Ridership Patterns for King County Metro Route 44

100 Replies to “Ridership Patterns for King County Metro Route 44”

1. The 43 is an interesting route. It was cut back not due to lack of ridership but due to “we need to kill one bus route because we opened light rail and redistribute the service hours elsewhere” despite it being Capitol Hill the most transit riding community north of SF and south of Vancouver. The new 43 route is actually quite good as it covers new area vs being the 6th bus on Pike/Pine to Downtown… runs 12th/Jackson up Broadway through First Hill then picks up its old route at CH Station on John/Thomas then 23rd/Montlake. As its now designed solely to serve the 44 buses accessing Atlantic Base, it has a crazy schedule, very little service at rush hour periods (most is 5-7am and 7-10pm), there is a 1 hour window at the height of rush hour in the morning with no service (6:50-7:50am) yet at 4:15 am it’ll be zipping along the route. The buses that do run closest to rush hour do actually have strong loads… Its largely people going to UWMC and catching 255, 271, 542 buses… its a lot easier to catch the 43 that runs past your apartment on First Hill, Capitol Hill or Montlake area than catch a bus to light rail and ride it one stop and then scurry across 10 lanes of traffic outside UW station. Would be nice if more service was provided on the 43 as its become more of a crosstown route.

   1. The problem I have with the 43 is the same problem I have with most of the buses in the greater Central Area. At an abstract level they are fine. But the combined network is very poor. Headways on key corridors and popular areas are poor. Routes often follow the same general pathway but a block or two over. Some buses overlap but they don’t really complement each other. Various routes zig-zag, delaying riders and further degrading frequency in the region.

      For example the 8 and 48 both run north from Mount Baker Station even though they are often just a few blocks from each other. They do combine for one bus stop but only because the 8 detours and then detours back. The 8 turns as it reaches Thomas while the 48 keeps going. The 48 overlaps with the 43 in Montlake — the area that is probably the least densely populated part of the corridor. But at least the folks in Montlake have good combined frequency right? Wrong. The 43 runs so infrequently it becomes a random occurrence. “Hey, look at that. A 43. Should we take it? Do you remember where it goes?”

      There are always trade-offs with transit. There are always places that should probably get a bit more or a bit less service relative to the rest of region. Those sorts of discussions are tough. But we aren’t even at that point. If the 48 and 8 overlapped each other (and were synchronized) we might wonder if we need two buses along that corridor. If the 43 and 48 did the same thing in Montlake we might ask the same thing. But in both cases it doesn’t matter. The network is so messed up it isn’t a matter of providing excessive service anywhere. Everybody is screwed.

      It isn’t just there, either. The 2 and G run very close to each other through one of the most urban areas in the state. But if you are going to downtown you have to pick one. The streetcar and the 60 run along Broadway. Except the 60 leaves Broadway and then comes back to it. This means it is impossible to have the two combine for good headways on the corridor (when they even combine at all). The 49 also serves part of Broadway but after passing by the Link Station (where riders can transfer to go downtown) it inexplicably takes a sharp turn towards downtown. Oh, and the 9 also goes up Broadway but is so infrequent it really doesn’t matter.

      It is not just corridors. At Kaiser-Permanente there are nine buses an hour running downtown. That is pretty good. That means I can go to a bus stop and expect a bus about every six or seven minutes right? Wrong. They all go on different, unique paths. There is also the 8 which connects riders to Link. A two-seat ride to go a fairly short distance is overkill but that could work. The 8 and 11 both follow the same pathway too. Maybe the 8 and 11 — both being urban buses — will combine for good headways to the station. They don’t. The 8 runs every fifteen minutes and the 11 runs every twenty. Good luck combining those buses.

      Some of this is clearly history. They don’t want to change the routes. But a lot of it is this pathological aversion to making a transfer. Which brings me back to the 43. It has a great set of one-seat rides. Wonderful. But we can’t justify running a bus like that for the foreseeable future. If the 48 is running every six minutes and is full of riders then sure, run the 43. But that isn’t the world we live in. Two buses through Montlake (one running infrequently and one running very infrequently) is not a good use of our precious service dollars (even when we had a lot more of them). Of course it makes sense to have good one-seat rides but in our zest to create a seemingly infinite number of them in the area we have failed to provide that as well. Twenty minute frequency from various parts of Capitol Hill to downtown? WTF?

      We need to create a network that is more efficient with buses running more often (and buses combining in areas to run a lot more often).

      1. Part of the problem is two east-west corridors in Capitol Hill… Pike-Pine and Olive/John/Thomas. One has a huge concentration of destinations, the other has a decent amount of destinations plus a major light rail station. Serve one well and you neglect the other.

         Agreed there is a need for a major route with frequent service versus now with a bundle of uncoordinated lines each with a wide range of headways.

         Stating the obvious here but people like one seat rides because you don’t have to stress out about making your transfer (or only have to worry about one transfer vs coordinating the riming of two transfers especially with a traffic clogged unreliable system). Not saying we must keep them but theres a reason people like them. Transfer/grid systems only really work with very frequent headways, really good transfer points and reliable buses. No one wants to just miss their bus and have to wait 15-20-30-60 minutes for the next one. Fortunately the 30-60 min headways are rare here in Central Seattle but some places I’ve been like Denver have these very infrequent headways with a grid/transfer based system and I really don’t know how people use the system. Bus was late and just missed your transfer connection, next bus is in 45 minutes. Good luck showing up late to work by 45 minutes. Or you are so desperate to catch it and have to run across a 7 lane death trap stroad.

      2. There are howls of protest whenever you consider changing a route, especially if you move routes away from downtown in hopes that people will transfer, but they seem to be especially acute in the Central District and Rainier Valley where people can claim a bias against poor black people. So much as writing a non-Metro-associated blog post suggesting that the 7 not go downtown, that the 9 should be the main route on Rainier or even that the 7 should head up Boren, gets you yelled at. (Of course the terrible transfer situation at Mount Baker doesn’t help with that.) And I feel like the situation with the 7 impacts the 49 because that used to be the northern part of the 7 (and 9). It doesn’t look like it makes sense for the 2 to run on Seneca on First Hill just a couple blocks away from the G, but if you try to move it you get protests from people who want/need to go to Virginia Mason instead of Swedish or otherwise refuse to allow their bus to move to Pike/Pine or Madison. It’s almost a miracle that the 43 has been cut back as much as it has.

         The 60 feels like it was originally laid out to be a niche route to serve the hospitals, under the assumption that the 49 and 36 would be the main routes to serve Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill, and has accidentally become a core frequent route with its crosstown connections between neighborhoods.

      3. “The 2 and G run very close to each other through one of the most urban areas in the state. But if you are going to downtown you have to pick one. “

         This is just not that true. The routes are fairly spaced apart from each other east of 16th Ave.

         And by picking left-door buses on battery power, Metro can’t put Route 2 ETB’s on the same path as RapidRide G.

         And putting Route 2 on Pine-Pine would add a 6th route on that bus street Downtown as well as force the riders to ride a bus made slow by multiple stop signs on both Pike and Pine, only to jog back to Union and that’s a time consuming jog. Route 2 can reach Third Avenue from 15th and Union probably 5-10 minutes faster using Seneca and Spring.

         Finally, Route 2 gets about 4K riders on an average weekday — just like RapidRide G. It’s not some low volume route the exists just to provide coverage. It’s higher than 10 and 12 combined!

      4. Part of the problem is two east-west corridors in Capitol Hill… Pike-Pine and Olive/John/Thomas. … Serve one well and you neglect the other.

         To a certain extent yes. But right now we are neglecting both corridors. In contrast we could easily have 5-minute midday headways on Pike/Pine west of 14th. We could have 10-minute headways on 15th/Pine/Pine all the way to Galer. We could have 10-minute headways on Olive/John/Thomas all the way to Madison Park. All of that is possible *now*, with current (low) funding levels. A little bit more money and you start running the buses every 7.5 minutes on Olive/John/Thomas just like the 44 should run every 7.5 minutes.

         Stating the obvious here but people like one seat rides

         Of course they do but they also like better frequency. Right now they have neither. That is because you can’t possibly serve all of the one-seat rides. But you can create a very efficient grid in most of Seattle — and especially this part of Seattle — at no additional cost. This is one option: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/. But this concept isn’t even new to the city or to this blog. This was a truly revolutionary blog post and some of these concepts were used by Metro (especially after the UW-Link restructure): https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/08/19/your-bus-much-more-often-no-more-money-really/. But they went away from that idea and now transit in most of the city sucks. Meanwhile Vancouver embraced this idea whole hog (https://humantransit.org/2010/02/vancouver-the-almost-perfect-grid.html). As a result they have the third highest bus ridership in English-speaking North America. Third! Tiny Vancouver! They are basically kicking ass because they embraced the grid concept. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing.

         Put it this way. Imagine you are by The Roanoke (10th & Miller in north Capitol Hill) and are headed to downtown. What do you want? A bus that runs every twenty minutes but gets you to one particular part of downtown or a bus that runs every ten minutes where you can transfer to:

         1) Buses on Pike/Pine running at least every 5 minutes.
         2) A RapidRide bus on Madison running every 6 minutes.
         3) Buses on Jefferson running every 7.5 minutes.
         4) A light rail line that will soon run every 5 minutes (midday).

         I think there are a lot of people that would trade that one-seat ride for a much more frequent two-seat one. Not only that but they are getting a different one-seat ride in return! The 49 would not just end in the middle of a suburban cul-de-sac. It would continue down Broadway in one of the most urban corridors in the state. By most definitions places like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VyzrtGHTE4uNSz2J9 are downtown. For that matter so is this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmTQxWXSdu1B8V1n8. Which is why the current approach is so bad. If you want to go from The Roanoke to much of First Hill (the same direction you were traveling) you have to transfer. If you want to go to South Lake Union or Uptown you have to transfer. If you want to go to so much of the city currently served by Link you have to transfer. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with asking people to transfer. The problem is the nature of those transfers.

         It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. We focus so much on trying to eliminate transfers that the transfers that occur — that are inevitable — are terrible. We also have this outdated idea that the only place that people want to go is downtown — even after passing by a train that will quickly take them there. It is just classic waste, not a sensible trade-off. It is the type of thing that Jarrett Walker and Steven Higashide write about. It is Houston before their restructure. Or Atlanta. Or Miami.

         We really aren’t that special. We actually do spend a decent amount of money on our buses (in Seattle itself). We just need to redesign the network to current needs and stop assuming everyone is headed downtown. It ain’t the 80s anymore.

      5. I think the debate about downtown service vs. general service gets into what people are are is transit for. There is a constituency of people who ride transit to downtown and only downtown, and use their car to go everywhere else. These people often argue for one-seat rides to downtown, at the expense of service to the rest of the city because, in their view, downtown is what transit is for. Then, you have the people that don’t have cars and want good transit to everywhere, not just downtown, and would be willing to accept a trip to downtown taking a little bit longer if it makes certain other trips much shorter in return.

         People in the former category often dominate the discussion, but service should really focus on the latter. If you have a car, you’re a lot more flexible, since you can drive to wherever the transit is; if you don’t, you’re a lot less flexible, and transit needs to come to you.

      6. And by picking left-door buses on battery power, Metro can’t put Route 2 ETB’s on the same path as RapidRide G.

         No one is suggesting that. Quite the opposite.

         And putting Route 2 on Pine-Pine would add a 6th route on that bus street

         Unless you moved the other buses. That is the point. Neither the 11 nor the 49 should go downtown. The 10 and 12 should combine further north (at John if not Aloha). The 2 should join them at 14th. The 3 should join them at Bellevue Avenue. That means the same number of buses on Pike/Pine downtown. But it also means that the areas where they combine for good frequencies increases dramatically.

