Friday Roundtable: Boren Ave Route Idea

116 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Boren Ave Route Idea”

1. SDOT has been pushing a Republican transit mall for the longest time to avoid Denny in SLU; I’ve always thought that this pathing made more sense for a Boren route than the 8, since the Republican transit mall would not continue through Seattle Center.

   The 40 is certainly an interesting choice, I just think it might be too long of a route to run that distance. It would be similar to the 60 which I think is too long. Should people in South Seattle have to worry about their bus reliability if the Fremont Bridge goes up?

   1. Oh! You mean on Republican street! I was like “What do political parties have to do with any of this?”

   2. I thought Thomas was the proposed transit mall?

      What would the Thomas Party stand for? Probably big on historical trains, eh?

      1. It is actually Harrison that the city wants to convert to a transit street. Thomas would be bike/pedestrian oriented. There have been several iterations of the project but they have been pretty consistent with having transit on Harrison for South Lake Union. That being said, this proposal (https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/harrison-mercer-transit-access) shows the bus doglegging to Republican east of Fairview. I’m not sure why (maybe just as an easy way to turn around — it might go westbound on Harrison).

   3. SDOT wants to install transit lanes on Republican Street. No, Thomas Street. No, Harrison Street. Hilarious.

      1. I realize I got this wrong after posting at 3am, so that’s on me.

2. Besides Ballard, there are other reasons for the 40 to go downtown. For example, take Fremont to downtown. Yes, you could take the 62, but your wait time is considerably less if you get to take either the 62 or the 40, whichever comes first. Plus, this is a high demand corridor, and I’m not sure the 62 would have enough capacity to handle the Fremont-downtown corridor all by itself, without the 40 absorbing a lot of the load.

   The second reason is to avoid longer walks/transfers for trips originating from between the neighborhood centers. For example, Leary/3rd or Westlake/Galer.

   And, for Ballard itself, I don’t think it’s sufficient to tell people to just take the D to go downtown. If you live west of 24th, that’s a bit of a walk. Plus, the D doesn’t have a lot of spare capacity.

   1. Yeah, as someone who’s west of 24th, so many proposals are just like “Yeah bro it’s only a mile, one singular mile, maybe a mile and a quarter, to walk to the RapidRide stop on 15th, c’mon, bro!”

      Coverage is already pretty sparse in the area, and without the 40 going down 24th, it’d be exponentially moreso.

   2. You are right about capacity concerns with the 62 and the D. One limitation with this analysis is that we don’t know the final destination for the people going downtown. Many (maybe even most) people that take the 62 or D downtown are going to end their trip there. But many others will transfer to other routes. People who currently travel between Fremont/Ballard and Capitol Hill/First Hill would now take the new Route 40 instead of transferring downtown. Even people going to the Central District may use the new route and transfer to route 2, 3, 4, or G on Boren. This will compensate for some of the loss capacity on the routes to downtown, but we don’t know by how much.

3. Right now, it’s very very hard to get from Ballard to Cap Hill. I would love a route like this that gets riders much closer to a direct link between neighborhoods!

   1. For Ballard to Cap Hill, I’m not sure such a line would help, as the proposal would send the 40 to First Hill, not Capitol Hall. You would be able to connect to Capitol Hill on the #8 bus, but can already do that today, so not really an improvement. The proposal would allow the additional option to get off along Boren and walk to Cap Hill, but, with the extra walking, I’m sure if it’s faster than going downtown and transferring. Maybe depends on exactly where in Capitol Hill you are going to.

      1. When I want to go to Capitol Hill, I find it’s significantly easier just to ride to Northgate on the 40 and then get on the 1 line south. Massively indirect, but actually faster in most cases. Ballard Link can’t come fast enough.

   2. It gets to the densest part of Capitol Hill but at the edge, and it’s an uphill walk from there. A Boren route is still worthwhile to address the northwest-southeast transit gap there. I end up walking to First Hill or SLU destinations or taking a roundabout trip to Little Saigon because of the transit hole in this large northwest-southeast ridership market. But a Boren route wouldn’t serve Broadway riders or Capitol Hill as a whole, and shouldn’t be marketed as such.

4. I think Metro should add all day service to Boren, I just don’t think a reroute of the 40 is the best way to do it. I think a reroute of the 60 is a much better option. Keep the existing route from Westwood Village to Harborview. Just change the tail to go to SLU instead of Capitol Hill.

   This is much less churn than modifying the 40, and all impacted riders have other options. For instance, Capitol Hill to First Hill, take the streetcar. Capitol Hill to Beacon Hill, take Link. Capitol Hill to Georgetown, take Link and switch to the 124. Capitol Hill to Westwood Village, take Link and switch to RapidRide H.

   The only potentially touchy issue I can see is people heading between Capitol Hill and the First Hill hospitals needing to walk an extra couple of blocks. If it is an issue, maybe the Hospitals could run some shuttle van connecting their front doors to Capitol Hill station, but this kind of hyper local service is best done with a van, rather than the bus, and should be operated by the hospitals, not by a general purpose transit agency.

   If the 60 does move, I would consider one parallel bus adjustment, and that’s the 49, which would run further south on Broadway before heading to downtown. This would maintain the combined frequency on Broadway of the 49+60, as well as keep First Hill connection to the parts of Capitol Hill north of Denny, where the streetcar doesn’t serve. Pike/Pine has plenty of alternative service on other routes, and Capitol Hill to downtown has Link, which trains soon to run every 5 minutes. And the new 49 would still serve at least part of downtown directly, anyway.

   1. I think part of the reasoning behind this proposal is to improve service along Broadway. Right now the 60 and streetcar both serve Broadway but they don’t work together. Midday, the streetcar runs every fifteen minutes while the 60 runs every twelve. Even when they do both run every twelve minutes (during peak) they don’t serve the same stops. For the most part, you can’t time them. Northbound you have one shared stop (at Yesler & Broadway) where they could be synchronized to provide good combined headways. Just one stop. After that the 60 diverges and they would be out of sync. Southbound there are a couple stops and that’s it. In contrast if you sent the 60 up Broadway they could be in sync from Yesler to Howell (both directions). They would simply need to run the streetcar a little more often and you would have six minute headways along the corridor all day long.

      In contrast the 49 would have to run a lot more often to provide meaningful service along Broadway. It only runs every twenty minutes (or three times an hour) so you would have to double the number of trips to combine with the streetcar. Combining the 60 and 49 would come with additional savings (that could go into running the bus more often) but this would not. Your proposal would be good for Boren, but bad for Broadway.

      The new 40 would not only provide service on Boren but it would backfill the 60. It would be a way to placate those who prefer the current routing. It would cost more (and I have concerns about congestion on Boren) but it would create a much better network in the area.

      Sending the 60 to South Lake Union would cost money too. It isn’t clear where you would end it. It could go up Fairview and then just end at the current Eastlake Layover. That certainly adds value but it would miss connections with buses like the 62 and 40. Someone heading from Westlake to First Hill would either continue to ride downtown or walk three blocks to transfer. From Dexter it would be six blocks. To really gain functionality you want to go further west. Ideally the bus would go the back way (via Harrison and Mercer) to Uptown (and layover there) but that costs even more. Connecting the 40 at least provides some of that functionality.

      1. “I think part of the reasoning behind this proposal is to improve service along Broadway.”

         I didn’t realize the 49 was cut back all the way to every 20 minutes. It seems like something that should be improved. If the 49 matched the streetcar’s frequency (every 15 minutes off-peak 10 minutes peak), that would be enough to allow the 49 and streetcar to interline. You wouldn’t need to double the 49’s frequency by running it every 10 minutes all day. At the same time, the 49 also operates 24/7, which the streetcar does not, so you probably don’t need the frequency boost during the evening hours when the streetcar isn’t running.

         Ultimately, my idea to modify the 60 is a cost increase. I don’t think there exists a way to add Boren service without impacting existing riders without a net increase to the budget. Sending the 40 to First Hill instead of downtown feels like a major impact to existing riders that would likely have to be mitigated with more service on parallel routes, such as the 28, 62, and D-line, at which point, the 40 idea becomes a net cost increase too, and probably a much larger net cost increase.

         Combining the 49 with the 60 is another idea that’s worthy of consideration, but there are a lot of things I don’t like about it. It would make the new 49/60 very long, and cause ship canal-related delays to propagate to the entire route. It would force the existing 49 to abandon its overhead wire and go back to diesel, absent major capital expenses to install more wire (e.g. route 60 is too long for off-wire service to be reasonable, even if sections of it have wire for the #36 bus).

