Ryan Packer had a recent editorial about adding bus service on First Avenue. I completely agree. There are many options and issues to consider.
Center Running with Normal Buses
Many of you are familiar with the RapidRide G buses on Madison Street that run in the center of the street and use center platforms. These buses avoid congestion that occasionally occurs with BAT lanes. There are no turning cars to worry about: it’s is like a busway in the middle of the street. On Madison Street they achieve this with special buses that have doors on both sides. This is very effective but it limits flexibility.
There is another technique that can achieve the same goal but does not require special buses. The buses serve center platforms from the right side (like a normal bus) even though the platform is in the middle of the street. You can see this in action for part of Van Ness Avenue in San Fransisco. You can also see how this works in these diagrams for a potential Aurora rebuild. By staggering the bus stops in this manner you can use regular buses to serve center platforms while still using a limited amount of street space. You would take just as much right-of-way from First Avenue as they planned on taking for the streetcar (with just as much of a speed improvement) but be able to serve it with any bus in our system.
Tradeoffs with Routing
There are a number of different routes that could serve First Avenue including something brand new. Various tradeoffs and issues come into play such as:
- The cheapest option from a service standpoint is to shift an existing route to First Avenue but otherwise leave it the same. The second-cheapest is to have a small extension of an existing route. The most expensive would be a brand new route.
- Moving trolley wire costs money, and Metro has been resistant to running trolleys regularly off-wire.
- Buses are paired through downtown (i. e. through-routed). This saves a considerable amount of money. Breaking the pairing would add to overlap. This could add extra service to First Avenue although it would cost more. For example the 1 is paired with the 14, so it starts in Mt Baker as the 14, changes the number to 1 just before downtown, and continues to the northern terminus on Queen Anne. If the the routes were split and allowed to overlap on First Avenue, the 14 could run from Mt Baker to Uptown (Lower Queen Anne), and the 1 could run from Upper Queen Anne to Pioneer Square.
- We should consider “common market”. Basically this means that buses that cover the same area should serve the same stops when possible (e. g. the 65 and 75 both go to the UW and both serve the same bus stops in Lake City).
- The more you can continue on First Avenue the more coverage you add. The proposed streetcar left out Belltown. A bus like the 24 would cover “all” of First Avenue (or at least from Jackson to Denny). Moving the 70 would cover only the southern half. The 5/21 would cover somewhere in between.
- Transfers should be a consideration. Moving the 5/21 to First Avenue would connect to more buses running on Third Avenue than moving the 1/14.
Given we have more than enough buses running through downtown, I don’t think we should add a new route on First. That was one of the many flaws with the proposed streetcar extension known as the Culture Connecor (CC) (previously named the City Center Streetcar (CCC)). It is much cheaper to just shift some bus routes. Even with that idea in mind I think every alternative would involve a tradeoff.
For example the city has considered shifting the 1/14 over to First Avenue. This would provide thorough coverage on First (much better than the proposed CC routing) but it would require adding wire or running off-wire for a considerable distance. While this is common in other cities, it isn’t common here. This would also break the “common market” concept for some trips. Right now from Third Avenue I can take the 7 and 14 to Rainier & Jackson. This would reduce that trip to just the 7.
Moving the 24/33/124 would not require moving wire. From a “common market” standpoint the impact is minor; some of the trips would no longer involve these buses but there would still be plenty of alternatives. One of the bigger issues is transfers. Riders from Magnolia would transfer to 1, 2, 13 or D to head down Third Avenue. This seems adequate but the transfer is awkward, especially inbound (towards downtown). A new bus stop along Denny west of First could be served by all of those buses, making an inbound transfer trivial. Riders using the 124 (coming and going south of downtown) would have plenty of opportunities to transfer to other buses on Third at Jackson. All riders would connect to Link, Sounder and Amtrak in the CID.
Another possibility would to send the 101 and 150 to First Avenue. Right now these buses run on 2nd and 4th. They end their runs at roughly Stewart and Denny. It wouldn’t cost that much money to redirect those routes towards First Avenue and end where the Metro 8 ends (in Uptown). They 101 and 150 are currently timed to run opposite each other along 2nd to provide combined 7.5 minute headways weekday daytime. That could continue and shift to First Avenue. Like the riders from the 124 they would have plenty of opportunity to transfer to a bus on Third Avenue if that is what they prefer.
There are a lot more possibilities. We could combine a few buses (and time them appropriately), or add a lot of buses and not worry about the timing (thus creating a “spine” on First Avenue just as there is a spine on Third). But with only one bus lane each direction it is unlikely the buses would skip stops (and “leap frog”) as they do on Third Avenue. Thus it would make sense to not add too many buses on First.
If Metro were to run a bus west of 3rd, would it make more sense, coverage-wise, to go even further west? Perhaps, Elliott/Western to Alaskan Way, over to the ferry terminal.
Of course, this would have a lot of the same problems as a route on 1st: shifting an existing route would likely adversely impact existing riders, so you’d have to either extend a route or create a new route, either or which would cost money. Such a route would also require frequent service in order to be worth riding; otherwise, people will just walk to another bus route or call an Uber or taxicab. Such a route would also get stuck in traffic without dedicated transit right of way.
If money were unlimited, an extension of RapidRide G to Seattle Center via this path would geographically fit the rest of the route quite well (with bus lanes throughout, of course). But, in the real world where money is tight and political will to take space away from cars, limited, such an extension is probably just a fantasy.