      7. “The 2 and G run very close to each other through one of the most urban areas in the state. But if you are going to downtown you have to pick one. “

         This is just not that true. The routes are fairly spaced apart from each other east of 16th Ave.

         That is not the area I am referring to. Along the corridor from Broadway to downtown is basically downtown. There are skyscrapers pretty much the whole way. That is the area I meant by ” one of the most urban areas in the state”. As it turns it this corridor stretches further east to include Capitol Hill (which you can easily throw into the category).

         It is only when you get close to 23rd that the buses separate. By no means am I saying this area isn’t urban. I am definitely not suggesting we get rid of the 2. I am saying that the current route of the 2 (between 14th and downtown) is bad. The 2 and G don’t don’t complement each other. Quite the opposite. Imagine you are at Spring & Boylston and want to go Belltown or Uptown. You are literally a block from both buses. You have two choices:

         1) Take the 2.
         2) Take the G and then transfer.

         What you can’t do is:

         3) Wait at a bus stop and take the first bus that arrives. If it is heading to Uptown/Belltown then great! If not you just transfer.

         Think about that for a second. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of people a day who are in the same situation. It is great to say “well it is nice to have options” but the result is buses that run infrequently. It isn’t just this area, either. Imagine you are 13th & Pike in what I would consider the heart of Capitol Hill. You again are headed to the north end of downtown (Belltown or Uptown). This time you have even more choices:

         1) Walk a block and catch the 10/12. This runs every ten minutes but the transfer isn’t great.
         2) Walk a block and catch the G. This is fast but it means going southwest when you are headed northwest.
         3) Walk a block and catch the 2 which at least avoids a transfer.

         Again, no clear choice. The worse part is, none of the choices are particularly good. If the two merged with the 10/12 you would have an obvious choice:

         * Walk a block to where the 2, 10 and 12 stop. Take the first bus that arrives. If it is the 2, great. If it is the 10 and 12 you transfer downtown. So simple. So good. So possible if Metro could just make a few changes.

      8. I think the debate about downtown service vs. general service gets into what people are are is transit for. There is a constituency of people who ride transit to downtown and only downtown, and use their car to go everywhere else.

         I agree. And in this city that has been common for decades. People would often say things to newcomers like “the buses in this city are good if you are going downtown”. That attitude still exists although things have gotten better. Link has changed the way people view neighborhoods like Capitol Hill. The buses in the North End do a much job of connecting to the UW. There has been progress in some areas but not enough, especially in the areas surround downtown.

         The line between “choice” and “captive” riders is very fuzzy. Thus it isn’t just people who don’t have cars who would benefit from a more “everywhere to everywhere” system. To be clear I’m not suggesting we have a grid extending all the way from Monroe to Fife. But in a lot more areas we should have frequent, straightforward transit. The reason I keep bringing up this area is two-fold: First because it is relatively easy to solve the problems. Two because it should be a high priority to solve this problem here. Put it this way: Consider an area south of Mercer, west of 23rd and north of I-90. This is “greater downtown” if you will. Of course there are little nooks and crannies that don’t have much but within most if not all of this region you should be able to get around via transit quite easily. If we are stuck with a system that only works for certain areas like “downtown” then at a minimum it should work for “greater downtown” as I’ve defined it. That doesn’t mean one-seat rides to these places — far from it. But straightforward, frequent options getting around thus benefiting people who live in the area as well as people who visit.

         It isn’t just folks without cars either. My wife and I are classic “choice” transit riders. We have cars, but we prefer taking transit. But only if it is competitive. The nature of the drive makes a difference as well. Just yesterday my wife was meeting some former colleagues on First Hill. In the past she had just taken the train and gotten off at Capitol Hill and walked about twenty minutes (since it is a fairly nice walk). But with the cold weather she didn’t want to walk that far. She didn’t expect a transit option to drop her off by the door but she wanted something shorter. After looking at all the options she just decide to drive. To me this is a great example of how the network failed her. She didn’t want to wait a long time or walk along ways so she gave up. If there was a better network she would have taken transit. Oh, and she hates driving to First Hill! This is one of the first things she said (Google sent her a weird way). I’m no different.

         It shouldn’t be this way. We are making progress (with various RapidRide lines and right-of-way improvements) but our network is outdated. Calling the area I described “Greater Downtown” would have been laughable forty years ago. Yet it is quite reasonable now. Unfortunately the bus network doesn’t reflect that.

      9. There are howls of protest whenever you consider changing a route, especially if you move routes away from downtown in hopes that people will transfer

         Of course. But there is a big differences between changing the 7 and changing a bus like the 11 or 49. The 7 runs every ten minutes (and before the driver shortage it ran every 7.5 minutes). The 11 and 49 run every twenty. Thus the folks on the 7 wouldn’t be gaining any frequency. If you consider the route to be a degradation then moving the 7 means that Rainier Valley would be “taking one for the team”. The network would be better for sure (Zach’s network looks especially good) but it is understandable that people wouldn’t want it. In contrast modifying the 11 and 49 means that people clearly get something out of it (better frequency) even if they trade some one-seat rides for others.

         More than anything though I feel like Metro didn’t even try. Metro (and the city) considered merging the 7 and 48 but eventually that failed. This time around though no one tried to improve the various buses even though it would have dramatically improved the headways in a lot of areas.

         It doesn’t look like it makes sense for the 2 to run on Seneca on First Hill just a couple blocks away from the G, but if you try to move it you get protests from people who want/need to go to Virginia Mason instead of Swedish or otherwise refuse to allow their bus to move to Pike/Pine or Madison.

         Yes, but at some point Metro has to show a little courage and do the right thing. Add DART service (or the equivalent) to compensate. Restructure and send the 106 to Boren. No matter what the 2 should be moved.

         The 60 feels like it was originally laid out to be a niche route to serve the hospitals.

         Yes, and it is a classic example of an outdated route. Back in the day the hospitals were First Hill. That was the main reason anyone went there. They are still important but the area has grown up around them. More than anything it is just bad routing. If we want to run a bus on Boren, then run one. But otherwise just stick to the main corridor (Broadway).

         That is one of the things that is so promising about this area. It doesn’t require a radical redesign. The map I drew has no service on 19th (there is no 12). There are good options if you really want service there (that are better than what we have). Likewise my map sends the 8 to Madison Park which means there is no service on MLK north of Mount Baker Station. If folks are too opposed to it there are other options (my choice would be a branch of the 27). Likewise we could send the 106 to Boren.

         All of these changes water down the system compared to what I proposed. Thus you wouldn’t get quite as much of a frequency improvement. But that’s fine. It is still much better. It is basically a coverage versus ridership trade-off. If you really want to cover those areas we can cover those areas. But we can do so in a much better way.

      10. “The 60 feels like it was originally laid out to be a niche route to serve the hospitals”

          The 60 was originally going to stay on Broadway the whole way, but the First Hill neighborhood asked for the 9th Avenue detour to serve more of the neighborhood, and it has remained ever since. Long-term Metro concepts eliminate it, but only when there’s a Broadway restructure. We expected it to happen with RapidRide G, but it didn’t.

      11. There are two other issues about rerouting Route 2 that Ross is avoiding.

          1. There is no bus stop located for easy transfers between Route 2 and RapidRide G if Route 2 was rerouted to Pike and Pine. The only realistic street to route the jog is 14th Ave — a normally very congested block. 14th Ave is two sloping blocks from the nearest RapidRide G stop. So to flippantly suggest that Route 2 riders could simply transfer to/from RapidRide G ignores the newly-introduced transfer hassle. The RapidRide G project eliminated the Madison bus stop at 14th Ave that used to be there.

          2. Moving Route 2 to Pike and Pine disrupts use of Route 2 by people in Queen Anne to reach the locations further south in Downtown. So not only would it force transfers to the east, it forces them to the north too. And that especially impacts those riders wanting to reach First Hill destinations. Suddenly, a Route 2 Queen Anne rider going to a doctor on Madison Street may even have to go from having direct service to having to make two transfers. It’s not quite as bad for southern Downtown destinations like King County Courthouse, City Hall and Columbia Tower, but it adds a transfer to those places too — from either direction.

          I get how sending every bus through Downtown is perhaps overkill — but when a route is serving areas on two sides of Downtown and it’s through-routed, it’s not really overkill. It’s optimizing access. (I even see that not putting a dogleg onto RapidRide G to go northward to Seattle Center as a huge missed opportunity.)

          I see these two additional issues further preventing Metro from putting Route 2 on Pike and Pine Streets — despite Ross wanting to see it.

      12. @Al S., why couldn’t you jog the 2 on 12th not 14th?

          You do have a point about Queen Anne; if this happened I think I’d try to merge the Queen Anne section of the 2 with some other route.

      13. 1) What William wrote. I didn’t go into the details for doglegging to Pine because there are several options. Just to back up here the most likely bus stop for the G for this transfer would be the one between 12th and 13th. This is a center stop accessible via both 12th and 13th.

          An eastbound 2 (traveling on Pine) could turn right on 12th and left on Union (with a small section on Madison). A westbound 2 (traveling on Union) could turn right on 13th and left on Pine. The bus already makes that turn onto 13th and then turn lefts left onto Madison before turning right again at Union. You can see some of this going on in this picture (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2NWEWXsGYB3TEAEk6). The 2 is making its turn. The G is stopped at the bus stop. Basically all you need to do is add a bus stop where that white Jeep is parked. That is a short walk. Going the other way is similar. There is already a bus stop on Union just west of 13th. As with the other direction it is a fairly short, fairly level walk between the bus stops (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ehjt4XYGu7LWZrF79). Note: Google maps is fairly up to date with this little bit of 13th but not the rest of the area. The roll plots (on the main RapidRide G page) are often a better guide.

          You also want to merge with the 10/12 as soon as possible (to increase frequency along Pine). But that is only really an issue westbound (inbound). With the bus turning on 13th you still use the existing stop (just west of 13th) with the 10/12 and 2. That means this offers the same combined frequency advantage as turning on 14th. Outbound (eastbound) you would probably add a bus stop on 12th (there are plenty of options).

          2) Yes, riders from Queen Anne lose their one-seat ride to parts of First Hill. But they also gain a one-seat ride to parts of Pike-Pine. I realize this isn’t a great trade because turning early means you don’t connect to the G. This means a potential three-seat ride. But relatively few people are effected. Starting at Uptown you have a lot of buses going as far south as Madison (making that connection to the G). Once on Galer the buses split (into the 2 and 13). As the 13 goes to SPU a lot of riders switch to the more frequent 4. So it is only those at the top of Queen Anne that have that dreaded three-seat ride. But as three-seat rides go it isn’t horrible. The middle section is a spine (with very frequent buses). The G is very frequent. I routinely take three-seat rides in the north end (using Link). There are worse things. There are also alternatives. If you are headed to Broadway & Madison you can transfer to a bus/streetcar heading down Broadway. Worse case scenario you can backtrack via the bus stop at 13th & Madison.

          Again, this is a small number of riders and unfortunately quite common in our system. Link is essential to getting to lots of places. Both the 10 and 12 connect to Link but it means backtracking (heading all the way downtown) or making it a three-seat ride. Same with the 48 (which is the argument for replacing that part of the 48 with the 43). The 106 doesn’t go through downtown. Thus if you are on MLK at one of the places not well served by Link you take the 106, take another bus and take a third bus to get up to Pike/Pine or Madison. (This is another argument for making the 106 the Boren bus).