         I also feel like having the bus from Beacon Hill be the one that goes all the way into Capitol Hill isn’t that essential, given that Link already runs from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill, and does so much faster than a bus (in spite of going through downtown). Especially a bus that takes a grand detour to serve all the First Hill hospitals. By contrast, I feel SLU as the 60’s tail complements Link better by sending the bus somewhere that Link doesn’t go. Plus, the hospital stops now become on the way, rather than a detour.

         As to Broadway, the 60 deviates off of Broadway very quickly to serve the hospitals, which greatly limits its use as a streetcar complement. The 49 could do better by staying on Broadway. That leaves only one hole to fill, which is Capitol Hill to the front doors of the First Hill Hospitals. Given that these hospitals are only a couple blocks from Broadway, which able-bodied people who work at the hospital could easily walk, this hole feels niche enough that I don’t think a full-sized Metro bus, detouring a bunch of people trying to get around the city, is the right way to serve it. A better approach would a shuttle van operated by the hospitals themselves, which would presumably cost less to operate than a bus. The catch, of course, is that the hospitals don’t want to pay for such a shuttle van, they’d rather pump the money into administrator bonuses and have Metro pay for the service. So, this would require some negotiation.

      2. “I didn’t realize the 49 was cut back all the way to every 20 minutes.”

         In the RapidRide G restructure, all of the 10, 11, 12, and 49 were reduced/increased to a uniform 20 minutes daytime, 30 minutes evening. The 10/12 are coordinated for 10-15 minute service to 15th & Pine. The 11 and 49 are uncoordinated between them, creating 4-route frequency to Belleuve Ave and 3-route frequency to Broadway, but without even headways.

      3. IIRC the last rapidride studies looked at combining the 49/36, not the 49/60, probably for this reason.

      4. It would make the new 49/60 very long

         Yes. The 49 would only run from Beacon Hill to the UW (via First Hill). Sorry, I usually explain this but I’ve written this so many times I just write “49/60” as a shorthand. There are two variations:

         1) Run a bus from the UW to Beacon Hill via Broadway. It would stay on Broadway (and not make the deviation of the 60). This would be the new 49. It would be timed with the streetcar. Truncate the southern part of the 60 at Beacon Hill. This is part of this proposal.

         2) Run a bus from the UW to Beacon Hill and continue to Othello, taking over the 36. In First Hill the bus would stay on Broadway. The 60 then goes downtown, taking over that part of the 36.

         It would force the existing 49 to abandon its overhead wire and go back to diesel

         That is not true. There is wire from Beacon Hill to the UW. Mostly from the 60, but also wire from the 43.

         If the 49 matched the streetcar’s frequency, that would be enough to allow the 49 and streetcar to interline.

         Yes, exactly. That is my point. But to make that effective the 49 needs to keep going south, along all of Broadway. You could overlap with the 60, but that is wasteful. It is better absorb part of the 60 as suggested above. With the savings there would be no need to reduce service for the existing Beacon Hill/First Hill connection (which is part of the 60). Thus the streetcar would run a little more often (in the middle of the day) while the 49 (from Capitol Hill to the UW) would run quite a bit more often. If the 49 ended at Beacon Hill, that could all be done at no extra cost. But ending at Beacon Hill isn’t the only option, which brings up the next point.

         I also feel like having the bus from Beacon Hill be the one that goes all the way into Capitol Hill isn’t that essential

         There are two major corridors in First Hill that don’t run to the Sound: Broadway and Boren. Southbound, there are two plausible ending points for a bus that serves those corridors: Mount Baker Station and Beacon Hill. (You could turn and serve downtown (via Jackson) but the streetcar already does that.) It really doesn’t matter which bus goes where. The 49 could go to Mount Baker Station and the Boren bus could go to Beacon Hill. I prefer the reverse just because the buses stay more or less straight that way.

         I don’t think there exists a way to add Boren service without impacting existing riders without a net increase to the budget.

         I agree. I would go farther and say that it is best if Boren service is combined with the SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown route. The bus could end at Beacon Hill but I think it is better if it goes to Mount Baker. That leads to a route that is remarkably straight despite the challenges with the street grid. Starting from Mount Baker the bus would head northwest the entire time. It could be either a stand-alone route or connected to the 106 (if the 106 is truncated). Most likely it would be a stand-alone route.

   2. I gather that for some the elimination of the current 60 routing via Madison & Ninth would be a great improvement. But a number of First Hill residents use that routing –St. James Cathedral as well as the hospitals are significant destinations, and the 60 provides transit access for folks who live on the west slope of First Hill to the Broadway shopping area. There are several senior communities along that route. One wonders how the First Hill Improvement Association would view a reroute.

      1. Probably O’Dea students too.

         The current Route 60 alignment also does a great job connecting Capitol Hill Station with 1101 Madison, where many Swedish outpatient services are now based.

         I don’t see a Route 60 alignment change to Broadway as any better than what’s done now. It may pick up a minute or two on its route using Broadway — but it would remove it from running directly by many destinations and tall apartment buildings on or near 9th or Madison, including the main Harborview building.

         A curious thing about Route 60: It’s actually the only day-long bus that offers a single (shared stop!) transfer to First Hill from Route 50. All the other SE Seattle routes south of Mt Baker Station (bus and rail) turn to go into Downtown. It’s one of those useful route combinations that goes unrealized by most people.

      2. Every change has winners and losers. There are significant destinations either way. Places that used to be big destinations (like O’Dea) are quite minor now compared to everything else in the neighborhood. Medical buildings that used to be surrounded by large ground-level parking lots are now surrounded by other medical buildings. This means that any detour meant to bring the rider close to one destination just pushes them farther away from another.

         The detour of the 60 just isn’t worth it. Riders can and will walk a little bit farther or find other buses they can take. Linearity leads to higher ridership. The 60 should be more linear.

5. There was always two drawbacks to putting a bus on Boren. The first is that it can be notoriously slow. We would want to invest in BAT lanes. The second is service hours. Most people assumed a new route. Shifting the 40 helps mitigate that issue. There are other possible routes as well.

   Assuming it is the 40, I would make a few changes from your proposed routing. I would dogleg in South Lake Union using Harrison and Fairview. It is the same number of turns but you avoid the big slowdown on Denny, while you can leverage the additional right-of-way on Fairview that is being added for the RapidRide J Line.

   Along Boren it is trickier. There is value in the two minor detours you proposed. Going north, someone at Yesler & Broadway could take the streetcar, the 60 or the 40 if they are headed north. I can see how some riders would like that. The streetcar/60 and 40 are pretty close to each other for a while so for a lot of riders, so either one would do. Likewise at 12th & Jackson riders could take the 40 or 60 north. Transfers also improve. I think transferring between the 40 and 60 would be one of the more common transfers and it would be ideal.

   All that being said, I would probably just keep the bus going straight on Boren. There is a lot to be said for just continuing straight. If I had to pick one detour to apply, it would be the one on Jackson. This seems to add the most value. At 12th & Jackson riders only have the 60 while at Yesler & Broadway riders have both the 60 and streetcar. You only need one good transfer point for the 40/60 combination. The 7 is a major bus route and that is slowly becoming more and more “BRT” like. It seems quite reasonable at some point to give the route it’s own turn lane from northbound to Jackson at some point. Having the 40 share the lane would be worthwhile. Basically all transit turns left and drivers going straight (up Boren) are on their own. Thus the detour would cost some time but during rush hour it might be faster. Northbound you could add a traffic light that allowed the bus to turn left from the right lane (like the one close to Husky Stadium). Southbound you would need to add a left-turn light from 12th to Jackson. Right now, only transit is allowed to turn left. You could add a short bus-only turn lane (with red paint) and a left-turn arrow there. This would speed up the bus.

   There are existing bus stops on Boren close to Yesler. The northbound stop on 12th (just north of Jackson) would not only provide common market capability (riders could take either bus for a lot of trips) but an ideal (same stop) transfer. You would probably want to add a southbound bus stop somewhere in the area. The simplest thing to do is just move the eastbound stop on Jackson that is west of 12th to the other side of the street. That stop is used by the 7, 14 and 106 (not the 36). So you don’t lose any functionality. That would allow you to share it with the 40 and riders would have an ideal transfer between the 40 and 60 both directions.

   I would just end the bus at Mount Baker Transit Center. The bus would be pretty long at that point. Yes, most Rainier Valley riders would have to transfer to get to First Hill but that is the case now. The 9 is basically irrelevant (and should be removed, as you suggested). At least with this change there are people at the north end of the valley that would get a one-seat ride First Hill. I don’t think anyone would have a three-seat ride. The 106 would connect to the new 40 (even if both ended at Mount Baker TC). The 7 would overlap this bus. The 107 intersects the 60.