You start getting some issues if you go farther west than First. We already have existing plans to take lanes on First Avenue (at least for much of it). In Belltown the streets that run perpendicular are either very steep or nonexistent. Western looks like a challenge from a right-of-way standpoint west of the market. Elliot/Western might work but it doesn’t seem like it adds that much. If you are sending the Magnolia buses that way then you either miss the connection with the other buses (which is not acceptable in my opinion) or you zigzag up to First (e. g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/M3xc7BHYR9Eed32y6). That doesn’t seem worth it. You aren’t adding that much coverage because you are getting close to the water (fish don’t ride the bus).
Western or Elliott should have a bus route because they have highrises and are a steep hill from the 3rd Avenue buses or the nearest 8 stop on Denny. It’s ridiculous that this has been neglected for decades. But Metro has many higher priorities and limited resources, so I don’t see it happening until all the other problems are fixed. 1st is higher priority than Western/Elliott because it has more businesses. Western/Elliott are more residential so the people there have chosen to live there even with its lack of nearby transit. Putting frequent service on 1st will itself help Western/Elliott since it’s a shorter walk uphill.
Western or Elliot are very messy and you don’t gain much versus using First. Consider some options:
The 24/33 hugging the shore: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JPSgdUq86WzDmCWYA. Riders trying to transfer to a bus on Third have a long walk. Your best bet would probably involve adding a bus stop on Bay along with crosswalks and another bus stop on Denny. It is probably about a five minute walk.
The 24/33 staying on Western longer: https://maps.app.goo.gl/PQDckrwYq6hANdFM8. The transfer is better but still not great. Meanwhile you have to dogleg just to keep going straight.
The 24/33 on First for a bit: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fiq1DdYrnGCWwDUR7. Now you can have a same-stop transfer (which is ideal) for the Magnolia riders who want to go down Third. But you are still doglegging. If you are on Western itself it isn’t better. The only folks that come out ahead are those very close to the water. Is it worth the dogleg? Not in my book.
Now consider turning east. The 5, 28 and E turn at Battery and Wall (like the 5, 28 and E). You can’t do that from Western or Elliot. Battery doesn’t go through. There is Lenora and Blanchard (like the 40, 62, C). That works if you go on Western but not on Lenora (https://maps.app.goo.gl/wtZLgNPKQvsJALCo8). But that means leaving out Belltown (arguably the most important area to cover).
What if you are just headed up 1st Avenue North (up to Uptown)? You would have to dogleg. What if you are doing the reverse? Really messy: https://maps.app.goo.gl/URxrKR3czdN2cmwN7.
The only option I could see working is on Broad with the 4. You could add a bunch of bus stops and move a lot of wire and it could definitely work. But the 4 doesn’t run that often. Broad doesn’t work very well as a potential layover (for buses like the 101/150).
But assume that you did it anyway. Then what? The bus is either on the waterfront or on Western. If it is on the waterfront then you really haven’t increased coverage. First Avenue is midway between 3rd and the waterfront. There is nothing west of there (obviously). Thus if you put stops on First the most someone will have to walk for a north-south bus is about two blocks (from the waterfront to First). If you put stops on Alaskan Way the most you have to walk is also two blocks (folks on First have to walk two blocks to Third or Elliot).
Western might give a bit more coverage than First but it is literally only one block away. We are splitting hairs here in terms of coverage. It is also not clear that you can make Western fast for buses. In contrast we know that we can make very fast for transit up to at least Pine. That was the plan with the streetcar. I see no reason why the same approach can’t be extended for all of First (to Denny). First is pretty wide the whole way (e. g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/v2Jam9iyJ6rWDpzN9). That is practically six lanes (one parking lane and two general purpose lanes each direction). Get rid of the parking, add a center platform along with center bus lanes and you have room left over (to widen the sidewalk or have parking on one side). The only place it gets messy is close to Denny (because they added bike lanes). Even then I could see it working since those only run from Denny to Broad. Add a stop on both sides of Clay. The next stop north of there would be on Denny (not on First). Get rid of the left turns from First to Broad. That means you only need four lanes (and the bike lanes) between the bus stop north of Broad and Denny. There is room. That would mean that First Avenue from Denny to Jackson would have center bus lanes.
From Denny it is easy to transition north. If you are running the 24/33 you simply turn left (from the center lane). A bus headed up to Uptown would need to move from the center lane to the right lane. Going the other direction is just as easy (just take a right into the middle lane). There are really two advantages to using First. One is that it was what we promised people. Second is that it is easy.
I also think Western/Elliot is better candidate for this. It has a few existing service, it doesn’t require dense stops, and it has wider right of way compared to 1st. Van ness can make it work because it is notoriously wide by SF’s standard. You will find that there are 6-12 ft landscaped bus lane buffer or median at most part of the corridor where there is no stop, so it doesn’t require dramatic lane shift to make space for stops. Plus most service running along the bus lane don’t turn in the middle(49+Golden Gate Transit express service).
I agree that adding such thing in Western/Elliot is challenging, but it won’t be easier anywhere because you have to either take existing lanes or additional right of way to build this. If SDOT is ready to consider converting BAT lanes on Elliot to all-day bus lane there, center-running bus lane is a good thing to consider, too. Center running bus lane can also serve as a median to limit where cars can cross, which is a much needed safety improvement on Western/Elliot.
The only thing to Western/Elliot’s disadvantage is that building expensive transit lan on this corridor doesn’t seem to align well with the long-term vision that Ballard Link extension will open in late 2030s.
nvm my previous comment. I just realized I was thinking of a different section of Elliot.
HZ, OK to delete these two comments if the recommendation isn’t what you intended?