          There are different solutions. One is to have more crossing buses (starting with Boren). Service on Fifth could be improved. But all of that costs money.

          A revenue neutral option (or close to it) would be to split the 2. The 2 from Madrona could do the same thing the other Pike/Pine buses do (turn around downtown). The 2/13 from Queen Anne could end in Pioneer Square. This basically means adding some two-seat rides to avoid three-seat ones. Better yet it could go up James and end at Harborview. That would allow the (twice as frequent ) 3/4 to use (the faster) Yesler route. That wouldn’t solve the congestion problem on James but at least it would effect fewer riders (and save more in overall service). It would also be at the end of the route (which is where you want the delay).

          For now I would just live it with it (until we get enough money for service along Boren). There are drawbacks to sending the 2 to Pike/Pine but the advantages greatly outweigh them.

      14. @ Willian C and across:

          Don’t you remember that Metro dropped a plan a decade ago to have a bus make a sharp turn onto 19th from Madison? And that corner didn’t have the lane narrowness that exists at 12th and Madison. There’s a massive new extension at the corner for bicyclists. I think it’s more than reasonable to assume that westbound Route 2 buses cannot make that turn northward at 12th Ave. .

          Oh, Metro would also need to put trolley wire on any dogleg street. It’s not in their work program. That’s not a fatal flaw like the corner geometry is but it is something that would have to be done before the route could move.

          So you can dream it. It’s just not happening.

      15. You are ignoring what the bus does now to get across Madison. It has done this for a long time. You can see it on the schedule (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/002.html#route-map). Eastbound it makes a hairpin left turn onto Madison (from 13th) followed by a right on Union. Westbound it makes a hairpin left turn onto Madison (from 11th) followed by a right on Union. So clearly it can make those hairpin turns. A key aspect of this is that the hairpin turns are to the left. Making a hairpin turn to the right is a lot harder.

          In any event what we are suggesting is that Westbound the bus just keeps going straight on 13th (thus avoiding one of the hairpin turns). Eastbound there are several options. Here is a map to make it easier to understand these options (https://maps.app.goo.gl/d3rauAXFxL5tTcGW9). An eastbound bus could:

          1) Head south on 12th and take a left onto Madison (followed by an immediate right onto Union).

          2) Head south on 11th and make the exact same turn it does today.

          3) Head south on 11th, turn left on Union and then a slight left onto Madison (followed by an immediate right onto Union). This would mean reversing the direction of the tiny bus-only lane they added on Union between 11th and 12th.

          Obviously the second option is worst but it is clearly possible. The third option is also clearly possible (and clearly better than the first option). I think the first option (using 12th) is better than the alternatives but it depends a bit on traffic. What is clear though is that this is not a real problem. This exact bus makes this type of turn every day (and has done so for a really long time). Worse case scenario it would make the exact same turn it does today.

          The same goes for moving wire. We are talking about a very small section of wire. Metro (or the city) moves around similar amounts all the time.

          No one is saying it will happen anytime soon. Metro missed their chance. This should have been part of the RapidRide G restructure. This isn’t about the 2 or even just the area around there. Like any bad decision there are numerous excuses but it boils down Metro being unwilling or unable to build an effective network. They make a few good changes but they are basically a reactionary agency now. They take a poll and folks want more east-west transit in the north end so they go overboard (adding bus service that runs on 175th but doesn’t connect to Link). Rather than restructure a network to better serve an area they just get rid of the bus (e. g. the 73 and 20). This was bound to happen with the 47 but they responded to public pushback and it was saved (to be fair combining it with the 3 was brilliant — the planners deserve credit for that).

          This problem is not unique to our city. There are likely dozens of cities in the same boat. There are several that were in the same boat but folks put pressure on the leaders to change things. For example look at Houston. Jarrett Walker goes into the nuts and bolts but he also links to articles that mention the politics (https://humantransit.org/2015/08/houston-welcome-to-your-new-network.html). In the book “Better Buses Better Cities” Steven Higashide writes about Houston a lot as well. The main thing is that it wasn’t easy. Inertia is powerful force when it comes to transit. But the folks pushing for a better network (including the mayor) were able to persevere and Houston (like other cities) were much better for it.

          We should do the same.

      16. “Don’t you remember that Metro dropped a plan a decade ago to have a bus make a sharp turn onto 19th from Madison?”

          The 12 always from Madison to 19th before the G restructure. Do you mean a bus from Madison Park would turn north on 19th? I’ve never heard of that. The only proposals I remember either kept or deleted the 12.

      17. Mike Orr: yes, the U Link ordinance (March 2016) had routes 8 and 11 make west-to-north turns to 19th Avenue East from East Madison Street. SDOT refused to make the radical changes to the intersection necessary for the sharp turn, so the routes were changed back. Route 10 was revised after the ordinance to shift to John-Olive as it was pointed out that if Route 43 was almost deleted and Route 47 not there, there would be hundreds of daily Summit riders without service. Also, the ordinance had routes 345, 346, 40, and 26 serve the stop pair on North 95th Street inside NSC; the routes were removed from the campus. Later, NSC students complained about poor access and Route 26 was reinserted.

      18. Just to be clear about the Pike-Pine corridor electric trolley buses: they all use Pine east of Bellevue Ave. So a rerouted eastbound Route 2 on Pike Street would need to go one block north to Pine Street and jog back two blocks south to get to Union Street several blocks later.

          With this area having high pedestrian activity, each one of these four new turns would add travel time to Route 2, compared with the straight shot down Union and Seneca or the short jog from Spring to Seneca just east of I-5.

      19. So a rerouted eastbound Route 2 on Pike Street would need to go one block north to Pine Street and jog back two blocks south to get to Union Street several blocks later.

          Yes, I thought about that as well. One of the maps I drew had the eastbound bus just continuing on Pike until the turn (to get to Union). I also did the same with the other buses. For the 10/12 it would basically mean moving the dogleg further east from Bellevue Avenue to say, 12th. That is one option. Another is to just have the 2 do this. There are trade-offs no matter what.

          With this area having high pedestrian activity, each one of these four new turns would add travel time to Route 2, compared with the straight shot down Union and Seneca or the short jog from Spring to Seneca just east of I-5.

          It is not a straight shot. Currently a westbound 2 makes three turns just to get across Madison (a right onto 13th, a left onto Madison, a right onto Union). It then continues on Union until it becomes Seneca which is follows down until 3rd. Under my proposal the bus would make two turns (right onto 13th and left onto Pine which it follows all the way down. So one *fewer* turn going westbound.

          Going eastbound the bus currently makes five turns. First it goes up Spring, then a left onto Hubbell followed by a right onto Seneca. Then it follows Seneca until it becomes Union. At Madison it again a right, left, right again to keep going on Union. Under my proposal, assuming the bus mimics the 10/12 (which is worse-case scenario) this is what it would do westbound: Head up Pike, take a left onto Bellevue Avenue and a right onto Pine. Then a right onto 12th followed by a left onto a tiny part of Madison before a right again on Union. So six turns instead of five.

          So one additional turn westbound and one fewer turn eastbound. It is a wash. At worst. But it is quite possible that you end up with *fewer* turns than you have now.

   2. RE: Route 43. It’s run so infrequently that odd that it runs at all. Transit riders have other routing choices too.

      It’s seems illogical to assess anything else about the route ridership patterns as it now operates.

      1. I think people want it, given good loads with with shtty service. I certainly go out of my way to ride the 43. I love the one seat ride from Ballard to Capitol Hill late at night and will delay my journey to catch one of these 44-43s. I love making only 1 transfer with it than 2 transfers without it where I’m guaranteed to miss one transfer.

      2. What trip are you making where you’d have a three-seat ride without the 43, and a two-seat ride even with it? Based on your description I’m guessing you’re traveling between somewhere in Ballard north of Market (so you have to catch another bus to get to the 44) and somewhere on Capitol Hill along John/Thomas or Broadway, or maybe you’re catching a bus that goes to Capitol Hill with downtown Ballard as your ending point. But all the north-south routes in Ballard go downtown, so do all the routes that serve Capitol Hill except the 8, 43, and 60, the 8 crosses most of the Ballard-bound routes in LQA, and the 60 spends most of its route paralleling or near Downtown-bound routes. Do you live along 15th in Beacon Hill? That’s the one thing I can think of.

      3. I think people want it, given good loads with with shitty service.

         Except it doesn’t have good loads. As of the last service report it was bottom 25% of buses defined as “urban”.

         If you look at the stop data it doesn’t look very good either. The numbers are a bit confusing because the 43 is just an extension of the 44. Thus an inbound bus (heading to First Hill) has more alightings than boardings. The stop data assumes the 43 starts at 45th & University Way. This means that the overall low numbers are partly inflated by the part of the route that would be done anyway (by the 44). It is impossible to tell if someone who boards in the U-District is just using the bus to get to another part of the U-District or headed to Montlake (and beyond). Similarly it is hard to tell how many people are just riding along the same pathway as the 48 (but happened to take the 43). But if you focus on the unique connection that the 43 offers (UW/Montlake to First Hill) the numbers just don’t look good. Consider an inbound bus (headed to First Hill). From John and 22nd (where the bus leaves the 23rd corridor) to First Hill there are 131 people who get off the bus. But there are also about 20 riders who board along Broadway. Thus it gets only 110 riders for the key section or about 1/3 of the number of riders who get off the bus. In other words the unique part of this route — it’s main value if you will — accounts for a small portion of this underforming bus.

         It is easy to blame that on the frequency. Basically it loses out to more frequent buses. This is a little different than the traditional frequency/ridership situation. When scientists calculate those numbers they are usually for unique routes (with the only competition some other mode). They find that if you double the frequency of the bus you don’t quite double ridership. But there is a common tipping point (if you will) where buses have trouble competing with other buses. The 73 couldn’t compete with the 67 on Maple Leaf — it was just too infrequent (people just walked to the 67). You could make the case that the same thing is happening here.

         The problem is there is no money to make frequency better. Imagine you run it every fifteen minutes. So now you are running the 48 and 43 every 7.5 minutes on one of the least productive sections of the city. It is not that there aren’t riders along that corridor but the corridor is relatively slow and has relatively few people using it. Unless you are willing to replace this part of the 48 with the 43 I don’t think the 43 is justified.

      4. Revisit the ridership patterns of routes 43, 48, and 8 from fall 2015 before U Link. Route 48 was split into routes 45 and 48. SDOT was promising that Route 48 would very soon be ETB. Instead of having Route 48 serve Rainier Beach via MLK, new Route 38 provided the local service between Mt. Baker and Rainier Beach; it lasted only one signup as the save the 42 movement led to SE Seattle restructure and Route 106 extended to IDS in fall 2016.

         During U Link, Metro decided not to implement Route 8.11. Route 48 has declined in productivity; Route 45 has done well. As RossB has asserted here and elsewhere, Route 11 is one of the extra ones. Transfers between Route 48 at John-Thomas and Madison streets are not easy. It might be worthwhile to restore Route 43 and consolidate routes 8 and 48 and demote Route 11 to a shuttle. Route 43 would connect the UW and Westlake stations via the Capitol Hill stations; it would serve short trips in between them and avoid those awkward transfers. Connecting with Link is a key network concern.

         Yes, given the G Line, Route 2 is a challenging puzzle. The G Line designers did not consider the network well.

         The R Line needs to be restructured; it would be fine to improve transit flow on Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson Street, but it should not remain a radial route terminating at the north end of downtown. The turnaround loop using Virginia-Stewart Street uses too many minutes.

   3. I thought the current version of route 43 only existed to allow trolley drivers to return to Atlantic base. Nothing more. And since the vehicle would be on the road through dense areas, it might as well pick up customers. Is my assumption incorrect?