   1. Thanks for calling out the RR J improvements. I was thinking Denny (with bus lanes) so the route could share a stop with Route 8. Harrison and Fairview works just as well, if not better.

      I think the Yesler & Broadway detour is valuable as it provides better service to Yesler Terrance and skips the northbound approach on Boren to Broadway. Even with BAT lanes, the bus will be slow here as many cars turn right on to Broadway.

      The 12th & Jackson detour valuable to serve Little Saigon and for transfers with the 14 and 36. I agree with you about moving the eastbound stop on Jackson to be after 12th.

      Ending the route at MBTC is the most likely scenario, but there are benefits to running it a bit longer to Columbia City. The only 3 seat ride would be for folks taking Route 50 -> 7 -> 40.

6. This route is long enough I’m afraid it’ll be unreliable. Perhaps the other idea of truncating the 40 in Crown Hill and extending the D to Northgate would help?

   But also, I’m afraid the two-block stretch on Denny will kill reliability in PM peak. It’s short, but Denny is bad. Maybe have it jog over on Thomas to Fairview?

   1. I was thinking the same thing. The route would be very long. This could go along with splitting the 40. But you would also need BAT lanes on Boren.

      I agree about the jog to avoid Denny. I mentioned that above. I would use Harrison since that is the official transit street (of the future).

   2. The challenge with Boren is that we need a route to run on the corridor a then bit further on both ends. A route just between Little Saigon and SLU would get some riders, but not many. If people need to transfer, they might as well go through downtown. Potential routes from both the north and south are already pretty long (40, 62, 7, 106, 60). We could have a new route between Mount Baker Transit Center and SLU via Boren, but that would cost way more than re-routing an existing route.

      1. Mt. Baker TC to SLU will always be faster with 1 Line+C/40/62 than a surface route plowing its way across Boren. We can live with that.

         There seem to be a few mentions (objections) in this thread to the 60’s deviation off Broadway to serve the hospitals. It may slow down connections from Beacon Hill to Capitol Hill, but front door service to the hospitals is an important feature of a transit network that serves all riders.

         Instead of objecting to a few minutes delay, I propose amplifying the 60’s hospital focus by combining the northern end of the 60 with a modified 4S. Start the new route at Mt. Baker Station>run north on MLK to Dearborn (end the Judkins Park deviation)>follow the existing 4 route path to Harborview and then follow the 60’s route path to Broadway or Kaiser. Mt. Baker Station, Franklin HS, Garfield HS, Swedish/Providence, Seattle U, Harborview, VM, Broadway/KP all aligned on one route.

7. I cringe at expecting this long version of Route 40 to ever be reliable, even with signal priority. That to me is the biggest problem with the concept.

8. Sound Transit update on the lake crossing:
   https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMysGmJS7N9/?l=1

   I appreciate them giving us a detailed explanation of what’s going on.

   My new conspiracy theory is that WSDOT is deliberately delaying the light rail so that they can make more $$$ from the 520 tolls 🤑

   1. It’s interesting to me that they posted this update as a video on Instagram before publishing their a Crosslake Update article on The Platform.

      The corrosion prevention issue is also interesting and very niche. I don’t fault WSDOT for being highly protective of their bridge.

   2. Can somebody with more patience than I summarize the delays mentioned?

      1. Sound Transit is waiting on WSDOT to approve the corrosion prevention system ST’s contractor’s built. This, apparently, is single-handedly preventing ST from energizing the wire across the bridge for live-load testing.

         The corrosion prevention system is a “cathodic protection” system, which turns the entire bridge into an electrical cathode. The electrical charge prevents oxidation (rust/corrosion) of metallic structures in water, such as the rebar in the floating pontoons, or other structures exposed to significant amounts of water that might result in corrosion. The bridge already had a cathodic protection system, but apparently the introduction of a multi-kilovolt power system required multiple reworks of that system to WSDOT’s satisfaction.

         ST had expected to begin live-wire testing in July, but is blaming WSDOT for dragging its feet on approving the new/upgraded cathodic protection system.

      2. So Lazarus was partly right. WSDOT is delaying allowing the wire to be energized, but it’s not because of bureaucracy or a desire to maximize tolls on 520 or favor cars on I-90 before crosslake Link starts. It’s to verify the wire won’t short out the electric system and cause fires and damage.

      3. I think ST (and others) are largely blaming WSDOT’s bureaucracy and inability to quickly review/approve following inspections/testing.

      4. Is there lane closure involved for such inspection?

9. Sadly, the 2 Line is not open. The 2 Line will offer frequent, fast service across relatively quickly, like trips from UW (16 minutes) or Roosevelt (21 minutes) or even Capitol Hill (12 minutes) to Judkins Park to go further south.

   It feels premature to think about doing a restructure until the 2 Line is open at least a few months. Then the incredible 4-5 minute trunk service in North Seattle through Downtown will be running — hopefully starting in the next 4-6 months when 2 Line simulation starts.

   This time next year will be a good time to refresh the bus routes. And I would hope that Metro gets some travel pattern info with Bluetooth-driven tools now available to see the nuances of what’s needed. Speculative restructuring is a thing of the past.

   1. A change like this will take years and is largely theoretical. The 2 Line won’t make much difference for routes in Seattle. (In contrast they will lead to a major change on the East Side.) The big thing that would make service on Boren possible is money. Money for the service and money for the corridor (BAT lanes, queue jumps, etc.).

      Metro had ample opportunity to make major changes in the area due to the G Line but the changes in the area were minor. Hard to see why they would suddenly change their ways with the 2 Line, given the G Line was a much bigger change (for Seattle). Likewise I would love to see a major restructure in the north end once Pinehurst Station is complete. The Lynnwood Link restructure was flawed and there are a lot of things they could fix. But Metro is taking the opposite approach. They seem to be trying to do as little as possible. As of right now they won’t even move the 75. This means a bus will head right towards the station and then suddenly turn away as it gets close. If they won’t change the 75 it is hard to see them making bigger changes.

      1. My comment here is mostly about timing and then effort.

         It doesn’t appear that Metro would begin studying a major restructure until next year or later anyway. If 2 Line has little impact, that would be obvious in the travel pattern data that Metro could acquire once they start a study after it opens. Another advantage to waiting just a few more months is to say that all of the big investments for the next 20 years in central Seattle would then be in place — so restructuring wouldn’t have to rely on the anticipation of new major transit service investments in the assumptions. (Yes, I’m highly skeptical of DSTT2 opening before 2045 if at all.)

         At this point, I think STB should encourage Metro to put a major central area restructure effort on its work program for 2026 or 2027. A post-COVID analysis is particularly appropriate as travel demand has shifted. SLU in particular and central Seattle in general has greatly densified in the past decade. Within that work, Metro should be analyzing lots of elements that need a fresh, objective look — from travel speeds and reliability to boarding and travel pattern data. SDOT should probably jointly lead such an effort.

      2. > I think STB should encourage Metro to put a major central area restructure effort on its work program for 2026 or 2027.

         Thankfully, with the next King County Executive likely being either Claudia Balducci or Girmay Zahilay, advocacy for a transit network rethink could be effectively directed at the Executive next year.

      3. “It doesn’t appear that Metro would begin studying a major restructure until next year or later anyway.”

         It won’t consider restructuring the 40 right after renovating it. The renovation is based on a long-term commitment to the current routing. The renovation includes extending the southern terminus (Pioneer Square) to First Hill (Harborview area) and a new layover point. So it will get to First Hill, just not all of First Hill or before downtown.

      4. “As of right now they won’t even move the 75. This means a bus will head right towards the station and then suddenly turn away as it gets close. If they won’t change the 75 it is hard to see them making bigger changes.”

         As an aside, this infuriates me as a 75 rider (or one that was) – it is the difference between my choosing to take transit directly from home or drive daily to the eastside – or Northgate for destinations in Seattle. The 75 passing not one, but two Link stations and taking 10-15 minutes to get to the next one is frustrating in the extreme. Missing UW station makes some sense as using Montlake would be a disaster for buses (after Denny it should be next in line for a major restructure inclusive of bus lanes), but the combination of turning off before 130th and schlepping all the way down 5th past Northgate to the station there instead is ludicrous. Hell, SDOT could have made a bus-turn only signal southbound onto 5th from 130th but there isn’t even going to be a southbound lane on 5th there! Ross, we’ve discussed this before and you have had many good ideas about this area and potential re-routes, whether that or a continuation of the 75 west or northwest; I would love to go back to leaving the car at home, but the status quo will mean I don’t do that. I’m sure I’m not the only one along the 75 that thinks the same, which is a shame with the great frequency it has.