Alaskan Way has a bus route, it’s just called a waterfront shuttle, and it’s limited hours and seasonal. It runs from the Seattle Center, along Alaskan Way, to Pioneer Square. And the thing gets packed! At this point, it is worth formalizing it as a regular high frequency downtown bus route that is subsidized by the city.
One issue with the waterfront shuttle is that it gets stuck by the trains (on Broad). I don’t think it would work very well as a regular bus route. Tourists don’t mind getting stuck in traffic — they are just staring out the window enjoying the ride. Folks who have someplace to go would avoid it.
@ross
well don’t run it on alaskan way all the way, use the new elliot way bridge over the railroad tracks and continue on elliot ave and western ave
Asked and answered up above.
To be clear, I don’t think anything west of 3rd should be super-high priority for limited funds. First may have more stuff than Western, but it’s also just two blocks away from 3rd. We plenty of service holes elsewhere in the city that need filling, some of them very close to the city center (e.g. SLU to First Hill) and plenty of routes that don’t run as frequently as they should. In a world with infinite money, extending some route to First might make sense, I just don’t think it makes sense now.
And, no, the “free” option of shifting over and existing route isn’t great either; you reduce the walk from some passengers, but increase it for others. For instance, let’s say you shift the 1 to First. Now, someone from a #1 stop on Queen Anne headed to SLU or the Downtown Core has to walk further, so someone riding the bus a few blocks down 1st can walk less. Not a clear benefit. Plus, the #1 runs every 30 minutes, so even someone just headed down First will likely still walk to 3rd to avoid waiting for a bus that only runs every 30 minutes.
If money is unlimited and we really want more coverage, at least Elliott/Western starts to get a bit closer to real coverage (because the walking distance to 3rd is further than from 1st). But, if the bus gets stuck in traffic and arrives erratically, maybe people still don’t ride it anyway. It’s tough, and that’s part of why it’s not a priority.
For instance, let’s say you shift the 1 to First. Now, someone from a #1 stop on Queen Anne headed to SLU or the Downtown Core has to walk further, so someone riding the bus a few blocks down 1st can walk less. Not a clear benefit.
Or they transfer. I specifically mentioned transfers:
6. Transfers should be a consideration.
One of the bigger paragraphs discussed the transfer issue for the 24/33/124. The whole idea was to address this very issue. Folks from Magnolia would see their bus sent to First Avenue. If they wanted to go on Third Avenue they would have a same-stop transfer to a frequent series of buses. Thus someone from Magnolia could:
1) Stay on the bus to get to First Avenue.
2) Easily and quickly transfer to go on Third Avenue.
This is definitely a clear benefit.
Plus, the #1 runs every 30 minutes, so even someone just headed down First will likely still walk to 3rd to avoid waiting for a bus that only runs every 30 minutes.
The 1 runs every 15 minutes but the point remains. As Steve put it:
A 30 minute bus is close to useless, and a 15 minute bus is still marginally useful.
I agree. I regret not putting that idea into the post. I just forgot. Basically you need to have sufficient frequency to make it worth the while. I skipped ahead mentally to a spine (and mentioned the issues with it). But I think somewhere around 7.5 minute service would do it. So, for example you could have the 1/14 and the 24/33/124 running on First. Unlike the streetcar this would cost nothing in terms of service. But it would require some capital spending (to add center platforms and lanes for First all the way to Denny). It would still be a lot cheaper than the streetcar and a lot better.
If there was no Link, we’d probably just move the rapidride C to continue north on alaskan way and then elliot way. But it needs to connect to a link station on 3rd avenue.
The best options are then a route that starts in the northwest and heads southeast as then it can cross 3rd avenue for the link connection around chinatown.
Between 28/131/132 or 24/33/124 the latter seems the best as it can continue on western/elliot avenue to elliot avenue w easily. Where as with 28/131/132 the bus will have to head down battery/bell street
I don’t think it makes sense to run on Elliot/Western as I mentioned in the last comment. You need to connect to other buses (and not just Link). If the 24/33 ran on First Avenue, riders could transfer from the 24/33 to a bunch of buses (coming from Queen Anne) to go downtown on Third Avenue. Southbound it would be a same-stop transfer (ideal) once they added the stop I mentioned in the post. Northbound it would involve a short walk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dyBP4xHhYP71q7aY9). The walk would be shorter if the stop for the 24/33 was moved a bit further east (which is actually where it used to be — https://maps.app.goo.gl/eb7Ke7FnK9oD28xx5).
I think if we were to do it, we should do it right. It is going to be costly, but I think you need it for the full potential
1. While tedious going uphill, walking between 1st and 3rd only takes a few minutes. A 30 minute bus is close to useless, and a 15 minute bus is still marginally useful.
2. If you moved the 124, you pretty much just moved the problem around by having people from Georgetown to Downtown or a 3rd Avenue bus that doesn’t serve King Street walk up the hill. It is better than right now with the option to transfer, but I think most people will walk.
I think ultimately Metro just have to update its service guidelines to take into consideration that where equity and low income population is traveling to work, and the planning efforts would realize investment is needed for waterfront access for people working in retail, often low paying jobs
1. While tedious going uphill, walking between 1st and 3rd only takes a few minutes. A 30 minute bus is close to useless, and a 15 minute bus is still marginally useful.
Agreed. You need sufficient frequency to compete with the spine on Third Avenue.