      Also, because there is high frequency on along Pike/Pine with routes 10 & 12, and Link serves the middle of Cap Hill – I don’t see any reason for the 49 to serve downtown. I would really like to see the 43 & 49 interlined and the restoration of service consistent service to 23rd Ave E. So my version of route 49 would be: U-Dist > Harvard Ave > 10th Ave > Cap Hill Station > left on John to become the 43. It’d run every 15 minutes daily, more so during peak.

      1. So my version of route 49 would be: U-Dist > Harvard Ave > 10th Ave > Cap Hill Station > left on John to become the 43.

         So a loop then? I think there are some advantages to that. There are no east-west buses between the ship canal and Thomas/John so you would have more riders than a typical loop. In other words someone at 23rd & Galer heading to 10th & Galer has to round the horn this way anyway.

         I think the big weakness is the same weakness as every 43. If you run it frequently you need to either replace the 48 with it or you are throwing too much service at Montlake. Running buses every 7.5 minutes (combined) on a fairly congested but low-ridership area is tough to justify. You could send the 48 somewhere else (or have it end at Madison) but that seems like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Looking at the stop data there are a lot of people that board the 48 south of John that would now be forced to transfer (to keep going straight on 23rd).

         Sorry I just don’t see it.

         One option (that I had never considered) which is similar is to combine the 49 with the 11. It offers many of the same advantages. Although there wouldn’t be a lot of people heading that way this connects the north end of 10th to Madison Park. The 49 connects to all of the north-south buses in the area (10/12 and 48) at the north end (which means that various trips involve less backtracking). Riders of the 11 meanwhile retain their current connection to Capitol Hill station (and those other buses). They lose their one-seat ride to downtown but get better frequency.

         I think the big advantage of that idea is a good match in terms of frequency. One of the drawbacks with the 8/11 idea is that it is hard to justify the frequency to Madison Park that you can easily justify west of MLK (e. g. 10 minutes midday). Running buses every fifteen minutes to Madison Park seems about right.

         If you were to merge that idea with what I’ve proposed (https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/) it works out fairly well and is less disruptive. The 60 still ends at Republican it is just straightened out (to provide better combined headways with the streetcar). Any savings for the 8 (that would be put into better frequency) come from truncating it at MLK. You still have the other changes. The 2 gets moved. The 10/12 combine further north (or not at all). It works and is better in some ways than what I wrote on the map.

         I played around with it and made a map (based on the other map): https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1NVjZGl9r9OC5-Fpc_N70xkFu9orIJIY&usp=sharing

      2. @Ross…

         Indeed, it would be a loop but bi-directional. We used to have the 43 & 48 run every combined and have duplication along Montlake / 24th Ave E. And tbh, there’s nothing wrong with duplication. In the transit world, “duplication” is a bad word. But if the two routes are going to completely separate destinations and have different purposes, running the 43 & 48 together is justified. It would be interesting to know what the ridership data was like for the 43 before it was gutted.

         Additionally, your route 49 to 11 combo is another good option. The only downside is the 49 would now need coaches as there’s no trolley-wires along Madison.

      3. Indeed, it would be a loop but bi-directional.

         Yeah, that is what I figured.

         In the transit world, “duplication” is a bad word. But if the two routes are going to completely separate destinations and have different purposes, running the 43 & 48 together is justified.

         There are places where it makes sense for buses to duplicate service. Montlake is not one of them. Combining service along a corridor basically means you are branching. As Jarrett Walker points out:

         branching always divides frequency

         This could mean something like ten minute frequency in Montlake and twenty minute frequency south of there. From a ridership standpoint that is backwards. That is like sending buses to Magnolia every fifteen minutes but running the 44 every half hour.

         You could just subsidize the service in Montlake and run both buses every fifteen minutes but that means you are pulling service from somewhere else. You really can’t justify twice the service in that part of the corridor compared to the rest of it just because some people want to avoid a transfer. Doing so would ultimately mean a system worse than what we have.

         I forgot there is no trolley wire on Madison (east of MLK). It would have to be added. One option (that they should explore more often) is a small section of wire in Madison Park, where the bus would lay over. That would essentially be a charging station. A bus heading towards Madison Park goes off-wire and drives to the end before getting back on wire. Then it goes off-wire for a bit before getting getting back on-wire at MLK. That means only one significant delay and even then it isn’t that bad anymore. Modern systems in Europe do that sort of thing all the time. This would greatly reduce the cost of adding wired for the bus.

      4. I expect new switches at Broadway and John-Olive would be required for a route 43-49. There are north-to-east and west-to-south turns but not south-to-east and west-to-north. It would avoid the layover issue in downtown; Seattle and Metro have given up controlling the curb space on Pike Street nearside 3rd Avenue. This concept would complement a consolidation of routes 8 and 48 on 23rd Avenue. Route 9 could be ETB between Mt. Baker and East Aloha Street.

      5. “branching always divides frequency ”

         Only if you’re starting from an inadequate number of service hours you’re trying to distribute. If you start from the premise that all branches should run every 10 minutes minimum, and then try to make it happen, rather than kneecapping your transit network at the beginning, then you’ll have 5-minute service in the shared segment. If you can’t achieve that and can only do 15 minutes on each branch, then you have 7.5-minute service in the shared segment. So somebody transferring between an east-west route and the shared segment would have an average 2.5 minute or 3.5 minute wait. This is reasonable and similar to high-quality subway transfers. In a worst-case scenario you’d wait 5 or 7.5 minutes. And in a worst worst-case scenario when buses are late, a 10-15 minute wait. That’s better than an average wait of 7.5 minutes, worst case 15 minutes, and worst-worst case 20-30 minute, which is borderline unacceptable terratory. A 3-seat ride with two 15-minute transfers adds up to 30 minutes of waiting, and if that’s on top of 30 minutes of riding, now the trip takes an hour.

         The real problems come in when each branch is 20 minutes, or has 30-minute evenings or Sundays. Then transit is practically unusable, especially for 2-3 seat rides.

2. I think the most surprising thing about the ridership data is how well the western terminus does. There are some apartments (and the locks) as you mentioned but the numbers still surprise me. Nearby 30th and 28th have apartments as well (and the museum) but don’t do nearly as well. It would not surprise me if it is an informal park & ride and bike & ride. If you live north of there it is quite reasonable to drive a little ways, park there and ride the bus to the UW (where parking is a lot more difficult). Anyone who lives in a condo on the waterfront could easily bike there (although they could also keep biking and probably beat the bus to the UW).

   1. I would say the exact same thing. The route may be slow, but it’s well used, even at non-obvious locations like that.

   2. Yeah, it’s a surprisingly large terminal effect. I’ve been out to the last stop a few times and seen people get off the bus and unlock a bike. There isn’t really good bike parking near there, and like you say, if you’re a “bike person” (have a nice bike, enjoy riding, are willing to deal with the weather and clean up as necessary at your destination) you might as well ride all the way to UW. But if you’re just someone that lives a mile from the nearest bus stop you can get a cheap used bike for a couple hundred, chain it to a stop sign near the 44, stay mostly dry, get some reading done on the bus, and when your bike succumbs to the elements or gets stolen buy another cheap used bike for a couple hundred. Or you can use bikeshare (i.e. pay a consistent daily price for some company to provide a rotating fleet of bikes that will be destroyed by the elements, vandalized, or stolen).

      However people get there (I agree with your speculation that some people probably stealth park-and-ride with cars, IMO probably more than ride bikes), there’s a pretty decent little area where that 32nd stop is the closest all-day bus stop to anywhere, even if it is a bit of a hike to get there.

      1. Wonder if the 44 would be as popular if the Burke-Gilman Missing Link was completed.

      2. @Morgan: As a bike person (I bike and take transit, including the 44, routinely), I don’t think the Burke and the 44 are in direct competition all that often. They don’t really have destinations directly in common until all the way out in the U District. The 44 goes to Upper Fremont and Central Wallingford, serving E Line transfers on the way — all those are steep climbs up from Ballard by any route, and the Burke probably isn’t the most direct route anyway. The Burke goes to Lower Fremont with connections to downtown — the transit alternatives for those trips are the 40 or the D Line more than the 44.

         I tend to figure anyone that’s going to deal with the difficulties of riding a bike up and down the steep hill to Upper Fremont, or as far as UW, on a routine basis isn’t going to be deterred by the Missing Link situation. These difficulties include physical fatigue, arriving wet from rain or sweat, equipping a bike for safe travel at night and in the winter, and keeping a bike maintained. Wet weather and steep hills are hard on bike components (to say nothing of the body!) and require frequent maintenance; shop tune-ups ain’t cheap and DIY takes time and effort. If you can figure that stuff out you can figure out a route through Ballard and riding practices that keep you safe. The Missing Link sucks, but it’s not responsible for the 44 being popular. The 44 is popular because it serves lots of trips people need to make, by a mode they want to use to make them.

      3. I don’t think the Burke and the 44 are in direct competition all that often.

         I agree. The only real trip that they share is Ballard to UW. That is not a trivial trip on a bike and I would imagine the Missing Link doesn’t deter anyone (as Al mentioned). In general I would say the Missing Link is more of a hazard then a deterrent. I’m sure there are people who decide not to bike from Ballard to Fremont because of the Missing Link but my guess is most riders just take their chances (and some of them get hurt). It is so good otherwise. It is like Highway 2, which locals once nicknamed “The Highway of Death”. Did people stop driving it? Nope.

         Anyway, getting back to the competition from the bikes it is likely that Ballard to UW trips account for a good chunk of the ridership of the 44. But at the same time there are plenty of other trips (as the data shows).

   3. A lot of people cross the Ship Canal on the locks walkway. That’s entirely a random observation based on maybe a dozen trips to visit over a long life, but I expect it’s a contributor.

      1. I know a lot of people consider it a key part of the bike network even though you have to walk your bike across, because the Ballard Bridge (and the Missing Link) is just that bike-unfriendly. There isn’t a lot along Commodore Way or even on the other end of the bridge over the railroad tracks, but there are signed bike routes to the Elliott Bay Trail. Just look at how many Seattle Bike Blog posts mention the Locks.

      2. The combination of route 44 and a walk across the Ballard Locks is the quickest transit route to Discovery Park from just about everywhere the 44 goes. It’s a good trick to know.

      3. I’ve done the opposite: my friend used to live at Barrett & 22nd in Magnolia. To get to Ballard, once or twice I took the 33 north, crossed the locks, then took the 44. I found it vastly preferable than trying to get to the 15 across several busy intersections, then fighting my way back west across a dozen more busy intersections.

      4. That’s a good point. There are condos and apartments right on the other side. When you walk from Ballard to Discovery Park (which I’ve done) they don’t stand out because you almost immediately leave that area and go through a single-family area before you get to the park. But it would be a good way to get to the UW if you lived in that area.

         That being said I don’t think that would be the bus stop you would take. You would take the one at 30th, not 32nd. It would be the stop you would use when coming from the UW though. There are a few more people doing that (using 30th eastbound and 32nd westbound) and people in the apartments/condos could account for that.

         @Morgan — Yes, the locks are a key part of our bus infrastructure (because the Ballard Bridge sucks). It is also a key part of our pedestrian infrastructure (for the reasons mentioned).

      5. Can you walk across the locks full time now? During covid they were closed to pedestrians, or closed at 5pm.

      6. @Mike Orr: Not full time — I think it’s sun-up to sun-down.

   4. It’d be nice to see a seasonal breakdown in ridership. I wonder if the western terminus is only busy during the summer with Locks visitors and and Golden Garden beachgoers.