      5. Hell, SDOT could have made a bus-turn only signal southbound onto 5th from 130th but there isn’t even going to be a southbound lane on 5th there!

         Yeah, it is a big issue. At the very least the 75 could stop by the Pinehurst station along the way. But it can’t because of the street layout. The best option is for the 75 to go to Bitter Lake. That is just better routing in general (even if there were no Link). Metro could then backfill service on 5th with a bus that made a live loop close to Pinehurst Station (https://maps.app.goo.gl/66Egz3EXKDuFppn88). A bus could definitely do this, since it would be going one-way north on Fifth (just south of 130th). There are other options for 5th, but that would require the least amount of churn.

10. I see that the source problem is having better connections to the medical services at Harborview, Swedish and Virginia Mason. A factor is dealing with elevation differences — but the facilities themselves are not so far from Downtown.

    And of course it’s related to ST reneging on their 1996 promise to have a Link train stop there. That would have made a profound difference.

    And of course the FHSC doesn’t do the job because it’s too dang slow. That service was the false hope presented in 2008. And that’s my concern here; the route may ultimately be too slow and unreliable. Boren has been a great bypass to Downtown in a car in the past, but buses will be stopping frequently in an area that’s increasingly tightly squeezed especially when going between Pike and Denny.

    Finally, RapidRide G does address some of this (but not Harborview) despite its awkwardly sloped Downtown stops. And Routes 3/4 do serve Harborview.

    Rather than reconfigure multiple routes across the entire City, why not focus on the “last mile” challenge at hand? Merely extending RR-D or RR-E up Yesler seems like a more obvious and easier and quicker idea, perhaps even terminating at Cherry Hill medical campus. It could easily be faster between SLU and First Hill too! It’s an idea that has been suggested by Ross and others many times. There’s the quick SLU/ First Hill solution!

    And in the longer-term, overall central area connectivity should be revisited by a more ambitious capital project strategy. Digging giant football-field-sized holes for new Link stations that serve fewer riders elsewhere than this set of important destinations is crazy making.

    1. The problem with the streetcars is only partly because they’re slow; the bigger problem is that they don’t really serve much of a purpose that can’t be better served by a longer-distance route. When Sound Transit promised First Hill the streetcar, and also when the SLU line was being planned before that, there was still very much a sense, even in activist circles, that only rail is “real” transit even if it’s not as practical as a bus. So we got these short, stubby lines, with the SLU line becoming largely redundant once the 40 came into being and the First Hill line taking a circuitous path of limited usefulness that would be completely redundant if the 60 was straighter.

       1. The FHSC is slow because of the auto traffic on Broadway. How much of that traffic on Broadway could be diverted to Boren and 12th Avenue? If Broadway were optimized for transit and not allowed to be an extended freeway on-ramp, would overall mobility be increased? The trade-off would be that Boren and 12th Avenue would need to be designated primarily for autos.

       2. How much of that traffic on Broadway could be diverted to Boren and 12th Avenue?

          I’m sure much of it has. Broadway isn’t that broad anymore. Most of it is one lane each direction. A lot of the people who used to drive on Broadway have moved to 12th. It hasn’t been optimized for transit but a lot of the space is used for bike lanes. But they could do more for transit.

          You could get rid of left turns. That is quite reasonable and would make the street less attractive for drivers. It would also allow traffic to move faster. That would be a good first step.

          But mainly you want to add right-of-way for the buses. If you don’t widen the street this works both ways. Not only does the bus run faster but there are fewer cars going that way. I assume that by now there are a lot fewer cars on Madison. This means that east of 15th (when the bus has to move to the curbside lane) there is less traffic (eastbound).

          For Broadway, the simplest thing to do is just run curbside the whole way and add BAT lanes. That wouldn’t solve the problem — a lot of the delay is caused by people turning right and having to wait for pedestrians. But it would still help. You would also want to need to move the tracks. For example, notice the white car in this picture: https://maps.app.goo.gl/39JEagvxvyvPY24k9. It is heading northbound in the only lane that goes north. You could get ride of the parking lane and move the streetcar (and buses) over to the right but then you are moving the tracks.

          If you got rid of left turns you would have more space to work with. That gives you four lanes for pretty much the whole corridor (after you get rid of parking). You can run in the middle lanes at that point although it isn’t ideal. The simplest thing to do is just add queue jumps at various points. Between stops the bus could move into that left lane and go a few blocks before merging back into the right lane. You could even add stop lights before the bus has to merge (triggered by a bus running in the middle lane). I think this is done in Europe.

          It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. You can add queue jumps in places while banning some (but not all) left turns. The problem is, even small changes (like BAT lanes) becomes prohibitively expensive since there are tracks.

          The other issue is the bike lanes. You can have a pretty good system with the bike lanes but it still wouldn’t be ideal. You can’t have center platforms and center stations (there isn’t enough room).

          Ideally you would move the bike lanes over to 12th. With the bike lanes on 12th you then have five lanes to work with. Broadway is broad again. Now you can run buses in the middle of the street with curbside stops. The buses would move quickly (like they do on Madison). Moving the bike lanes wouldn’t cost that much. Moving the tracks would. The cheapest thing to do is just replace the streetcar with bus service, move the bike lanes and have fast and frequent transit along the corridor.

       3. the bigger problem is that they don’t really serve much of a purpose that can’t be better served by a longer-distance route.

          Yes, and length is just one flaw with the routing. Each streetcar line has its own set of flaws.

          South Lake Union:

          1) Redundant (because it is too short).
          2) Slow.
          3) Takes up space that is better used by bikes. This in turn means that they had to add bike lanes on a street that would be better off with bus lanes.

          First Hill:

          1) Too short (should extend farther north).
          2) Bad routing at 12th (the button hook is stupid).
          3) Uses different lanes than the buses on Jackson. This makes it very expensive to improve transit on the street.
          4) Slow on Broadway and various fixes (both simple or complicated) are very expensive since they would require moving tracks (see other comment).

          The best option for South Lake Union is to just get rid of the streetcar (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/) and then extend the H to the same spot as the C. This is much better for riders as well as cyclists. Since the main value of a small streetcar is as a tourist attraction we really don’t need both.

          I see the value in keeping one streetcar (from a tourist standpoint). But in terms of transit, it should also be replaced. We could pave over the tracks and add BAT lanes on Jackson. The 49 could run south on Broadway and turn and turn on Jackson to go downtown. The combination would save a considerable amount of service and the 49 could run more often. If the 60 ran north on Broadway (and avoided the back and forth on 9th and Madison) they could combine for good frequency.

       4. “Ideally you would move the bike lanes over to 12th. With the bike lanes on 12th you then have five lanes to work with.”

          It’s also a much flatter route. Much of the activity I’ve seen on the Broadway bicycle track south of Madison are Lime scooters and bicycles with motors on them. It’s harder to pedal.

          There’s also few businesses south of Madison. Seattle U takes most of one side and medical buildings take much of the other side. As a result, much of the Broadway auto traffic appears to be headed to or from the multiple private parking garages serving the local destinations, making right and left turns.

       5. Another issue on the heavily commercial part of Broadway is that businesses need to have deliveries made from Broadway because there isn’t an alleyway behind the storefronts. So, the left turn lanes are actually used more as a commercial load/unload zone than as a left turn lane.

    2. I see that the source problem is having better connections to the medical services at Harborview, Swedish and Virginia Mason.

       That is only one, relatively small issue. You have the rest of First Hill. I always find it odd that people are well aware South Lake Union has changed dramatically but aren’t aware of very similar changes in First Hill. Without the hospitals, First Hill would look like South Lake Union. It already does, it is just that there are hospitals mixed in. So yes, the hospitals are very important but everything else is too.

       But it isn’t about one particular area — it is the corridor. There is density along the entire corridor, from Jackson to South Lake Union. The fact that riders who want to go along the corridor have to go well out of their way (or catch a cab) is a flaw in the network. But a network is more than just serving one-seat rides — as justified as they are. A bus on Boren would complement other routes. Consider the G Line, a bus that has rapidly (no pun intended) become one of the most cost effective routes in our system. A bus on Boren would run perpendicular to it. The 3/4 (which is almost as frequent) would be quite similar. Even riders on Pike/Pine could benefit. Riders could avoid awkward trips like this. If you made other changes it would provide two transit grids in the area to go with the two street grids (that exist in that part of town).