2. If you moved the 124, you pretty much just moved the problem around.
I don’t think so. My assumption is that riders heading to Third will transfer just because buses on Third are so frequent. The 124 is paired with the 24 and 33. If you are headed from Magnolia to Third Avenue you just transfer to the 1, 2, 13 or D. In the middle of the day that is 14 buses an hour which means a fairly short wait time. The transfer would be at the same bus stop (heading towards downtown) and a short walk the other direction. Coming from the south the bus would turn on Jackson. From there you have the 5, 28 and 40. So that is 10 buses an hour midday. That is not quite as good but if we can find layover space further south it wouldn’t cost much to make it better (by extending some routes). This is also during a major service crunch. I think things will get better and we’ll be running more buses in the future. Riders could also transfer to Link which is especially useful for Westlake (which is a bit to the east).
But to your first point you would likely need to shift another bus as well. The 101/150 seems like the simplest. It would cost a little but not a lot. Riders coming from the south would be in a similar boat as those on the 124. The only difference is they could transfer to Link sooner, at SoDo. For that matter you can make the argument that we should just shift the 101/150. Midday frequency of 7.5 minutes along First Avenue may be good enough to be worth it.
There’s a Symphony Station exit to Second Ave from the mezzanine. I used it between Symphony Station and Pike Place Market again on Sunday and it was quite easy.
If the intent it to reduce forcing riders to walk up hills, an obvious strategy is to explore more level mezzanine entrances from Second Ave into Symphony and Pioneed Square Link stations. Why run a bus if a pedestrian entrance would address the elevation challenge?
Yeah, there are quite a few options for getting up the hill (the hard part if finding them). I know there are some maps but the only one I can find is this one: https://waterfrontseattle.org/about/accessibility which mainly covers the waterfront.
A bus along First would not be geared towards going up hill. It would be geared towards going along First. A trip like this would be a lot easier: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Lqc8sMvCwzcdW6Xz7. Note that even though the bus arrives within a minute and is reasonably fast (8 minutes) it still takes 17 minutes. It is actually faster to walk even though it is a 16 minute walk. I’m not saying it is the worst problem in our system — and probably wouldn’t be a priority if not for the fact that we proposed a streetcar — but it is still a problem. The fact that it can be solved with little or no extra service (and not a huge amount of capital) means that it should definitely be solved. Just move the money over from the proposed streetcars and run some buses there.
I am not sure I agree that 1st needs bus service. In Ryan Packer’s editorial, the only actual reasoning given is “a downtown tourist has no way to get from Pike Place to Pioneer Square without backtracking to Third Avenue”. Taken literally, that statement is wrong. Pike Place to Pioneer Square is half a mile. Just walk.
If we were to do it, I’d add the wire and move the 1/14 to 1st.
I think another benefit of a 1st Ave route is that Belltown could use east-west service closer to the waterfront. It’s not a huge gap but Belltown is very dense and it’s a trek from the waterfront to 3rd.
I would move the 101 and 150 to 1st. The 2nd/4th couplet is not great since the bus stops are so far apart, and 2nd/4th are going to lose a lot of service once ST stops running as many routes to downtown. The bus lanes there could get removed and moved to 1st
I agree on all your points. Belltown seems like it would gain the most from First Avenue service. It is where you have the most density and the biggest hole in service. If you are close to the water and down by Pioneer Square you can catch the C, H, 21 and 125 up to Third and places north. If you are at Madison you can catch the G up to Third (and further east). If you are Elliot & Bell your only decent option is to walk up to Third Avenue.
Moving the 101/150 also seems the simplest. Running buses on First Avenue instead of 2nd/4th seems like a good trade-off. Second/Fourth doesn’t really gain you anything in terms of coverage south of Pine. North of there it would be a tradeoff. The 101/150 goes up Howell and down Stewart. The 70/J joins it on Stewart so it doesn’t add that much coverage. I would rather run on Belltown.
Running the 101/150 to Uptown also seems sufficient in terms of frequency. That would be 7.5 minutes midday which is pretty good.
Question: Why not route the 101 and 150 to First Ave. for Belltown, and also complete the streetcar? If you’re going for center running bus lanes, you’re doing the heavy lifting to establish the ROW, and you should leverage it as much as possible. Signal priority is also more likely for busses plus a streetcar, versus for “just” regular metro busses. Also, these are longer routes that can easily get bogged down in traffic elsewhere, compromising the frequency in the downtown core (Even Route G struggles at times, and it is a much shorter route). Seattle should finish what it starts.
It’s mostly a cost issue. The streetcar extension has been pegged at 400+ million. For reference that is roughly 3 new RapidRide lines.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/01/19/first-avenue-streetcar-cost-estimates-soar-to-410-million/
It is a cost issue in terms of both capital and service. If a bus is moved it essentially costs nothing in terms of service. Adding the streetcar would require running some buses less often.
Also, these are longer routes that can easily get bogged down in traffic elsewhere
The same thing is true with the streetcar.
I agree, you are ripping up the street anyway for this transitway just add tracks to it and have 2-5 bus lines operate on it. The point is to have a very frequent trunk line on 1st. The beauty of this transitway design is can be mode neutral… could be a bus or a streetcar, combined a vehicle should be every 5 minutes or better for the key stretch between Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square.
The CCC was such a waste in building all this infrastructure just for streetcars when with a few design changes could have been designed to also accommodate running buses on it.
You still need concrete pads for the bus lanes, just embed rails. Likewise with the CCC you are putting in dedicated lanes and stations for streetcars might as well design them for buses too.
The CCC lanes would have been bus-compatible. That was part of the project. There were no plans for bus routes except the one block where the G turns around — they was going to have a shared center station — but it would be ready for any future bus routes on 1st.