3. I can’t comment on this much because Route 44 is in a part of Seattle that I rarely access. So here’s a big picture question that I think offers some understanding:

   What’s the best or more popular way to get from Shoreline in Aurora (RR-E) to UW? Are riders shuttling east to Link and riding south to UW, or do they ride south on Aurora on RR-E and take Route 44 eastward across? Is the decision a stop specific path? How much do frequencies enter into the decision?

   The Link boardings in Shoreline are very anemic. Northgate ridership fell by more than Shoreline stations added on Link when the Lynnwood Link extension opened. Clearly this market is either weaker than forecasted or riders are favoring a routing combination that the forecasting models did not. Related to that, the introduction of 2 Line in several months will create such good frequency on Link that some of these riders north of 85th may leave Route 44 to take advantage of it.

   I ask because the routing principles involved can apply in other situations around our region. Is a rider choosing a route combination primarily on the frequency of the weakest frequency, on the fastest path for the transit vehicles, or something more nuanced?

   With new Link-related Metro restructures mostly decided and on the way, Metro will have many ways to assess the route combination issue once the ST2+ system is fully up and running next year.

   Coming full circle, did Lynnwood Link opening and the related Metro route structures impact Route 44 ridership at all?

   1. That would really depend on where on the UW they’re trying to get, since the “UW” Link station is so far from everything else.

      Parts of Shoreline are also not convenient to get to Link or the E.

      However, the E is so long that it generally takes a long time to get from Shoreline to the 44, so that most of the time going to Link is better. It can take 45 minutes on the E to get from 185 to the 44. You cut the travel time to 30 minutes if you walk even a significant distance to Link and get off at U District.

      1. @Glenn in Portland,

         “….the “UW” Link station is so far from everything else…”

         Not really. There are actually two Link stations serving the UW campus. One on campus to the SE (UW Station), and one just off campus to the NW (U Dist Station). The combination of the two stations does an excellent job of serving riders heading to/from campus. They just need to pick the station that best suites their needs.

         “…..the E is so long that it generally takes a long time to get from Shoreline to the 44, so that most of the time going to Link is better.”

         Exactly. Slow N-S bus routes followed by a forced transfer to a slow E-W bus route is not the answer. Going straight to Link and then heading directly to the UW on rail will always out perform the two seat bus ride. It’s not even a matter of debate.

      2. Going straight to Link and then heading directly to the UW on rail will always out perform the two seat bus ride.

         Actually, no. It depends on where you are. In a few places in Shoreline this is clearly the case. But as I wrote up above this isn’t the case for most of Shoreline. As you move further south it doesn’t work at all. This is why there aren’t that many people going east-west to Link and then south. It is too difficult to go east-west. It will be easier once 130th Station gets there (nice to know you are finally on board) but south of 130th there are geographic issues in a lot of places.

         At Northgate Way it is faster to go south on the E and east on the 44 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Jg8WcX5W75W87jjy6). That is because of the awkward location of the Northgate Station (if it was on Northgate Way it would be better). At 85th you have the one-seat ride of the 45. (It isn’t worth getting off the bus and taking Link for the last little bit.) The best bus to Link option is the bus you fought against (the 61). And …. that’s it. There are no more east-west options. As of right now, there is no place along Aurora in Seattle (i. e. south of 145th) where the best option for getting to the UW involves Link.

         Which is why an east-west train is so much more valuable than anything in ST3. There are over 20 stops on the E between 45th and Aurora Village. Only a handful (at 185th, 175th, 145th, and eventually 130th) offer a fast way to get from Aurora to Link. This means that for the vast majority of people along that corridor is to take a bus south and take the E if you are headed to the UW. The same is true for various other corridors as well like the 40, RapidRide D, 28, 5 and 62 (in Tangletown). If this workhorse of a bus was was instead replaced by a fast train it would improve travel to the UW dramatically.

      3. Yeah, I suspect the Ballard Spur would be the best solution to “poncho”‘s situation above.

   2. What’s the best or more popular way to get from Shoreline in Aurora (RR-E) to UW?

      I would say in general it is to take a bus south and then take the 44 east. There are exceptions. The 348 goes along 185th; the 333 goes along 145th and 175th. The 345 goes along 145th.

      The E is a little more frequent than Link. The 44 is a little more frequent than the 333 and 348. So folks who hate waiting will do what they’ve done for a while (take the E and 44). But along 145th, 175th and 185th it is considerably faster to take Link. The 345 (along 155th) is a lot less frequent so it really depends on whether you can time that bus.

      There are other considerations (besides speed and wait time). The 44 covers more of the U-District. Riders can always make a third transfer but they may not want to do that. People may view the buses as being more reliable given some of the issues that come up with Link. For example when I started this comment I couldn’t get Google Maps to send to Link for a trip involving the U-District. Whether this was an actual problem with the trains or a reporting problem may not matter as much as the perception. Another issue may the reliability of the buses. The E and 44 may be viewed as more reliable than the 333 at certain times.

      But I think in general it really depends on if you are close to one of the side streets with the (relatively) frequency buses. This means 185th, 175th and 145th. It would not surprise me if the vast majority of people who used to take the E from there to get to the UW now take a bus east to catch Link. On the E Line both 145th and 185th have really good ridership while 175th does not. Overall the ridership along those three stops is better than average. I think the big weakness is that it is only three stops. Between 100th and 200th (so not including Aurora Village) a southbound E Line gets around 3,400 riders. Those three stops combined add up to about 850. So my guess is it made a dent in E Ridership just not a big one. Looking at the numbers for the E it is hard to find any impact but there are a lot of moving pieces and the bus serves a lot of other trips. Same goes for the 44.

      When we get the post-restructure stop numbers we will have a better idea.

      1. The biggest factor is the intended bus stop.

         The bext big detractor from using Link and sonething like Route 333 or 348 is the frequency of those connecting buses. Each drops to 30 minute service by 7. A student should stay too late sharing a beer with fellow students!

         But during the day, they’re both listed at 15 minute intervals. That’s good enough to entice a rider to Link.

   3. I don’t think “Link frequency” has much to do with this. Link is easily ten minutes faster between 145th and 45th than RR-E is, so there goes your “transfer penalty”, and there’s a transfer anyway, to a ten minute headway bus. It’s probably 15 minutes faster from 185th to 45th.

      Grant, the east-west buses in Shoreline are way less frequent that either the E or the 44, so one doesn’t have the freedome of departure that the E gives.

      The east-west segment on the north end buses is way faster than the slowty-four. I think that any surviving ridership on the E from way up there is from 150th to 180th, where it’s a three seater to use Link. If the 333 went by Shoreline North it might get folks as far south as 170th to go that way, but riding over the Shoreline College and then back to Shoreline South is a big detour.

      1. @Tom Terrific,

         Exactly. The primary advantage of Link on the corridor is raw speed. Frequency, reliability, and comfort are just a little bit of added sugar on the Light Rail cake.

         It’s hard to beat raw speed.

   4. I had a friend who used to do this back in the pre-Link era. The standard option was to take the E line to what is, today, route 45 (at the time, it was part of route 48). She would also occasionally take a long walk to I-5/145th and catch the 512.

      With today’s service network, I think the go-to option for her commute at time would be to take route 333 down 145th, followed by Link to UW. Which means, at least for that trip, Link actually works quite well, as do the bus changes from the Lynnwood Link restructure. Prior to that restructure, there was no east/west bus down 145th, now there is.

      When the 148th ped bridge eventually opens, that would make simply walking to Link a viable option, rather than having to deal with the infrequent bus #333.

      1. It really does depend a lot on where in Shoremine.

         When I first entered it into Google maps to see what it said, it said walking to Link from highway 99 (it’s default pin for Shoreline) was faster than waiting for any east-west buses.

         When I visited my friend in that area, in the pre-Northgate Link era it was faster to take the 346 all the way down Meridian to Northgate, and then find something there headed further south. Meridian is just a faster street because there’s nothing on it, which also means there aren’t many riders.

         Today, it goes to the Shoreline South station,

         In a grid system, there’d be a lot more north-south buses like this that would travel the whole distance of a street, and intersect the 44. Instead, there’s a node system.

   5. I can only offer theories based on my experience living in Shoreline for over 5 years and now living in Ballard.

      Pre-Link, many UW riders took bus 373. Many would park & ride at Aurora Nazarene church on 175th or the Shoreline P&R. I used to take the 301 at the same park & rides and would see hordes on UW riders get on the 373. When I would take the E-line, I really never saw any UW riders – especially during peak.

      Now that it’s post-Link, I can only assume those same 373 riders are now on Link. Why would they venture to the E-line and make it harder? If they were originally park & riding, then I’d assume they’re doing the same at 185th or 148th.

      Additionally, I’m on the 44 a lot these days and I can tell you there are few UW riders transferring at 46th St. This is based on my assumptions of how people “look”. The transferees I see at 46th are a mix of homeless and random workers – not UW students.

4. I wonder if in the longer term it would be make sense to through-run the 44/48 if/when the 48 gets trolley wire. It seems to me that would save a decent number of operator hours and would greatly improve connections. But maybe that is too long/unreliable for a single line?

   1. I think the 45 and 48 were through-routed at one point but that was too long (or too unreliable). In general the situation in the greater U-District is tricky. Through-routing adds a lot of benefit but at the same time you often run the buses too far.

      1. The 45/48 were never through-routed, but the original 48 basically covered the route of the 45, though there also was a 48X that IIRC was the same to U-District, then got on I-5 to skip the Roosevelt/Ravenna/Green Lake segment. Historically, night owl service on the 44 through-routed with the 48 (though it’s the 43 now), so I imagine there would at least be some discussion of connecting off-peak routes. The connection was handy getting to Mount Baker Station for the first Link runs in the morning and getting to early-morning flights, so I sort of hope it comes back at least for a subset of trips.

      2. yes, Route 45 was formed in March 2016; Route 48 was split apart; Route 48 retained the Montlake congestion. Between U Link and fall 2021, Route 45 terminated at the Pacific Triangle. After fall 2021, Route 45 was through routed with Route 75. In a later Lynnwood Link phase, new Route 77 is paired with Route 75 and Route 45 truncated at NE Boat Street. Color me sad.

      3. In a later Lynnwood Link phase, new Route 77 is paired with Route 75 and Route 45 truncated at NE Boat Street. Color me sad.

         Is that really part of the plan? The last proposal I remember (this one) has the 77 as an independent route and the other routes unchanged (from what they are today).

         It is worth noting there are two (remaining) phases:

         1) Phase 1: East Link is complete. At this point ST will send the 522 buses to 148th Station (via 145th)*. They will due so even though Stride 3 won’t be ready yet. At this point Metro will have to backfill service on Lake City Way. Thus it will run a bus (the 77) from the Lake City Fred Meyer to the U-District.

         2) Phase 2: Pinehurst Station is complete. At this point ST will send the 77 to Bitter Lake.

         Thus the 77 does everything. Every other bus remains the same. This is really the only argument for the 77 (and I think it is a weak one). Hopefully Metro rethinks the proposal between phase 1 and phase 2. The 77 in phase 1 (from Lake City Fred Meyer to the U-District) is a solid bus. It can end at the station or keep going to Campus Parkway or the triangle. It could even result in a reshuffling of the through-routes (but that gets complicated).