       It reminds me of the Metro 8. It is just a fundamentally strong route it is odd that we don’t have it already. Like the 8, there are two big issues (which I mentioned up above). One is right-of-way. Throwing a bus on a route that is often congested is a risky thing to do. That being said, it is being done already (albeit with only a handful of buses). The bigger issue is service costs. There are ways to squeeze out savings (like truncating the 106) but most of the buses are infrequent as they are. Something has to give. If you add service on Boren you have to take it away from somewhere else. Ideally you would have a system that is both efficient and well-funded and it would be less of an issue. Unfortunately we have the opposite right now.

       1. “I see that the source problem is having better connections to the medical services at Harborview, Swedish and Virginia Mason.

          That is only one, relatively small issue.”

          I think it’s instead a BIG issue. It’s why I think regional connectivity is so important for First Hill.

          All the offices in the area appears to be quite focused on serving medical needs. Medical office buildings are known to be much more busy all-day than non-medical offices found in places like Downtown and SLU.

          There are several taller residential buildings in First Hill, but residents in those are usually headed to and from Downtown while they probably shop and dine in the Pike-Pine corridor (Route 60 or walking).

          Finally, Metro Routes 2 and 3 and 4 already provide through-route connections to connect the areas just north of Downtown that this route would also connect. So residents on First Hill don’t really suffer from not having a Boren bus route.

       2. My point is that things have changed. Not too long ago, focusing on transit to South Lake Union would be considered stupid. There is so little there — why bother. Now that argument is ridiculous. The same thing is true in First Hill. Not too long ago, the only thing worth worrying about is the hospitals. Now it is a major urban area that needs to be connected to other urban areas. It is like the 8. The 8 is one of the slowest buses in our system and yet it is also one of our most productive. Just think about that for a second. Being slow hampers productivity in two ways. Instead of picking up riders you are stuck in traffic. It also lowers ridership. People reject the bus and find other ways to get there. Yet despite the really slow travel time — and despite various alternatives that are more frequent and faster — ridership is as good as any bus in our system. This is because it connects urban neighborhoods.

          Now you can try and analyze this in more detail. Capitol Hill has a lot of population density. It also has nightlife and a college. Denny has population density as well as big office buildings. Uptown has population density, some office buildings along with the Seattle Center. The Center itself has events, lots of retail and a high school. Blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is they are all urban neighborhoods. They all have high population density, high retail density, high employment density. This is why transit ridership is so high.

          Yes, First Hill is an all-day destination. So is South Lake Union. So is Uptown. So is Capitol Hill. They are all urban neighborhoods — places with all-day demand. Is demand a bit higher at South Lake Union and First Hill during peak? Of course. But it isn’t like the south part of downtown was fifty years ago. Basically that part of town would shut down for the night at 5:00 pm. That just isn’t the case anymore. Downtown has become a lot more diverse and the same goes for South Lake Union and First Hill. It makes sense to connect them.

    3. At this point both First Hill and SLU are way more than just offices and hospitals; it is insanity that we are encouraging 40+ story residences and hotels and whatnot in these areas and also not giving them direct service.

11. Part of the problem with Boren is that it doesn’t serve the hospitals that well, which is the big driver of transit use on First Hill, and why the 60’s deviation takes the path it does. The only one of the hospitals Boren directly adjoins is Virginia Mason, and because the section of Virginia Mason adjoining Boren is a later addition, there’s little if any direct pedestrian access. There are buildings in the Swedish complex that adjoin Boren, but getting to the main Swedish building from Boren, or getting to Boren from Harborview, means going uphill. It’s not terribly steep in that part of First Hill, and most hospital transit usage comes from workers who you’d expect to be able-bodied, but still, replacing the 60’s deviation with a straight shot on Boren could result in howls of protest and an increase in use of the 3/4 and G, maybe even the 2.

    If the existing peak-only routes are getting good ridership for the stops near the hospitals it could be worthwhile, but otherwise the main thing this has going for it is route clarity and simplicity, and with two deviations in a short distance between Broadway and Jackson, it might not even have much of that. Boren manages to pass right through First Hill connecting it to various neighborhoods while managing to miss most of the neighborhood’s landmarks, which is to say that it’s surprisingly car-oriented for a somewhat cozy four-lane arterial in a relatively dense neighborhood passing as close as it does to downtown.

    I seem to recall that at one point some STB contributor proposed running a bus down 8th through the convention center to Harborview. 8th (9th south of Madison) is a quieter, more residential two-lane minor arterial and not as obvious a choice for a bus route, but it might be a more natural extension of the 40, with an awkward jog in SLU replaced by a 7th/8th couplet between Westlake and Pike, while assuaging any fears about losing the 60’s 9th leg and providing service to Virginia Mason that’s not that much worse than Boren, although Seneca in particular is a bit steeper near Virginia Mason than the streets further south. I do think Boren looks like a better path in terms of where you’d expect a north-south bus to go, both in terms of where it goes beyond First Hill and the character of the road itself, but there are reasons to think about it more deeply.

    1. Part of the problem with Boren is that it doesn’t serve the hospitals that well, which is the big driver of transit use on First Hill

       The ’70s called, they want their transit system back. Actually they already have it. Sorry for the smart-ass comment but the idea that First Hill is just hospitals is outdated. There are plenty of medical buildings to be sure but there is density of all sorts in the area. There are new skyscrapers and old dense building. You can see it along the entire corridor.

       I also don’t know why you think it doesn’t serve the hospitals. Rotate that last picture around. That is about to be a huge new development as part of Swedish. Boren runs by Swedish, Virginia Mason and is not that far from Harborview (two fairly flat blocks). Yes, you can zigzag back and forth trying to find what you consider to be the premier destinations in the area but that is just a really bad idea. It leads to buses that are too slow to be useful. None of the streets between Boren and 6th go through on both sides. Boren offers the opportunity for straightforward routing. We don’t want to make the mistake of the 60 all over again. (To be fair, it made sense at the time — now it is clearly outdated.)

       Yes, Boren is a car-centric street. So is Aurora. So should the RapidRide E head over to Linden (https://maps.app.goo.gl/TpcMZEwJLNNqijPT6) since that is where all the density is and it is a quieter, more residential street? No! Riders can walk. The only reason to do that is if it is somehow impossible to add BAT lanes along Boren. I think it would be the opposite. Boren if clearly wide enough to handle BAT lanes. It just take political will, like it did on Madison.

       with an awkward jog in SLU replaced by a 7th/8th couplet between Westlake and Pike,

       The jog is not that awkward. Northbound, Boren essentially becomes Fairview. It then turns left on Harrison (a transit-oriented street) and right on Westlake. Same idea in reverse. So basically one jog and a fairly straightforward one. In contrast if the bus used 7th southbound it would have to turn off of Westlake then make two additional jogs (one to get to 8th and one to get to Boren).

12. This reminds me: The 62 should be altered. It should dogleg in South Lake Union (using Harrison) over to Westlake Avenue. This would speed up the 62 and offer several other advantages. Riders headed to Fremont could take either the 40 or 62 from various stops south of Harrison.

    It would also improve this routing. Riders of the 62 could more easily transfer to the 40 to get to Boren. Riders headed to downtown from the 40 would walk to the bus stop on Westlake (just south of Harrison) and then catch the 62, C Line or streetcar to get downtown. Eventually the streetcar could be replaced with an extension of the H Line. That would mean that all three buses head to the south end of downtown. Both of the RapidRide lines run every ten minutes. It would make sense for them to be synchronized to run opposite each other for five minute headways from the waterfront to South Lake Union. The 62 (running every fifteen minutes) would provide extra bus service on top of that.

    I would change the 62 first, the streetcar second and then consider moving the 40.

    1. I feel like if you’re going to move the 62 off Dexter south of Harrison, and also send the 40 down Boren, you should also switch the 62 and 40 between Harrison and the Fremont Bridge. That way the 62 can just stay on Westlake from the bridge all the way to Blanchard/7th while the 40 can head down Dexter and then take Harrison straight to Fairview, although that does mean there’s only one direct transfer point between the 40 and 62 in SLU.

       1. Another option, solely in terms of speeding up the route, would be to have the 62 jog from Dexter to 7th and use the E’s transit lanes, though that puts it further away from the 40 and makes its coverage of SLU worse compared to the status quo.

       2. I think the 62 could be sent to First Hill instead of the 40. I was going to mention that. That would involve less churn. But I think realistically the 62 can be fixed first (to run on Westlake). It wouldn’t be hard and would work whether a bus is sent on Boren or not.