A First Avenue Streetcar would have had center platforms served from the left side of the vehicle. That would mean that the RapidRide G could serve it, but no other buses could. This is like Jackson. The buses can’t use the streetcar stops (https://maps.app.goo.gl/DCintTtwh1eJH5m37). This also means they can’t add right-of-way for both the streetcars and buses. If they add right-of-way for one it would likely mean the other would be slower. It sucks.
In contrast if you have center platforms served by the right side of the bus then any bus can use them. It seems reasonable for the G to be the only bus on that corridor. It is is a fairly isolated corridor. In contrast there are more than enough buses running on nearby Third Avenue (as well as Second, Fourth and Fifth). There are dozens of low to no cost options for serving it. This could change over time as well. This is why having center platforms (served on the right side of the vehicle) would be a lot more valuable.
That’s whats so crazy to me with these center platform designs on proposed on 1st, in place on Jackson even Madison, precludes regular fleet buses from sharing the infrastructure. If Madison had these island platforms buses like the 60 could share the transitway. On Jackson they could have had a center running transitway with the FHS, 7, 14, 36, 106 all sharing the center lanes providing a frequent trunkline with common stops, instead you get stops in the middle of the street for streetcar, stops on the side of the street for buses (and often offset for traffic reasons). Its terrible all around. Even the drivers raging about a bus stopped in the general purpose lanes while the Madison bus lanes are open.
RossB points.
Two. 1st Avenue already has ETB overhead connections with South Jackson, Marion, Madison, Union, Pike, Pine, Stewart, Virginia, and Lenora streets. The wire between Lenora and Broad Street was taken down before 1990. There is two-way overhead between Broad Street and Uptown. (The Metro staff suggestion of routes 1-14 via 1st is not a great one).
Three. Before fall 2012, Route 14 used 3rd Avenue and served Summit. If shifted to 1st Avenue, the same pairing could be used.
Four. Two potential common markets are SODO and South Jackson Street.
Five. Current pairings could be broken and new pairings formed administratively. This has been done many times over the decades. One objective is to improve reliability. So, is the routes 5-21 pair difficult to operate? Could the new pairings be shorter?
Routes 101 and 150 are long and important trunk lines that would require significant curb space for layover. See the Eastlake facility. There does not seem to be capacity in Uptown. 1st Avenue connects with Stewart Street but does not connect with Olive Way, the over half of the couplet leading to the ELF. See old Route 66 before March 2016 or Route 41 between March 2019 and fall 2021; they used Stewart-Olive.
The notion of inside islands would be awkward on 1st Avenue; it has only five lanes. While the CC Streetcar would have used all five and ended all parking and load zones, opposition to that intensity of use was a key factor in the Council removing the CC Streetcar from the CIP, along with the high cost. It would also have high capital cost; that does not seem feasible today.
Current pairings could be broken and new pairings formed administratively.
Yeah, I mentioned that in the post. It is item 3.
The notion of inside islands would be awkward on 1st Avenue; it has only five lanes.
It is six lanes in places. I really don’t think that killed the streetcar. Money did. The lack of support from Metro and the transit community did. Most of us thought it was a poor use of money and we would be better off diverting buses. The people who supported it specifically mentioned the right-of-way being key. Center running buses would achieve that at very little cost. Without additional right of way, I think transit is dead on First Avenue whether the wheels are rubber or steel.
There does not seem to be capacity in Uptown [to send the 101/150 there].
There is not a lot, that’s for sure. But maybe if we were creative we could find some. If you look at this map: it is clear there aren’t a lot of paid parking spaces in the area. But there are still some. Republican between 1st Avenue North and Queen Anne Avenue would work. This would also make for a quick turnaround (the bus wouldn’t go all the way to Mercer.
I would also reroute the 32 to Magnolia which would free up a spot. If you are willing to go out of your way a bit there seems to more on Republican. The bus could turn around like this and there are quite a few spots on the right side of the street between 2nd Avenue West and Queen Anne Avenue. Another possibility is to park on John between Warren and Sue Bird Court. It wouldn’t be easy to get to but not impossible either (or the other way around). The point being that the buses really don’t need to go any further north than Denny (unlike the 8).
If extending to Uptown is impossible then we are back to sending the 101/150 to Eastlake. Turning on Virginia/Stewart (like the 70/J) might work. Southbound would be pretty easy. It would follow the current pathway. Northbound is fine until you get close to Denny. At that point you would work your way over to Howell (rubber) and layover by Eastlake (I am not sure how that is done right now). But it wouldn’t have to go that way. It doesn’t seem crazy to follow the 70/J and turn right to go from Fairview to Eastlake.
The other drawback is that turning at Virginia/Stewart means serving less of First. It could be combined with the 24/33 but that means infrequent service in Belltown. The easiest is 24/33 they just aren’t frequent enough. That being said they both seem like “borderline” buses to me. A little more money and they both run every fifteen minutes. Then a combined 7.5 along First would work just fine.
Current pairings could be broken and new pairings formed administratively. This has been done many times over the decades. One objective is to improve reliability. So, is the routes 5-21 pair difficult to operate? Could the new pairings be shorter?
Wouldn’t this also require finding layover in the north end of downtown?
Some of both.
Wow! The article begins by extolling the virtues and flexibility of RapidRide G buses — then ignores RapidRide G, the shortest route in the system, as a candidate for a First Ave route as an extension !
Just turn RapidRide G up/down First Ave through Belltown. In some blocks it can be in the median. In some blocks it can be on the sides if needed. It merely would need an early signal jump to switch lanes — like using the few seconds where there’s already a leading pedestrian phase.
Yes that does mean more service hours needed Downtown — but so does routing another bus away from Third Ave and back to it. Note too that it would be one turn in each direction, where a Third Ave diversion would require up to four additional bus turns for each direction — with a turning bus paused for pedestrians at a signal.