         It is the 77 for phase 2 that is poorly designed. It has a lot of problems. It is long but there are several trips that make no sense. At Bitter Lake you pass the station only to pass by the station again at Roosevelt. There are times when this is appropriate but this isn’t one of them. If you are heading to Roosevelt or the U-District from anywhere west of the Pinehurst Station the route becomes redundant (everyone will just transfer). Worse yet the outbound route (towards Bitter Lake) has a very awkward turn from Lake City Way to 125th. It has to go beyond 125th and then make a left, then a right, then a left again. But worst of all it does a poor job of connecting Lake City with the 130th Station. It never goes north of 125th and yet covers a tiny section of it. You end up with walks like this. That is as far east as the bus will go (where that bus stop is). Along Lake City Way you’ll need to add a bus stop between 30th and 125th (just a few feet south of the existing bus stop) to avoid walks like this .

         Meanwhile the 75 (as it is currently routed) overlaps the 77 for much of the way and manages to get within about five blocks of the Pinehurst Station before turning and heading away from it. It is just bad routing. Here is a better solution:

         1) Keep the 77 as designed in phase one (Lake City Fred Meyer to the U-District).
         2) Send the 75 to Bitter Lake.
         3) Add a bus from Northgate Transit Center to 5th & 130th to backfill the old 75. It would be short enough that buses could easily do a live loop. Riders would be connected to both the Northgate and Pinehurst Station.

         This would save money and provide better connections for Lake City. Lake City has grown in every direction — including east. Ten years ago there wasn’t much at 35th & 125th, now there is. Likewise a lot of apartments have been added on 33rd. By covering more of the east-west part of Lake City it complements the north-south nature of the 77 (which would be the second fastest way to get to Link). This combination of buses is just better in every respect.

         With a little bit more money I would go further. [Note: I’m stealing some of eddie’s ideas now.] Send the 5 to Lake City (Fred Meyer) via 130th/125th. Send the 75 to Bitter Lake but don’t end at 145th & Linden. Instead take over that northern section of the 5 and end at Shoreline CC. This would create overlap where you want it (along the main Bitter Lake/Lake City corridor). It would mean two 15 minute buses could combine for 7.5 minute (midday) frequency between these two urban neighborhoods (with the station in the middle). This would not cost much more than what they have planned (if anything) yet it would be so much better.

         * No one is quite sure why ST is waiting for East Link to be complete before rerouting the 522.

         [Note: At some point I’ll turn these ideas into a post. There is obviously no hurry.]

      4. RossB: the adopted plan has routes 77 and 75 paired through the U District; it is consistent with the map you shared. Otherwise, Route 77 could terminate near Roosevelt station as Route 522 does now. (You explained this to me; I had not understood it at first).

         From staff report, ordinance, March 19, 2024

         “Route 77: new service PHASE 2
         The new Route 77 would serve Bitter Lake, Lake City, Roosevelt Station, and U District Station. It would not be launched until Phase 2, when 2 Line service is fully operational, and Sound Transit has implemented changes to ST Route 522. Route 77 would be interlined with Route 75, meaning riders using those routes would not be required to transfer in the University District. Service is proposed to be frequent, at every 15 minutes during weekdays, 15-20 minutes during weekend days, and 30 minutes at night, both weekdays and weekends. The new route would operate from 5:00 am to 1:30 am on weekdays and 5:30 am to 1:00 am on weekends.”

         My criticisms: first, Route 77 is not enough service at the NE 130th Street station; second, it misses the Lake City hub stops requiring walking transfers. A second 15/15 route should serve the station as well as two local routes.

      5. I was not aware of the staff report. Do you have a link?

         In any event that is a bad idea. The 45/75 pairing is intuitive for most of it. It starts at the far west side of the north end of the city (32nd Avenue NW) and goes to the far east side of the north end of the city Sand Point. The through-routing part clearly adds value. It provide unique combinations that are straightforward (e. g. Crown Hill to Children’s Hospital) and probably about as fast you are going to get.

         In contrast the Bitter Lake version of the 77 doesn’t offer that. If you are at Bitter Lake you may as well get off the bus at 130th and take Link to the U-District Station and take any bus through campus. If you are at Lake City you are better off taking the 65 or 75 directly there. The geography is all wrong.

         It also challenges the driver on Roosevelt and 125th. Half the time they go straight (onto Roosevelt to get to the station) half the time they take a left and head towards Northgate. They have to remember if they are doing the loop clockwise (75 then 77) or counterclockwise (75 then 77). That is just goofy.

         I also don’t see the advantage. A 77 starting (or ending) in Bitter Lake is not that short of a route. From what I can tell it will actually take longer than the 45. Thus you gain nothing in that respect. This is yet another reason why the 77 should start at the Lake City Fred Meyer and the 75 should be altered to serve the Pinehurst Station and Bitter Lake.

         Oh, and you brought up another reason. I think the 77 should go from Lake City to the U-District. But there are other options. If you are short on money you can end at Roosevelt (as you suggested). It would easily be a live-loop at Roosevelt. But it could also be another way of backfilling service on Woodlawn if we moved the 62 (which we should do). You suggested the extending the 79 but if you extended the 77 it would retain the same frequency as today.

         But you could also extend it to the U-District, providing good one-seat rides from Lake City to the UW (along with increased frequency along a key corridor). If there isn’t room to layover by the station there is probably room to layover by Campus Parkway (or the triangle). In each case it costs a bit more but you add more in the way of one-seat rides and improve the headways along a key corridor.

         And yes, you could through-route this 77 but the only significant advantage of doing so is that it could be shorter than the alternatives.

         The main takeaway is that the current plans are simply not good. There are so many bad things about the plan:

         1) The 45 and 65 get worse.
         2) Service is duplicated on 125th for no good reason.
         3) Service is duplicated from Roosevelt to the UW (which could be a good thing) but we may want to save money instead (and run buses more often).
         4) Lake City is not connected very well its nearest station (Pinehurst) or Bitter Lake.
         5) Lake City is not connected very well to Roosevelt.

         We can do better. A lot better.

   2. It will probably never happen, but if the 44 could someday get thru routes with the 255, that would be amazing for me, opening up large swaths of the city to requiring fewer connections.

      1. during the U Link process, there was flirtation with pairing Route 45 with Route 271 turnback (at BTC); the process could not handle it.

         In East Link Connections, it would be routes 45-270.

5. Noting the 44’s ridership drop-off east of 15th, it’s fitting that Sound Transit planners have always insisted that any train route to Ballard should go east of 15th instead of west of it, where all the stuff is. Assuming that this station will be built someday, travel between the station and all the destinations west of 15th will require crossing 15th at Market. That’s mildly unpleasant on foot, quite unpleasant on bike, and slow on transit. Meanwhile SDOT considers Ballard Bridge rebuild plans that would extend the viaduct north across Market, making the mildly unpleasant experience of crossing 15th much worse.

   If everything goes the worst possible way (station near 14th, limited station-area development, extended viaduct along 15th) Ballard Link could be a bit of a dud, and an expensive one at that. Better results are definitely worth fighting for.

6. The ridership drop between 15th & Phinney shows how fundamentally important land use is to transit ridership. There are a few parcels that were rezoned in 2019 for low rise apartment buildings and mixed-use between 15th and 8th, and then a sea of SFH until Greenwood/Phinney Ave.

   The current proposed One Seattle comprehensive plan update will help a little bit by up-zoning some of the area between 8th and 3rd and extending the LR1 a few blocks north of Market.

   1. Topography & street design may also have something to do with it as well. There is a long, winding hill between Phinney and 8th Ave. Additionally, there’s only one way in/out and that’s 46th St. Areas north and south of that have even steeper hillsides.

      1. That’s a fair point. Come to think of it, the reasons you gave are probably why this stretch did not receive the 1/2 block of up-zoning to LR3 that much of the rest of the frequent transit network did in the draft plan.

7. I’ve never ridden the 44 but I used to take the 43 all the time between downtown and uw medicine center for assorted appointments. There’s no longer bus service from the hospital to downtown. Everyone is forced to take link one way or another which is too bad

   Sorry I don’t have first hand experience with the 44.

8. One route I’m very curious about is the 45. In Metro’s most recent System Evaluation it had 11.6 passenger miles per platform mile (which, if I’m interpreting it correctly, at least approximates a measure of how many people are riding at any given point along the route); the 7 and 150 were the only non-RapidRide routes with more, and the 45 isn’t being considered for RapidRide status like those routes are. (Last month I’d written it down as having the fourth-highest number in the whole system behind the A, 150, and E; I don’t know if the numbers updated or if I misrecorded some numbers.)

   The 150 and the next-highest ranking non-RapidRide route, the 101, both have significant freeway-running segments, so they probably have a disproportionate number of people taking the bus along a stretch that goes a long distance with no stops, while the 7 is very popular all throughout its route and that’s why it’s one of the next routes to be converted to RapidRide. But the 45 is a fairly short route (but, I believe, still longer than the 44) that mostly avoids North Seattle’s major population centers west of Roosevelt Station and maybe all the way until it gets to the U-District (Greenwood is decent but it’s not Ballard or Northgate).

   What’s going on to make this route so productive? Are there a lot of through riders from the 75? People commuting to UW from Greenwood? People living along 15th and the Ave taking advantage of it to get to Greenwood or even 15th/85th? Is it just a particularly useful route for transfers? What gives?

   1. Greenwood and Crown Hill are both quite built up, and the Roosevelt-UW corridor has huge ridership (see also: route 67). It also runs on relatively fast roads for a decent amount of the route (85th and 45th). I’m not sure how riders per platform mile is calculated, but it may also be because it through-routes with the 75, so there’s no dropoff in riders as it approaches the end of the line (on 45th)

      I think rides per platform hour is generally a better measure of productivity, since the cost to run a bus correlates much more directly with time than with distance.

      1. Well, when I first went digging into the numbers I was looking for a measurement of how full the bus typically is under the thinking that those kinds of routes would make good candidates for RapidRide or rail. The other measure Metro lists is “rides per platform hour”, not “passenger-hours per platform hour”, so I take it to be the number of passengers riding any part of the route and not a good measure of how full the bus is at any point in time. (Although dividing the raw number of rides by the raw number of platform hours from an earlier table in the same document produces a different number.)

         If we ignore that, though, the 150’s off-peak r/ph is okay but not great, while the 101’s is downright in the bottom quarter of “urban” routes, which suggests the most popular part of the routes is the fast part on the freeway. I doubt those segments would be part of a RapidRide conversion; they’d be truncated to Rainier Beach if not (in the 150’s case) Southcenter, so that could be an argument in favor of using the r/ph measurement as the main point of comparison. The 45, on the other hand, has the second-highest off-peak r/ph in the entire system, behind only the 7 – yes, ahead of every existing RapidRide route, with the A falling just short 42.7 to 42.8.

      2. Yes, the 45 performs very well, especially off-peak. I think there are several reasons for this (and I am repeating some of the ideas already mentioned):

         1) It is a very urban route that has gotten a lot more urban over the years. Crown Hill, Greenwood, Roosevelt and the UW have all added a lot more housing and retail in the last ten years.

         2) It serves the UW midway through the route. It is worth noting that it through-routes with the 75. Thus the counting is a bit weird (it isn’t obvious where the 75 starts and the 45 ends) but the combination means the bus is basically just part of a longer route. Longer routes tend to get more riders (there are more one-seat combinations) and this is the one of the more most cost-effective sections.

         3) It has good connections to Link at Roosevelt and the U-District (and at least a pleasant connection to the UW Station).

         4) There are other buses that overlap the route but for much of it there is no competition. The 73 was infrequent. The 67 runs over on Roosevelt. So someone who is on The Ave between 45th and 65th headed to the south end of The Ave, the middle of campus or the U-Village pretty much only has this bus.