          Another option, solely in terms of speeding up the route, would be to have the 62 jog from Dexter to 7th and use the E’s transit lanes

          That was my original thought (way back when we were discussing the 62). But there are transit lanes for the 40 as well. That seems easier and a better overall fit.

    2. I assume eventual construction of Ballard Link will cause Westlake to get torn up for several years. When that happens, I could see the reverse – the 40 shifting to the 62’s route to avoid the construction. But, when the construction is all done, having the 62 job over to Westlake may be worth considering.

13. I think that the City of Seattle should be called out for the crappy transit planning that was done to allow for the SLU densification. These many new buildings are routinely pushing 30-40 floors like much of Manhattan — and the only major “mitigation” being even remotely considered is an unaffordable DSTT2.

    How many STB articles are recently written to try to improve transit caused by the SLU densification oversight for transit planning? Maybe it’s time to not merely treat the symptoms but treat the cause instead. SLU now metaphorically has heart failure from clogged arteries and applying cream to treat neuropathy isn’t enough.

    And if some sort of special tax district for SLU to add transit projects and services, I’m more satisfied. Those building owners who got huge financial windfalls when the height limits got substantially raised — and I resent having to pay lots more in my own taxes to fix a problem that the City allowed to happen there.

    1. It’s very important that we only build housing after all possible public facilities (transit, parks, schools, etc.) have been built out ahead of time. Also, we should tax all new development to ensure that only the most expensive market rate house is built. End snark.

       Come on, Al! A new, vibrant neighborhood is not a “problem” that is “allowed” to happen. That is the mindset that considers new housing an “impact” to be mitigated,” or, you know, a new rail line’s “impact” to be “mitigated” at the public’s expense.

       1. I’m not complaining about the urban neighborhood. I’m complaining about Seattle’s laissez-faire attitude about building many 30+ story buildings in an area without preparatory transit planning. This isn’t a 5 over 1 village. This is a much bigger density challenge than merely creating bus lanes out of traffic lanes. This is Center City Chicago or Midtown Manhattan density.

          Look at Docklands in London. Look at La Defense in Paris. Look at Hudson Yards in NYC. Look at Mission Bay in San Francisco. The transit lines and stations were part of the comprehensive planning for their redevelopment. Seattle has let it all happen without doing this.

          And being proactive saves everyone money. There are plenty of examples of the cost savings by planning things in concert with redevelopment. And we are witnessing the cost of trying to come in after the fact with ballooning Ballard Link costs.

    2. I would say there shouldn’t be any routes laying over in the Denny Triangle when they could be continuing into SLU (the 7 seems particularly glaring), Metro should look into finding a through-route partner for the 70 and possibly the 62 and (if unmodified) 40 (assuming they don’t already have them, which I’m not sure I can tell from the online timetables; is the 70 already/still through-routed with the 36?) if the Fremont Bridge isn’t too much of a hindrance to reliability, and the sooner Metro can get their Harrison transit mall and find a route to serve it (whether a rerouted 8 or something else) the better.

       1. I think this goes back to right-of-way as well as funding. An extension of the 7 would cost money. But it wouldn’t cost that much if it wasn’t for the congestion. You also reach a point where you really aren’t adding anything. It would be nice to have a bus like the 7 go to Uptown but it isn’t really needed. But South Lake Union isn’t quite there yet.

          I would start by getting rid of the streetcar. Then pave over the tracks and add bike lanes on top. Add BAT lanes where the bus lanes currently are. This is a win-win for everyone. Transit riders come out ahead as do bike riders. (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/).

          Then have the H follow the same pathway as the C. Synchronize them so they provide a combined five minute headway all day long (between South Lake Union and Pioneer Square). You would also have the 40 along the same corridor (for much of the way). I would also dogleg the 62 (at Harrison) so it would also contribute to the spine.

          The future J Line covers Fairview. I could see another bus heading that way and laying over at the big Eastlake layover. The 7 will eventually be RapidRide so this would be a good choice. The R and J Line would overlap just like the C and H Line. Extending the 7 (RapidRide R) is the only part of this that would actually require extra service and it wouldn’t be a lot. At that point you would have service to South Lake Union that is quite good. You would have five minute headways on Fairview and better than five minute headways on Westlake.

    3. Everybody overlooked the implications of SLU densification. Both SDOT, Metro, Sound Transit — and transit fans. The first one to acknowledge a highrise neighborhood needs high-capacity transit was SDOT in January 2016, when it proposed rerouting Ballard Link from Belltown to SLU. So the city was first, even if it was very late.

    4. I don’t think the fixes are that expensive, just politically difficult. SLU transit has improved quite a lot, though too late and not at a scale to meet demand.

       In the last decade or so I can think of the C/D split, Blanchard/Lenora/Westlake bus lanes (which should really be converted to 24 hour rather than peak-only), Aurora/7th Ave improvements, and the J and 40 improvements.

       Bus lanes for the 8 would make a massive difference. The connection from Link to SLU is pretty lacking from the north end. The 70/J serves some trips but for many peak-hour trips it’s faster to just walk from Westlake.

14. Thanks for the innovative suggestion! This is part of what STB is for, to think out of the box. Jarrett Walker has emphasized that downtown-adjacent neighborhoods have a lot of activity and potential ridership, and many riders appear to be going downtown but aren’t really: they only go downtown because that’s what the transit network forces them to do to get to their downtown-adjacent destination.

    So in general it’s a good thing to have some frequent routes to downtown, and others to downtown-adjacent areas. That’s also why Metro has been replacing downtown expresses with downtown-adjacent expresses when a new Link corridor goes downtown.

    That makes a strong case for a Ballard-Boren route. But the devil is in the details. Are there really more people wanting to go to First Hill or the eastern edge of downtown or can just as easily transfer there, compared to those going to 3rd Avenue or transferring to things that are only there? I’m not sure. So I’m not sure whether a Ballard-Boren route would be as successful as the average downtown-adjacent reroute, and wouldn’t create a transit hole between “real Ballard” and downtown. Ballard Link is at least 15 years away, and that’s a long time for many people, and some people think it won’t be built due to cost. It would be easier if this route served Capitol Hill station or any central Seattle Link station but it doesn’t, so people really going downtown or who must transfer downtown may get shafted with this: we’d have to look at it and mitigate it. For instance, where could they transfer to a fast/uncongested route to get to Midtown? There’s RapidRide G, but it goes to an office-ghetto area south of Midtown.

15. Boren Avenue is packed with cars peak hours. It may not crawl to a standstill, but it’s enough to question putting a major route like the 40 there. SDOT is treating it as a major north-south automobile corridor like 2nd and 4th Avenues. So I don’t see it adding transit lanes there.

16. The 2 Line will run an extra hour tonight and Saturday night for Marymoor concerts. The last trains will leave Marymoor Village station around 10:30pm. Note: “around” not “at”. They may end a little earlier, so don’t wait till the last minute.

    “Concert parking is not permitted at Marymoor Village parking garage, which is reserved for passengers traveling on the 2 Line to other destinations.”

17. What other route could go on Boren instead of a 40 or 106 reroute? Where could a Boren Avenue route more usefully go and complement the transit network better?

    1. How about the 28? It’s not as far west, and it’s a second-tier route so it might peer with Boren better, and fewer people would be upset if it got caught in Boren congestion. It would also be an advantage for the 28 because it would make it easier to justify 15-minute service.

       One issue would be whether to keep the 28’s express segment. I could see a case for moving it to Dexter. That would also allow it to serve the center of Fremont, which it currently doesn’t do. But I could see people on 8th Ave NW complaining about losing express speed, and people a few blocks west and east complaining that they no longer have an express alternative to the D or 5. So there would be that pushback. But on the other hand, they’d get a direct route to First Hill, which they don’t currently have.

       1. The 28 could work. You would want to bump the frequency up to every fifteen minutes though. A crosstown route like this falls apart if it doesn’t have decent frequency. Riders just abandon it and take out-of-the-way transfers (like they always have). In contrast a coverage bus that runs every half hour is fine. It is the only bus the riders can use.

          The 28 is probably the best choice for a bus across the ship canal. It doesn’t extend so far north (unlike the 5 and RapidRide E). It doesn’t go over a drawbridge, which means it is more reliable. To be fair, the 40 is going to be more reliable (it is just really long). The only drawback to the 28 is the mismatch with demand, which gets back to frequency. I could see a bus running on Boren every ten minutes, especially if they add BAT lanes. That seems like overkill for the existing 28.