And it would likely require a bus lane. But the cross streets are mainly for pedestrians and local traffic now. More green light time to move First Ave traffic would ease that.
It would connect the two most iconic Seattle tourist destinations — Pike Place Market and Seattle Center (with the CP Arena, Space Needle and museums). Doing both in one day would be much easier if they were directly connected.l — and that’s something many tourists wish to do (even day tourists from outside Seattle). And if that wasn’t enough, it makes catching ferries easier too when going to these places.
Finally — no wires have to be added or modified!
Maybe at the end of the day it couldn’t work. But it seems like the idea should at least be on the table to me.
Would need to buy more left-door buses, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing – part of the problem with RR-G is it has a small bespoke fleet. If that fleet was expanded to multiple routes, it would be a more sustainable investment (fixed costs spread over more bus hours)
Alternatively, rebuild 1st Ave with as intended in the CCC, but skip putting down rails and trolley wire (if SDOT can avoid needing to strengthen the street to handle the weight of a streetcar, the project cost might drop significantly?) and run the same fleet at the RR-G. The CCC turns towards Westlake to connect to the SLUT, but if this is a bus line not a streetcar, the route can serve Belltown instead if that’s more important, perhaps terminating at Seattle Center.
Ideally (with unlimited money), the CCC would be built, with a streetcar running from SLU to King Station, and the KCM would run a bus as well that uses the streetcar ROW & stations on 1st but does not make the turn to Westlake, instead heading into Belltown.
Ideally (with unlimited money), the CCC would be built, with a streetcar running from SLU to King Station, and the KCM would run a bus as well that uses the streetcar ROW & stations on 1st but does not make the turn to Westlake, instead heading into Belltown.
The routing of the proposed streetcar is so poor I wouldn’t consider it ideal. In my opinion the ideal approach is to rip out the streetcars and replace them with buses using better routing. For example:
1) Straighten out the 60 so that it stays on Broadway.
2) Send the 49 down Broadway and then west on Jackson. Run it more often and opposite the 60 (e. g. every 12 minutes so that Broadway has 6 minute combined headways).
3) Send the H to South Lake Union.
4) Move (or extend) some buses to First (the topic of this post).
5) Add BAT lanes for Jackson to make it faster for all the buses.
6) As mentioned in this post (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/): Pave over the streetcar tracks in South Lake Union and move the bike lanes there. Replacing the bike lanes on Valley Street with bus lanes.
That would be much better than the streetcars and not particularly expensive. Selling off the streetcars would get you some money (not only for the streetcars but for the storage areas). Overall it would be a similar amount of service with the exception of the 49 north of Roy. It would be running more often through there. Otherwise it is basically just a swap (streetcar for bus hours). So not that expensive from a capital standpoint (it might even be a net gain) and not very expensive from a service standpoint.
But again, that is ideal and unrealistic. I think getting rid of the South Lake Union Streetcar is realistic and only a matter of time. But the Capitol Hill Streetcar performs well and streetcar fanatics want at least one streetcar in town (which is why it is a shame we lost the George Benson streetcars). Of course a bus would perform better but folks won’t see it that way and they would resist the loss of the streetcar.
Yes that could work too, AJ.
If we were going to use the RR-G vehicle type on a different route, I would look to which other route would be able to take best advantage of it. Route 7 is at the top of my list but the wires wouldn’t be used. A version of that could be as the RapidRide R replacing most but not all Route 7 operations, but with its terminus at Rainier Beach Link. (Route 7 left for Prentice loop buses only.) The wireless vehicle would not have to design around Link power lines at the terminus.
Maybe it would be a good vehicle for one of the West Seattle RapidRide routes too, assuming that those routes connect to Link somewhere south of Downtown (most likely at on of the planned West Seattle Link stations).
But first it would be necessary to see if that vehicle type offers enough operational advantages on First Avenue to be useful. It may not. It would have to be studied.
I didn’t ignore anything. There are dozens of routes that could be shifted or extended. I am not going to list every one. I simply pointed out the tradeoffs involved with one approach or another. In terms of the RapidRide G, it would mean:
1) Increased service cost. It would be an extension and a pretty big one.
2) Bigger capital cost. New buses would be needed (as AJ mentioned).
3) Cover most but not all of First.
4) Would connect to a lot of routes (at 3rd & Madison).
5) Does well from a common market standpoint (it is the only bus on Madison).
One consideration I should have mentioned is the “straightness” of the new route. You want a trip from point A to point B on a bus to be as short as possible. Obviously this isn’t always possible. But you don’t want an obvious alternative to exist, especially if the buses don’t share bus stops. The straighter the better. For example if the 24/33/124 were sent to First it would basically be running north-south the whole way. Every stop combination is good and there are no shorter alternatives.
In contrast the streetcar extension would be terrible in that regard. Various trips would be shorter using other buses. Sending the RapidRide G north on First would not be as bad, but it wouldn’t be particularly straight. The 8 would be a more straightforward way to get from Madison Valley to Uptown. Likewise the 10/12 would be a more straightforward way to go east-west on Pike/Pine. Again, it isn’t nearly as loopy as the streetcar but it isn’t the most straightforward either. If the bus went south it would be less of an issue but then it wouldn’t cover much of First.
Yes that does mean more service hours needed Downtown — but so does routing another bus away from Third Ave and back to it.
That is not true. If the 24/33/124 was sent on First it probably wouldn’t cost anything. Same is true with the 1/14. Even sending a bus like the 5/21 to First would be a minimal expense compared to a big extension like you are proposing. I’m not saying an extension wouldn’t be worthy but additional service cost would be a clear disadvantage.