         Looking at the stop data (from the same period as the 44) shows that it behaves as you would expect a high performing bus to behave: Lots of people getting on and off the bus at various places. For an inbound bus it has a surprisingly strong anchor (at the north end of Sunset Hill). It is nothing special on 85th between there and 15th but it probably moves quickly. Then there is a big jump in boardings at 15th followed by lots of riders at the Greenwood stops. This is also where you start getting a considerable number of people getting off the bus. There are more riders boarding at Greenwood Avenue than Aurora but Aurora has a lot more people getting off the bus. After Aurora it is nothing special but it is still picking up and dropping off a few riders. The southwest part of Green Lake (Ravenna and Woodlawn) is very busy. Plenty of people board by the Roosevelt Station and a lot more get on the bus. It has the highest combined ridership going that direction (but only because the path through campus is considered a different bus). Going the other way it counts as a 45 and there are a ton of people at every campus stop.

         So yeah, you could make the case for converting it to RapidRide. The tricky part is then you have to commit to a particular through-route pair (and its routing). Right now it is paired with the 75. I would send the 75 to Shoreline Community College. I think you can make the case for the whole thing being RapidRide since the section between Lake City and Shoreline CC will be strong too but more than anything it locks us into a routing that isn’t obvious (unlike say, the RapidRide E). I’m not sure if I want to commit to even the north end of this route. It is very good but maybe the 61 should go to Sunset Hill and the 45 should turn on 8th and head for the QFC at Holman Road.

         As much as I like off-board payment (and it would really speed up this route) I think right-of-way improvements are more important. Add BAT lanes on 85th and the 61 benefits as well. Add them in other sections and it is quite likely they will be shared with other buses in the future too. I like the approach they are taking with the 41 — just make the bus faster.

   2. The 45 to Greenwood is (observationally) typically more than half consisting of UW students taking it from campus to destinations before (south of) 50th St. The same is true in reverse for the 75 to Northgate (the routes change numbers at different spots). These are short rides though, so they theoretically should have a small effect on passenger miles.

   3. I use it frequently. It is used by many students (Whitman, Eaglestaff, Blanchet, Roosevelt, UW) and there are many intermediate destinations; there are transfer points with Link and routes 40, 5, 62, 65-67, and the D and E Lines. Many UW folks use the 45-75 arc.

      With the Route 20 deletion, a pathway change could be considered. Route 45 serves North Green Lake Way next to the park; ducks and fish do not ride transit. The Route 20 pathway has housing on both sides and it serves the old business district and new large apartment buildings on Woodlawn Avenue NE. SDOT should install stop signs on North 80th Street at 1st Avenue NE. The Route 20 absorbed the former Route 316 and failed to take those riders to Roosevelt Link.

      1. I agree about changing the route close to Green Lake. It is the second part of this proposal: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/03/20/improve-buses-on-the-east-side-of-green-lake/

9. I’m curious as to what people on this blog think would be the best routing of an future Ballard-UW Link line? I see two primary options:

   1) Follow the route of the 44 on Market/45th

   2) Follow the route of the 40 along Leary before eventually heading NE to UW.

   I have long been in the camp for #1 but let me make the case for the second option:

   – We should continue running the 44 (or future RR version of it) as there is no other viable east/west surface route south of 85th street. 65th is far too steep and has that weird intersection at the top of the hill at Phinney Ave. You could make the case that 80th would work but that still leaves a huge gap to the south.

   – A station further south in Fremont services the dense center of the neighborhood, and is closer to the Fremont Bridge. This allows riders/bikers/pedestrians from the south side of the cut easier access to Link.

   – Gas Works park is a regional destination, especially in the summer with concerts, events, and other programing.

   – The route is much more flat and would probably be cheaper to build without having to navigate Phinney Ridge. I know the businesses would but up a fight but running elevated SE on Leary seems ideal to connect Ballard and Fremont.

   1. > a future Ballard-UW Link line?

      there’s the ballard uw high capacity study if you want to read about it https://www.theurbanist.org/2014/06/13/sound-transit-releases-preliminary-report-on-ballard-uw-520-rail/. It kinda heavily depends on what kind of construction method is done.

      1) tunneled it’s probably just along 44th/market then
      2) elevated either would work
      3) at grade like portland’s light rail probably along burke gilman adjacent is easier to build

      1. STB covered, too: https://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/14/sound-transit-reviews-ballard-uw-options/

      2. @nathan thanks for linking it I knew stb had it somewhere

         I guess it has been a decade since it was last talked about. There’s been a lot of focus on west Seattle and Ballard (correctly) but perhaps when there’s extra time we can go over the other proposals

      3. It depends on the technology finally chosen for Ballard Link, because it cannot connect to North Link, certainly not with any kind of “revenue” [i.e. “passenger-carrying”] movments. It might be possible to junction just north of the platform at UW Station using a right-hand turnout and run underground up to around 45th and then run across under the north edge of campus to U-District.

         What this means is that whatever the Ballard-Downtown technology is should govern the Ballard-UW extension, because that’s exactly what it should be. Whether it goes through Fremont or along Market/45th, it should be the same trains just continuing along to UW, creating a semi-circle which makes access to U-District and downtown equally simple from any bus serving the west half of Seattle south of 85th.

         Since it’s the consensus of the Blog that an automated Light Metro makes the most sense for Ballard-Downtown, then the cross-city line should be the same. That eliminates option #3 because it’s not safe to have automated trains across whose trackway people can wander.

         So, yes, “the Lazy U Line” [see branding iron terminology] would follow the west tunnel approach to Ballard (from the original discussions about 2014). I know that has problems with the big sewer trunk under the Ship Canal, but it just means that the tunnel costs more. The Ballard Station would be east-west about Leary. Ross advocated for running elevated west of Phinney Ridge, and if this were a disconnected line, I’d agree. But as an extension if it’s elevated there it would have to be elevated across the Ship Canal pretty near the Ballard Locks. I think that might get some heavy push-back from the Coast Guard. There are a LOT of maritime activities on both sides of Salmon Bay. It would certainly raise a lot more objections than a bridge ar 14th NW.

         So it’s likely that to do a dog-legged single line, it would require tunneling under Salmon Bay.

         But once north of the Ship Canal, it’s possible to envision in some way surfacing east of 14th NW and running elevated to the flanks of Phinney Ridge. Perhaps the downtown Ballard station could be at Leary as is most popularly proposed but then the line turns southeast along Russell or Tallman, swings under 15th and 14th and then surfaces in a block immediately north or south of Leary Way. Say it’s on Ballard Way. Here’s what that block looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6629148,-122.3733964,3a,79.5y,108.04h,83.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slUjx81B7RlMC71OrYufRfA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.227828329708657%26panoid%3DlUjx81B7RlMC71OrYufRfA%26yaw%3D108.03754865157477!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

         You think maybe that block could host a transition to elevated operation? Sure looks like it to me. They are UGGG-LY!, but so is the neighborhood…..

         The elevated trackway has a station almost immediately east of 11th for the neighborhood around Fred Meyer, jogs down Leary to 45th (example, not a hard proposal), turns east again and after crossing Third NW dives back into the hillside, curves southwest to the “point” under 38th and Aurora and the station Ross proposed there.

         It swings back northeast just beyond the station and dives gently to stay north of Bridge Way underruns Stone Way with a station there about Lucas Place, continues on to 45th and Merdian for another station then turns cardinal East under 45th to two more stations, one at 2nd NE and another between Roosevelt and the freeway (Eighth NE?) and then UW Station. Revenue service would continue eastward under 45th to station just northeast of McCarty Hall. A non-revenue connection could be made by swining south along the east side of Montlake to just north of the platforms at UW Station. But it would not be necessary.

         “That’s a lot of stations!” you say, in some horror. Well, yes, it is, but remember that if Ballard-Downtown is built as an automated Light Metro with two-car trains and short headways, this extension would be automated Light Metro with two car trains [the same ones] also, so the stations would be at most half as expensive as full Link stations. Given the smaller diameter of third-rail collector tunnels, the tubes would be less expensive as well.

         P.S. The Ballard-UW extension should happen after Ballard-Downtown is extended into First Hill, but that’s not a “must”, just a “nice to have”.

         What a route that would be, connecting every important center in the city, except arguably south Downtown, directly on one line.

         Project staging:
         Westlake to Smith Cove
         Smith Cove to Ballard
         Westlake to First Hill/Central District
         Ballard to UW
         UW to UW East
         First Hill to Upper Rainier?
         UW East to Lake City

      4. For clarity, that connection I mentioned just north of UDS would be only “non-revenue” trains needing access to the heavy maintenance facilities where they would be delivered “in tow” by standard Link cars serving as locomotives.

         If third-rail power is used to have smaller tunnels, the collectors would have to be retractible so they didn’t threaten passengers too close to the passing train at Link stations.

   2. I’ve warmed to the idea of making it a loop. So the Ballard line would go through Interbay, cross the canal and then head east on Market. For the sake of argument I will assume it is all underground although I could see it being above ground as it crosses the canal and then cut and cover on Market and then tunneled later on.

      I would probably have a station at 20th, 14th and 8th (on Market). That is pretty good stop spacing and eventually 8th would fill in. So you have TOD and serve the existing density. There would be no need to have a station at 15th since the bus on 15th (currently the D) would turn and head towards the heart of Ballard (serving the station at 20th). In contrast the bus on 8th would continue towards Fremont. That is also an option for the bus on 15th as it could make a simple dogleg to serve the station at 14th (or 8th) while heading towards Fremont. With a stop on 20th the 40 can serve that station (retaining high-density coverage in Old Ballard).

      East of 8th the train would be tunneled. It would curve southeast (staying below the surface) before it stopped close to the troll. This is where things get interesting. I believe you can provide a good connection to lower Fremont and provide a good connection for the 5 and E. This assumes that there is a bus stop on Aurora close to there (something folks on this blog have been talking about before there was a RapidRide E — https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/04/04/connecting-fremont-to-rapidride-e/). Things are very three-dimensional there. But from 36th to Aurora is relatively flat (https://maps.app.goo.gl/9FsHEnMMzbuBuMD68). Thus you have an entrance to the station at 36th. Ideally you also have an entrance at Fremont Avenue (essentially approaching it from the side). But if the only entrance was by the troll it would still be very good. It isn’t the heart of Fremont but you don’t necessarily want to be really close to the water. A five to ten minute walk from the troll will get you to a lot of places in Lower Fremont. In contrast a stop at 45th wouldn’t.

      After Fremont the train would curve again, heading up the hill. It would serve Wallingford Avenue (with a station) and then head to the U-District for its last stop (although it would be built so that it could be extended east).

      The whole thing would be automated, with smaller platforms (to keep costs down). It would run frequently all day long. One of the reasons I’ve warmed to the loop idea is that it would transform Magnolia (more TOD). It would do so in ways that most of ST3 does not. Magnolia to downtown is fairly fast. (Riders will likely benefit from the Ballard Link plans but not a lot.) In contrast Magnolia to the UW is very slow. Without traffic it takes about a half hour. Even with the transfer you would likely cut the travel time in half. It would be faster than driving at noon. If Seattle ever adopts a zoning policy as liberal as Spokane’s (or more liberal) Magnolia would likely boom either way. But this would dramatically improve transit from that peninsula (making the transfer worth it).

      As with the 44 I would expect the 31/33 to continue (but be modified in Magnolia). They serve different places along the way although they overlap in spots.

      1. Honest Ross, I didn’t read this comment before I posted mine above. I just remembered our discussion a few weeks ago. This would be a permanent super-win for Seattle.