          I still think the best option is to go between Mount Baker and Uptown, via Harrison. Notice how I drew the map. From the Mount Baker Transit Center to Fairview & Harrison there are no additional destinations. That is because there are no turns between there. Going north, Rainier become Boren which become Fairview. The first real turn you have to make is at Harrison. The rest of the route is supposed to have BAT lanes (or something similar). It is an intuitive, straightforward route with only three turns. Even with the turns it keeps going the same basic direction. I wrote “northbound” but it is really heading northwest. The turns after Fairview reflect that. Basically the bus heads northwest, then north, west, north and west. It is about as linear as you can get in that part of town.

          It could keep going as part of another route. It could be part of the 106 but that would be quite long. If the 106 is split into two sections (which I could see happening when the 7 becomes RapidRide and is sent to Rainier Beach Station) then that would be a decent option. You could extend it to the north but there aren’t many great options. Most of the buses that serve Uptown are trolleys (and they are already paired). Likewise you could rearrange the Magnolia buses (have them go up the hill and have the D stay along Western) but they are paired already. I think the best option is as an independent route.

          As an independent route it would be similar to the 8. It would be extremely productive even if it lacked right-of-way. With proper right-of-way it would be one of the best routes in our system, justifying very high frequency. Think RapidRide G. Any extension beyond those two points would add value, but likely lead to diminished returns and be hard to justify.

    2. What about the northern tail of the 2? Riders headed downtown would instead head to the 1, 4, or the 13. Those alternate routes are closer than the 28 and 5/D.

       The 2N could jog on Mercer-5th-Harrison-Fairview-Boren and head to Mt Baker station.

       1. I’m not sure I follow you. The 2 starts at Madrona. It would head west like it does now but turn north at Boren. Then it would follow Boren to Fairview. At Harrison it would join the new back way to Uptown. From there it would continue to upper Queen Anne. So basically this.

          That works I suppose but I think the 1/14 would be better. That would be something like this. Either one would require adding wire but either one wouldn’t cost that much (not counting congestion). Sending the 1/14 that direction means skipping Jackson, which is fine. Yet it still makes the connections with those buses, so riders could transfer. It is also a relatively short route, even though you would cover all of Boren. I could definitely see it.

       2. I meant a new route from Mt Baker to the northern end of the 2 via Boren. The 2 would continue from SPU to Madrona. This wouldn’t be revenue neutral.

          My thinking is that a Boren route would be best if it heads through to LQA so it intersects with more routes (5, E, D, etc). It could just end there, but if it were extended I think it should head into Queen Anne, and there the northern tail of the 2 or 13 make the most sense.

    3. The 60, I think, is an obvious option.

       1. The 60 is pretty independently busy of the Broadway streetcar as a connection between the Harborview area and Capitol Hill. (Harborview is quite the hike from Broadway.) I wouldn’t want to get rid of that.

       2. I was thinking the Cap Hill->hospital connection could be replaced with a few tweaks to the 49. Just have the 49 stay on Broadway a few more blocks south before turning west to head to downtown. The modified 49 could mostly leverage existing trolley wire for the #2 and #3 buses.

          This would serve the hospitals in a better way than what we get out of the present-day 60, since the 49 extends further north, serving all of Broadway, all the way to the U-district, while the new 60 would still serve the hospitals anyway from the south, plus additional service connecting the hospitals to south lake union and lower Queen Anne.

       3. The tradeoff, of course, is that the 49 would no longer serve Pike/Pine, but there are other buses on Pike/Pine that run more frequently than the 49 does, so I think this would be acceptable. While riders between Broadway/John and 3rd/Pine would presumably be taking Link, not the bus, anyway.

18. Boren and Denny are both chronically slow and unreliable, and have been forever (or at least since they became extended freeway on-ramps). Yet there is a clear case for a frequent direct crosstown connection from SLU to First Hill and beyond, and to FH and SLU from I-90 and Rainier.

    We should stop putting frequent service on routes serving freeway interchanges if there’s a feasible alternative. My preference has always been to create a new transit spine on 8th Avenue, which goes under the convention center. Yes you’d need either to go through a settled area on 8th between Seneca and Madison and improve the turn at Madison, or you’d need to do a left-right turn on Seneca to reach 9th Ave. And yes there have been many poorly-used but permanent bike facilities added on 8th already. But all of those obstacles are worth fixing before putting frequent transit service into the morass that is Boren and Denny IMO.

    I would put the 40 on this spine (it’s SLU to downtown connection is redundant), plus direct service to SLU from Snohomish County and the Eastside. There is a strong bio-med connection in SLU to the medical complex in First Hill that deserves a frequent connection.

    1. 8th doesn’t address the need for northwest-southeast service on western Capitol Hill. It may have other merits, but it wouldn’t address that potentially large ridership generator.

    2. We should stop putting frequent service on routes serving freeway interchanges if there’s a feasible alternative.

       Sure, but there isn’t in this case. It would require too much back and forth and leave a bigger coverage hole. In this case we should push the car traffic out of the way, not try and avoid it. Add BAT lanes along the entire corridor. If there is too much traffic flowing to Olive, then deal with it the way the RapidRide J is dealing with it (move to the middle northbound). Better yet, shut off the ramps.

19. Boren looks okay on the map but is quite congested.
    SDOT Harrison Street dream has PSRC study funds; they would need to find capital and service hours and it would still be very close to Denny Way.

    Yes, if the shortage of red RR buses could be overcome, extend the Dee to Northgate station via the Route 40 pathway; revise Route 40 to use the Route 61 pathway; revise Route 61 to serve NW Hospital; delete Route 365; restructure routes 345 and 347…

    Extend both routes 40 and 62 to Juvenile Justice via Yesler Way, 8th/9th avenues, and East Jefferson Street. SDOT and Metro have studied it since 2011. Route 60 could shift to 8th/9th from Fir.

    Delete the one-way peak-only First Hill routes and use their hours in the network; they are routes 193, 303, 322, 630.

    As James Street is quite congested, between routes 3 and 4, only one route need be stuck there; the other could shift to Spring-Seneca via 9th Avenue; that pathway has overhead.

    1. I mentioned the congestion issue at the beginning. This would come with BAT lanes. Basically give it the same treatment as the 40 and RapidRide J. Lots of red paint.

       I do find it weird that the only time the buses run on the corridor is when it is most congested. Either those routes are truncated (in South Lake Union) or they become additional service during peak.

    2. I neglected to mention that Route 62 would be truncated and streamlined, so it would have enough minutes to reach Juvenile Justice.

       Yesler Way is not congested; it does not serve a freeway interchange; its routes would connect with Link in the DSTT.

       The G would serve the north part of First Hill; the Yesler Way combination would serve the south part. Between Harborview, Swedish, and SU, the south part has 75 percent of the ORCA on First Hill. Yesler Terrace and Harborview are growing. Swedish is served by both the Gee Line and the Yesler combo. North-south service is provided by the FHSC and Route 60.

       Should routes 49-9-7 be consolidated? That could have short headways.

       Boren is congested and close to Broadway and 9th Avenue that have service that could be improved. Both Broadway and 9th Avenue have ETB overhead.

       1. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/magazine/benjamin-netanyahu-gaza-war.html?searchResultPosition=1

          The south part of First Hill is a large and growing transit market. It could be much better served via streets that are not congested; see Yesler Way and 9th Avenue. The crosstown arterials already have ETB overhead: Broadway and 9th Avenue. It was unfortunate that the McGinn SDOT spent ST2 funds to both slow down Broadway and provide a slow streetcar. When they constructed the FHSC along South Jackson Street, they angered the community.

       2. Boren is not close to Broadway. Service on 9th Avenue on the 60 stops on Madison leaving still quite a large north-south hole ignoring huge residential towers and the Convention Center.

          The northern segment is busy and full of pedestrians and deserves a route as well.

       3. Henry, note that the street grid shifts; Boren and Broadway actually intersect. Boren and 9th avenues are parallel and two blocks apart.

       4. Eddie, my comment is about how you’re basically just ignoring the northern part of First Hill entirely. At Madison and points north, Boren is very far from Broadway; and there’s no 60 service in First Hill north of Madison, so 9th is irrelevant to the point.