“That is not true. If the 24/33/124 was sent on First it probably wouldn’t cost anything. Same is true with the 1/14. Even sending a bus like the 5/21 to First would be a minimal expense compared to a big extension like you are proposing.”
Most times a bus turns in a high pedestrian intersection it adds delay. Delay costs travel time and driver salaries. Routes 1/14 would seem to be the better route to avoid adding lots more turning, for example. Route 24 in contrast is currently a mostly straight alignment through Downtown.
The cost of trolley wire installation is not a “minimal expense” and would not qualify as “not cost anything at all”.
So I think there’s sufficient truth in my earlier general statement.
Most times a bus turns in a high pedestrian intersection it adds delay. Delay costs travel time and driver salaries. Routes 1/14 would seem to be the better route to avoid adding lots more turning, for example. Route 24 in contrast is currently a mostly straight alignment through Downtown.
Route 1/14 would actually *save* a couple of turns.
Route 24 would be about the same. On Denny it would simply turn on First instead of Third. Around Pioneer Square it gets complicated. I may be wrong here (and I know the city is working on the area) so feel free to correct me. I think a southbound bus stays on Third until Main. Then it takes a left on Main and a right on Fourth. So southbound it would be the same number of turns (overall). Northbound a bus stays on Fourth until Prefontaine, where it turns left. Then it goes “straight” onto Third. So basically this would add one additional turn (one-way).
You would still need to do some work. You would probably want a left turn arrow from southbound First to eastbound Main. You would also want a right turn arrow for the opposite (and they would operate at the same time). I would also restrict the left turn to transit only (to avoid backups). Fortunately they figured all of that out with the streetcar plans (I assume).
You could do something similar for 4th & Jackson but the intersection is more complicated. But at least the left turn does not have potential backups. The bus would head north on 4th before taking a left onto Jackson. Right now drivers can’t do that (https://maps.app.goo.gl/28CXccciaA8mnkat6). Not only that, but only buses are allowed in that left lane. So a bus gets in that left lane and tries to take a left. At worse it waits until the light has changed (and pedestrians are no longer crossing) before it turns. The only turn that might need something special is the right turn from Jackson to the Second Avenue extension (which becomes Fourth). Any vehicle can do that and I think it is unreasonable to restrict cars from making that right turn. But as a result I could see how that turn could be backed up and a bus wait more than one cycle. You could add a right turn arrow that corresponds with the left-turn arrow for drivers heading north on the Second Avenue Extension towards Jackson (https://maps.app.goo.gl/UecoHzRVpL9tzZCB9). It actually works without a lot of investment.
I think that travel time would be very similar on Third as on First. If it isn’t then we could fix it without spending a fortune.
The cost of trolley wire installation is not a “minimal expense” and would not qualify as “not cost anything at all”.
I never said otherwise. When I wrote about “minimal expense” and “not cost anything at all” I was clearly referring to *service*.
As far as capital costs go, no matter what buses run on First Avenue it will be expensive (but not as expensive as the streetcar). We would need to add center platforms and redo the street. This would have to be done no matter what buses run there. Thus running a trolley *or the RapidRide G* is a capital expense on top of that. My guess is adding wire is relatively cheap since it exists much of the way. We could join the advanced countries and add attach/detach points for even less money. Either way it would likely be cheaper than buying a bunch of special buses.
So sending the RapidRide G up First would cost extra from both a capital and a service standpoint compared to shifting a regular bus (like the 24/33). Compared to shifting a trolley it would cost extra from a service standpoint and *probably* would cost more from a capital standpoint as well. Other extensions (or overlapping routes) of regular buses might cost about the same in terms of service but cost less from a capital cost.
I feel like the gap between Third and Broadway is much larger and in way more need of bus service than First, which isn’t very far from Third at all.
We are adding 40+ story buildings in First Hill and SLU and yet they lack any transit connection.
That is a good point. I think there are a couple reasons why it makes sense to have transit on First:
1) Folks on First were promised it.
2) It could be cheap to provide something as good if not better than the streetcar (by moving a few routes).
3) It would be relatively simple (although there are a number of trade-offs).
In contrast things get complicated east of Third. The freeway is a major problem. A bus along seventh would be close to perfect line spacing (especially in an urban area) but that isn’t possible. Sixth would be really difficult for the same reason (Marion is a mess). Eighth doesn’t go through south of James and Ninth doesn’t go through north of Summit. Terry doesn’t go through in various places.
That basically leaves Fifth and Boren. I could see either one (or both) but it would require a lot of work in terms of right-of-way. Fifth has some contraflow lanes but only for a few blocks. You would need to extend that all the way to Denny (more or less). You would also need to add BAT lanes the other direction as well.
Folks have talked about a bus on Boren for a long time now (ever since Metro put it on one of their long-range maps). I think you need BAT lanes for it to work well (traffic is really bad during rush hour).
In the case of Fifth I could see buses diverted there. As it is buses run there now (one-way). In the case of Boren I don’t see a cheap way to serve it. I think it would be a new route. That would be great (it would really change the nature of travel in the area) but it would require spending money we really don’t have right now.
For Boren, I’ve imagined a modification of the 60 – send it there after Harborview instead of Capitol Hill – we already have the streetcar for the First Hill-Capitol Hill connection. The 49 could also be modified to go further south on Broadway before turning towards downtown.
For Boren, I’ve always imagined a modification of the 106. I’d like full 8-minute frequency, but 15-minute is still a lot better than nothing.