      2. @Tom — That’s cool. I think we are on the same page. As I wrote in the other comment I have really warmed to the idea of a single curving line serving Ballard. Just to rehash things for a bit this is where I would put the stations (from north to south):

         1) Future extensions to the east (e. g. U-Village).
         2) U-District (connecting station).
         3) Wallingford (e. g. Wallingford Avenue & 45th).
         4) Fremont (next to the troll at 36th under the Aurora Bridge).
         5) 8th NW (on Market or someplace a bit farther south).
         6) 14th NW & Market
         7) 20th NW & Market
         8) Interbay (Dravus)
         9) Smith Cove
         10) Seattle Center (1st Avenue North & Mercer)
         11) South Lake Union (7th & Thomas)
         12) Denny & Westlake (although I would prefer something further east)
         13) Westlake (connecting station).
         14) Future extension to the south (e. g. First Hill).

         So twelve stations at first. The connections at the U-District and Westlake are essential. Likewise the Fremont Station has to do double-duty (connect to the Aurora buses and serve Fremont). But otherwise there is plenty of wiggle room with the stations. I listed what I assume were the station plans for Ballard Link (stations 8 through 12).

         I threw together a map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1K8ofpIh13fCJU_b7eZxCyprRtcofVfA&usp=sharing. Obviously this wouldn’t be the way the track would go but you get the idea.

         I was not enthusiastic about the curve at first because some of the trips are better using other modes. For example U-District to Westlake is much faster with the other train. Two of the stations are close to Aurora so folks traveling between those stops will take the E. But the more I look at it the more I find things I like:

         1) It covers Ballard really well. Every stop (20th, 14th and 8th) works for going downtown or to the UW (or places in between).

         2) The same thing is true for Magnolia (as I mentioned in the other comment).

         3) It connects really well with a potential bus network. Consider the contrast with Ballard Link. First thing that happens is that buses like the D get truncated. It is likely this saves time but not a huge amount of time (and even less for a bus like the 15). But since the train also goes east it adds a lot more value. Thus the truncated bus is a lot more popular and thus more likely to run a lot more often. Plenty of buses continue to do what they are doing (e. g. the RapidRide E, 5, 28, 40) but they are greatly enhanced. To oversimplify things a bit — this is a train worth transferring to.

         4) It adds redundancy to the rail system. If there is a shutdown between the UW and downtown this would work for a lot of the trips. I think it is more useful in terms of redundancy than the second downtown tunnel just because the buses cover that area really well.

      3. Quite interesting! The Troll station would be a great transfer station for the E riders to get to either Ballard or UW.

      4. I agree with your reasoning. Loops are not usually good for the many reasons that you’ve criticized the CCC making a loop out of the streetcar lines. Lots of trips are better made by cutting across the loop.

         But this is a MUCH BIGGER loop with a lake and really big hill in the middle. There are no east-west “cut-throughs” between Mercer and 34th,

         Certainly, from the Denny Way station, someone headed to Fremont who sees a 40 coming might just take it and get there a few minitues quicker. But from SLU station the walk over to Westlake would make the train faster, and so on around the loop. Someone coming from “Downtown Magnolia” might stay on the 31 (or its successor) if just going to Fremont, but would probably transfer to the train if going all the way to U District, especially if their trip included Link beyond.

         While I probably went overboard on Wallingford stations, I’m certain that one at 8th NE and NE 45th would be well used, especially if the transfer at U-District were made efficiently (yes, a big “if”). The neighborhood along the freeway is HUGE already and getting bigger every year. A station at 8th would get some walk-ups from the west side of the freeway as well.

      5. On Magnolia, I doubt that we’ll ever see major densification west of the summit. The folks there have more than enough money to buy out anyone who might be willing to sell to a developer. But the east slope of the hill would be superb for high-end multi-family. For most of the way from Elliott Bay to Dravus you can see downtown or at least the port with Mount Rainier in the background on a good day. Not everyone would want to part with their cottage, but a lot would and many people will be able to walk to Dravus Station without having to deal with 15th.

   3. My understanding is there are some limitations on where a line can go due to utility locations, including a high pressure sewer line. So, it may not come to the best routing.

      I like the idea of hitting the main activity centers, such as central Fremont, where the 44 currently doesn’t go.

      I also think it would be good to hit a few places missed by Central Link. Eg: being able to have some sort of service at the Montlake freeway stop to better connect to 520 buses.

      Does it have to stay north of the ship canal? If it served SPU it could connect with the 3,4 and 13 before hitting central Fremont.

      1. If you cross over to SPU you have to do it twice or bypass downtown Ballard. That seems like quite a stretch.

      2. The ship canal is pretty narrow through the area between SPU and the Fremont Bridge. SPU is actually very slightly north of central Fremont, so curve wise, it wouldn’t be that big a diversion. It also gives two alternative ship canal crossings when the bridges get stuck open (or is that just a Portland thing?)

         You’d wind up skipping the Fremont/Ballard Fred Meyer, which is probably more important to serve for grocery store access.

   4. #2 is clearly the best, as it allows it to include both Fremont and Wallingford. Fremont is otherwise left out of the Link network. d.p., an STB commentator from years ago, was the first to make the case that an underground line could zigzag to both Fremont and Wallingford and still have good travel time to the U-District, because underground routing doesn’t have to follow the street grid or narrow right-of-way constraints.

   5. The others have provided links to all the studies done on adding rail to this corridor. It’s a three-dimensional puzzle because of the elevation changes, hills, soils and even the land underneath et the canal.

      I see two basic technologies that could work. The alignment would depend on the technology.

      A) Surface Streetcar. This would be the Leary Way + Gas Works Park alignment option. The advantage is how well it serves local trips, particularly west of Old Ballard plus it would be seemingly cheaper to build. The disadvantage is that it wouldn’t move that fast plus construction and final alignment may disrupt Burke-Gilman trail features. It seems well suited for areas west of Fremont or Phinney Ridge. Perhaps a streetcar that enters a tunnel west of Aurora would be a way to do this.

      B) Automated subway. A bored tunnel for automated trains would be very fast (advantage) but would limit the number of local trips because each station vault would be expensive (disadvantage). It seems better suited for serving areas east of Aurora.

      It comes down to whether the objective is to quickly get to UW from Ballard or to connect to more local destinations — not only Fremont and Wallingford but those in between like the Fred Meyer area.

      Notice that I don’t mention the current Link technology. Even if ST builds Ballard Link as the 1 Line, the added connecting line could still be automated — although many of us give ST a big fat F when it comes to designing rail-to-rail transfers.

      ******

      There is another way to do this and that is to build one Ballard Line from Capitol Hill Station rather than two from Westlake and U District. It’s seemingly not been studied. It is similar to the automated Ballard stub idea that has been floated around here but without the Westlake construction mess. Depending on how it’s configured underground it could cross the current Link tunnel at a different elevation just west of Capitol Hill Station and connect to a First Hill station and continue to Judkins Park as a version of the full Metro 8, or it could keep running more eastward to connect with RapidRide G in the CD or Madison Valley. It would connect SLU and Capitol Hill directly and that is a speed and slope problem today.

      It’s such a radically different approach that it would require reexamining all the decisions about Link in Seattle. As much potential as this option has for study I don’t see anyone willing to advocate for it yet. If ST would consider broad alternatives for an automated Ballard line it could emerge as a concept.

      ******

      A final issue is how easy it is to get up and down the hill in Fremont or in other places I. The corridor. The RapidRide E stops are much higher than the Fremont waterfront is. It’s one of those things that isn’t apparent from a 2D map (like the elevation change from Harborview to Pioneer Square for example). Sometimes solutions can be more vertical rather than a horizontal track (like an elevator tower with a view from the top or a deep elevator shaft that may even be for a diagonal elevator ala a funicular or even a gondola). Sometimes we are drawn to adding new full rail lines that take decades of development and billions of dollars, when an elevation remedy would provide the service much more quickly and easily. Imagine Ballard to UW as a gondola, or building gondolas across the Ship Canal as opposed to a deep tunnel or expensive high bridge for Link. Even imagine a way to get from the RapidRide E stop to the middle of Fremont. Yeah I know it’s rather fantastical and not realistic in how ST thinks — but I felt like it should be mentioned.

   6. I think it would be easier to run elevated over the Burke-Gilman Trail between Ballard and Fremont — if the right of way is there. Cyclists may not like that though. Regardless, automated trains can have single track sections to narrow viaduct widths in critical areas.

      Alternatively, the Burke Gilman Trail could be elevated to be Seattle’s version of the High Line, freeing the land below for streetcar tracks. Riding it would however feel very different — with better views but less of a sense of riding with nature.

      1. “Riding it would however feel very different — with better views but less of a sense of riding with nature.”
         <a href="https://thetravelbunny.com/new-york-city-the-high-line/"Not if they build it like the High Line."

10. Re getting to Link from Aurora. Last week I took the E to see Bitter Lake. I got off at 145th and walked south on Linden Ave N (as the Interurban Trail becomes there). I was impressed with the 7-story apartments on both sides of Linden, some of them senior housing. The north Bitter Lake park (the reservoir) is just a wooded hill, so nothing to go to, but a sign says a rebuild of the reservoir will add 6 surface acres for a park. It got dark by the time I reached 135th and my leg was sore.

    I saw a surprising thing at 135th & Linden: an off-street bus stop going both directions with a shelter. Since it was dark and it would be hard to walk five more blocks to 130th, I took advantage of it. The route is the 346. One direction goes to Northgate Station; the other to Shoreline South station. The first bus came in 5 minutes to Northgate. It spent some time on 130th, then went down Meridian, and did the Northwest Hospital detour. That detour is large, like Bellevue College. So the 346 clearly gets the short end of the stick in terms of diversions. It’s the Greenwood Avenue route (I thought it used to be on Dayton Ave?), which is the least significant route compared to the Meridian route (345), or the Ridgecrest/185th/Richmond Beach route (348), so that makes some sense.

    I thought about taking the E south to an east-west route to Link, but the only one I was sure was 15-minute frequent was the 40 on 105th. I didn’t want to wait 20-30 minutes for a transfer. There’s no other route on 130th yet (the 77 hasn’t started), and I was dubious about the frequency of the routes further north. So I took the 346, which turned and turned from 135th to 130th to Meridian to a stroll through the North Seattle College campus (why not stay on 92nd) to Northgate.

    That’s the situation now without an east-west route on 130th/125th to a Pinehurst Station.

    I never got to the real Bitter Lake Park and its namesake lake on 130th west of Aurora, so I’ll do that later. Although from Google Maps it looks like the park is just a ballfield. I’d like to see the lake though.

    1. The route you took was route 345, not 346. It was (poorly) revised in fall 2024. Yes, the deviations to serve Four Freedoms, Northwest Hospital, and the VAMC are similar. In fall, new route 365 joined Route 345 in deviating to serve the hospital. It may take five minutes from Meridian Avenue North and back; sometimes there are delays at the guard shack. Note that FF provided land for the stop and improved turnaround loop; the SDOT two-way PBL made getting bus stops difficult. In 2000, Linden was unimproved. (Also note that the local streets in Haller Lake need not be served by routes 345 and 365 after 2026; service should be east-west; north 122nd and 128th streets and Corliss Avenue north do not have sidewalks).

       Metro should reconsider routes 50, 345, 346, and 365. If a route terminates or does not extend beyond the special market, it ceases to be a deviation.

       Revised Route 50 could be truncated; its terminals could be the VAMC and Othello station; it could Beacon hill link. (West Seattle service should be changed for more directness). There is bus layover available on the VAMC driveway.

       Revised route 345 could endpoints at FF and the hospital, but layover at Northgate. Route 346 could also loop through the hospital. Both routes could serve the upcoming Pinehurst station and 5th Avenue NE.

Comments are closed.