works better when the bus stops are on the far side.

      3. “When a bus stop is in front of an intersection, even a small number of cars waiting for the light in the curb lane can delay the bus an entire light cycle because the bus can’t reach the stop to opens its doors until the light turns green all the cars in front of the bus move out of the way, which leaves things perfectly timed for the light to turn red again, right as the bus is about to start moving.”

         Metro moved most of the nearside stops to the farside in the 1990s because of this. I guess they’ve crept back somewhat. The ones I can think of off the top of my head:
         1. Last route 2 northound stop: very low-volume intersection.
         2. 3rd & Union northound: transit-only lane.
         3. Pine & Summit both directions: I don’t know why. The stop announcement is also the previous street even though the stop is closer to the following street.
         4. 45th & University Way NE eastbound: probably to be closest to the pedestrian destinations on University Way, although the stop may have been moved west to make it Brooklyn farside.

   2. I have a friend in White Center who loves the H, and goes to Burien more than ever because he can take a quick bus that doesn’t get stuck in traffic, and has high frequency. He doesn’t worry about having a couple of beers at Elliot Bay and murdering a neighbor on the way home. The previous bus was slow, infrequent and got stuck in traffic, so he wouldn’t take it.

      Maybe try it? You might like it.

   3. It is counter-intuitive but in the long run the bus lanes reduce traffic. It is basically a corollary of induced demand (and the opposite, reduced demand). Specifically it is the Downs-Thompson Paradox. To quote the Wikipedia page:

      the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport or the next best alternative.

      The idea is consistent with general economic theory and there have been some studies to support the idea. There are plenty of references here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand. To quote Wikipedia again:

      Although consistent with economic theory, it is a paradox in that it contradicts the common expectation that improvements in the road network will reduce traffic congestion. In actuality, any improvements in road networks lead to no alleviation of congestion, but usually more use of those roads: what is often referred to as induced demand. Improvements to the road network may even make congestion worse if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient to use, or if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system.

      Of course most of the studies are about the long term. It may take a while for people to adjust. I have no idea how long it typically takes.

   4. Are you unable to get through the intersections in one green? Or do you just miss the speedway aspect, where you could weave through the people going slower, back when it was 4 lanes?

9. “King County Transportation Policy Advisor Chris Arkills confirmed West Seattle bus routes will not be restructured until the Ballard Link Extension is complete in 2039”.
   Mr. Arkills cannot know that. It is a long time from now. It may be the recommendation of the current planners, advisors, and management. That group tends to be very cautious. That group did not make changes to protect routes 131 and 132 when the West Seattle bridge was out; that group did not make changes when the H line was implemented.

   Should ST delay construction of West Seattle Link until it can go through the DSTT? That could shift fiscal and staff resources to more useful projects.

   1. Arkills was probably just referring to not truncating downtown routes until West Seattle Link goes downtown. That doesn’t preclude smaller changes. Exchanging the H and 131 tails would mostly be outside West Seattle. Stride 1 will remove the 560 from Westwood Village before Ballard Link opens, so that will eliminate a Westwood Village-Burien express if Metro cares.

10. Does anyone here use the 560 at Westwood Village? Is it a nice express to Burien/Renton/Bellevue, or too infrequent to use?

    1. I use it. I get on/off on Roxbury and 20-something, and walk back to White Center, because the 560 bypasses White Center, oddly.

       It’s okay. I use it to transfer to the 574 in front of Seatac for a 2-seat ride, and I’ve never had to wait that long, but maybe I’ve just gotten lucky. It’s pretty slow for an express because it sometimes hangs out in the Burien Transit Center to rejigger it’s schedule.

       The other choice is going through downtown via 594 or Sounder and using the H.

Comments are closed.