I can see several options for Boren but I think the northern terminus would be Uptown (via Fairview/Harrison/5th/Mercer or Roy). If it ended at Mount Baker that would be sufficient for a stand-alone route. As an extension to the 106 it would save some money but still cost extra. My only concern would be length — otherwise that is probably the best option.
Sending the 60 would also cost money. There is another drawback. You would also lose service on Broadway. The current route of the 60 is messy — it wastes time going back and forth. But Broadway should have more frequent service than the streetcar can provide. Not only is Broadway a major corridor but it also has only one Link station. This shouldn’t happen: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o4PNeBbBSwKpDdrS8. That is about a 20 minute trip just to avoid a 14 minute walk. Note that it starts at a bus stop and ends at the Link station. To achieve better service along Broadway I would split the 60 into two routes at Beacon Hill Station. The northern part would be combined with the 49 and run every 12 minutes (from Beacon Hill to the UW). It would take a straightforward path onto Broadway, overlapping the streetcar (and serving the same stops) as much as possible. That would mean 6 minute headways along Broadway. It would not cost anything despite the more frequency service for the 49 between Capitol Hill and the UW. But it would mean you would need another way to cover Boren.
Regardless of how you do it, I think it would cost money. I just don’t see a free alternative, unlike First Avenue where there are several.
Fifth isn’t First Hill. It’s quite a hike to most of First Hill from Fifth.
The history of denying First Hill better north-south transit after promising it is there.
Sound Moves in 1996 promised a light rail station that got subsequently dropped.
ST2 helped pay for the FHSC, which got pushed to Broadway and later got designed to crawl slowly. Early alternatives looked at routing it further west but they got taken off the table in favor of Broadway. Then, after Broadway was picked, the evolving design added exclusive tracks for bicycles rather than the streetcar — making the streetcar even slower. It was an outcome because of the decision sequence — alignment first; street treatments later.
Then early in ST3 planning there was a small push to study additional alignments east of I-5 rather than just the current one. The Board declared it to be “inconsistent with ST3” at the time and warned of stations that would be too deep (and got legal staff to say it even risked a lawsuit), which considering the much more major project definition revisions made later seems dystopian in context.
RapidRide G runs perpendicular to the path but at least it bisects the unserved triangle.
Given the grades, I’m not averse to looking out of the box technologies for better north-south connectivity. That includes underground or aerial cable-powered systems like funiculars or gondolas to even a series of buildings with public escalators / elevators inside to ease the vertical change.
In typical Seattle fashion, there still seems to still be avoidance of connecting First Hill with SLU directly — even though both areas have massively new tall buildings (both residential and non-residential). If they don’t want to see the deficiency, they can merely act like there really isn’t one.
It was an outcome because of the decision sequence — alignment first; street treatments later.
This is especially bad for a streetcar. It costs a bundle to move a streetcar line whereas it just doesn’t cost that much to move a bus. Running a streetcar down a street without first making the lanes exclusive is just a really bad idea. Both Broadway and Jackson are a mess (for both buses and the streetcar) and it is due to a lack of proper planning.
In this case I am basically arguing for the opposite — street treatments first, alignment second. I really don’t care that much what buses go on First. I have my preferences but if people want to do something different that is fine too. Some of my ideas require research (e. g. eddie mentioned layovers). I think you need a sufficient level of service to make it worthwhile though (and I regret that I didn’t put that in the essay). But I also think you need exclusive right-of-way as well. Without sufficient right-of-way there is no point — at least Third Avenue is a transit mall.
I also think the same approach should be taken on Boren. I am glad that we are running the 8. It is a worthy bus despite being stuck in traffic. But sending a bus into traffic on Boren would be a service nightmare. Just running a bus there would cost extra but if it is stuck in traffic it would cost a lot extra.
The biggest weakness in our network is frequency. Yes, there are weaknesses like a lack of service on Boren but it pales in comparison to the fact that most of the buses run infrequently (and even Link isn’t great in that regard). It gets so bad that people focus on one-seat rides (like Kirkland to downtown) creating a ridership death spiral. Folks argue for a 1980s network despite 2020s traffic.
There is a tipping point that occurs where riding a bus without a transfer is palatable. This differs for every person but fifteen minutes is commonly accepted. Note how many buses fail to meet this relatively minimal standard even in our most urban areas. To get to the point where transfers are no big deal requires more frequent service. Ten minutes (like Link) is barely adequate. Six minutes (like the G) is better. A spine (like Third Avenue) is a much better.
Speaking of which, that is why this approach works. The one area where we have sufficient frequency is Third Avenue which is why shifting a few buses onto First could work. You don’t lose much on Third while riders can easily transfer to a lots of buses running on Third. It is basically free from a service standpoint while not hurting existing riders much at all.
Adding service on Boren would be great. But it needs to have really good right-of-way and we need to be running the buses often before it becomes worth it. We are a long ways from that point.
Since you mentioned rerouting 1/14 to 1st Ave, I am going to asking something I’ve always been wondering.
I noticed that there are two-way overhead wires along 1st Ave between Jackson and Virginia. Are they still being serviced to these days? How were they used in the past? Was it just a back-to-terminal route to avoid 3rd Ave or it actually had trolleybus revenue service once upon a time?
I don’t know. Eddie might now (he mentioned the trolley wire up above in a comment).
Still think the best solution is to serve dense neighborhoods with dense transit options and link known hubs and nodes. A 1st Ave route from Mercer to Lander serving the denses parts of the city and connection critical employment, entertainment, and neighborhood centers and builds network effects off of third is how we should be thinking. From a downtown resident and business owner perspective.