20. Here’s a crazy idea: who says the 8 has to stay intact?

    I’ve thought about this for a little bit but maybe the 8 is doing too much as a bus route and needs a rethink, split into the following parts:

    * The east-west 8, going from LQA to the G terminal at MLK/Madison. Possibly further either to Madison Park (though the 11 already does that), or to Cherry/MLK.
    * The north-south 8 (let’s say 80) which goes from Capitol Hill Link to Mount Baker via John, MLK and 23rd to provide outer crosstown service
    * The shortcut 8 (let’s say 81) going from Seattle Center on the Thomas St transit mall to Fairview, Boren, and Mount Baker. This would provide more direct crosstown connections in the inner neighborhoods

    This way the absolute worst congestion in SLU doesn’t have to spread out along the whole 8 route.

    As a bonus exercise, relieve the 8 by providing an alternate Capitol Hill-SLU bus route; extending the 60 east on Roy, Belmont, Lakeview before jogging down to the Thomas St transit mall.

    1. An 8/11 (Denny-Madison) route is in Metro Connects 2050, and Ross has been strongly advocating for it. We were expecting it in the RapidRide G restructure, along with the Broadway north-south route (49/60), 106-Boren, and 2-Pine, but none of them were in it.

       The MLK part of the 8 is overservice by Metro’s guidelines: the 48 is five blocks away. The space between them is flat except for a few blocks south of Madison, where it become steep. Metro seems to be keeping it for equity, and to give them a 1-seat ride to Broadway. Transferring between the 48 and the east-west routes (8, 11, G) is hindered by the long distances between transfer stops (2.5 blocks for the 8, up a hill for the 11 and G), so that could be a reason for keeping the 8’s turn. Or Metro could just move the transfer stops so that everybody can transfer from the 48.

       The Uptown-Boren-Mt Baker routing is part of Metro’s 106 restructure in Metro Connects (an Uptown-Rainier Beach route). I’m inclined to keep it part of the 106, but a separate route meeting it at Mt Baker is also a possibility.

       As to why the 5 blocks between MLK is OK but the 2.5 blocks in the 48+8 transfer is bad, it’s because people are more willing to walk at the beginning or end of their trip than for a transfer in the middle of it. A long transfer is bad network design, while a long walk at the beginning/end is inevitable for those not lucky enough to be on the bus’s street.

       1. Route 8.11 was in the 2008 Enhance Trolley Scenarios for the AWV Replacement projects; its was in P2 of the U Link project of 2015; it was not chosen for the March 2016 ordinance. The north-south leg of Route 8 could also be shifted to 23rd Avenue atop Route 48 or without Route 48 if Route 43 was restored.

       2. I think I am generally opposed to just slashing the 8’s north south leg for “overservice” reasons if the 48 is not going to get an equivalent increase in service hours.

21. In Community Transit’s July board meeting, it shares potential options for transit only lane. It looks like one of the options under consideration is the one-way center running bus lane.

    See https://www.youtube.com/live/CAWcRljZy_c?si=fH-HsML1Wc-pKTj7 starting from 49:15

22. I’ve often pitched a Pioneer Square/ Harborview aerial funicular as a productive transit network addition that could address many travel needs presented here.

    It could be automated, run at very high frequency and provide southern First Hill and Yesler Terrace with awesome Third Ave and Link high-frequency connectivity (like every 3-4 minutes). The properties along Jefferson St are already owned by King County so adjacent land owner complaints aren’t likely. It would connect the bicycle tracks on Second Ave with the bicycle tracks on Broadway, and could carry wheelchair riders (like those going to Harborview) more easily up and down First Hill as the vehicle floors would be level.

    I mention it here because it could provide connectivity similar to a Boren route pitched here. The high frequency of either Link or Third Ave buses combined with the high frequency of this funicular would minimize the wait penalty if transferring to almost nothing.

    It could be a King County Metro project or City of Seattle project too. ST would not need to be the project sponsor — and would not need ST3 funding.

    Of course, bad end point station designs could make such a thing an unproductive albatross. And there isn’t money to even study the concept — much less design or build it.

23. Yes Please – we need to begin to break the perception that I-5 is an edge and adding a n/s corridor to the east and the 2nd ST tunnel will work to move the center of transit gravity up the hill so to speak. Boren is the best kept secret n/s corridor in downtown. I get funding constraints but why not just propose a new route and build capacity and urban knowledge of this dense corridor. As for extending the north route should align through Fremont and N and the south should align through beacon hill as these extentions are likely viable ST tunnel alignments. Let building surface routes build the case and network effects for future tunnels. More capacity not shifted capacity.

24. I agree the boren ave could be a good bus route. I’m not too sure about extending route 40 but on the other hand I can’t quite think of any obvious other contenders

25. My take is that a bus that has to deal with crossing the ship canal would not be reliable for the core SLU-First Hill-Little Saigon segment. It would almost have to be one of the busses coming from the south, or maybe an east side bus, since the 2 line would be going to downtown, but not ending up in SLU.

    1. I guess extending the 106 down boren to slu instead of Chinatown would work if that’s your criteria

26. What about killing off the SLU streetcar, and with that operating money convert the 630 into an all day route? Instead of having the 630 do the awkward loop from Capitol Hill to 5th and Jackson, have it continue on Boren north to South Lake Union Park?

    The south end of most trips would be at Judkins Park station.

    The section from Judkins Park Station to Mercer Island would remain an infrequent tail, paid for by Mercer Island as is currently the case for the entire route.

    1. I think the problem is that the route would be too short. In general, short routes tend to not do very well for a variety of reasons. They tend to be inefficient to operate, with a large portion of the service time spent turning around buses or waiting for trips to start. On top of that, a short route means many fewer origin/destination pairs with both ends on the route, which a non-trivial portion of trips that are served short enough that, unless the bus is coming very soon, it may be faster to just walk.

       In other words, a bus that goes just between First Hill and SLU, and does nothing else, might have a difficult time getting good ridership. But, if you can combine that ridership with people going to either First Hill or SLU from some corridor either north or south, the ridership potential becomes much larger. More ridership potential, in turn, means that it can be justified to run such a bus more often, leading to even more ridership, in a virtuous cycle.

       I don’t think the 630 is very relevant to this discussion, as Mercer Island is only paying for it a couple times per day, and also because the one-way loop structure is not very good for an all-day bus route.

       1. If the route is extended to SLU, it gets rid of the one way loop thing.

          Operating from SLU to Judkins Park station would be something like twice the length of the SLU streetcar. This would essentially replace that route, and extend it south on Boren. For existing Westlake – SLU trips there’s already the 70.

          If you change any other route other than the 630 or the 9, the existing passengers are going to resist that change because the existing route serves their needs. It’s one of the reasons why transit agencies are slow to change: existing passengers have an interest in not making their trip more difficult, while passengers for a new route change can’t say much since the service isn’t there yet.

          The upside down U thing the 630 does is quite pointless, as anyone headed from anywhere else to anywhere else on that part of the 630 has better options. So, I don’t see why anyone on Mercer Island would object to losing that part.

          By connecting First Hill with East Link more directly, I think you wind up with a fair number of potential riders.

          The lack of a traffic signal at Boren – Denny – Lenora probably means you’d want to switch from Boren to Fairview or something through SLU.

          I don’t know that getting rid of the SLU streetcar would generate enough cost savings to produce a route any longer than Judkins Park to SLU.

    2. The 630 has several segments:

       1) Runs through Mercer Island.
       2) Goes across the lake.
       3) Runs from Judkins Park to the middle of First Hill and then loops around.

       The first is a coverage route. The latter is redundant as soon as Link gets across the water. The third is flawed routing. I don’t think the combination makes sense for frequent, all-day service.

       Killing off the streetcar would save some money, but not enough for this route. It wouldn’t save enough for Mount Baker Station (MBS) to South Lake Union (SLU), either. If we got rid of the streetcar (and I think we should) a more realistic change is the extension of the H Line. That is roughly an equal swap in terms of service. It would also provide many of the same riders the same benefit as the streetcar while a lot of other riders come out way ahead. You would need to do all of this first: https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/.

       If you change any other route other than the 630 or the 9, the existing passengers are going to resist that change because the existing route serves their needs.

       That is true of most restructures. That is the nature of the beast. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t change things. While I applaud the creativity when it comes to some of the ideas expressed here (including sending the 40 to MBS) I don’t know if any of them make sense.

       Just to back up here, this isn’t the only hole in the area. You also have the SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown route. There aren’t a lot of great options for that route as well. It is too short for a standalone route. It can’t be being easily combined with another route, other than the 8 (and that creates a different hole for Belltown). I think the best option is to combine these two routes. So Boren/SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown. It is a natural pairing. The bus avoids turns and manages to keep going the same direction the entire time.

       That limits your options. MBS/Boren/SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown could work as a stand-alone route. It would be one of the best stand-alone routes in our system (assuming it had decent right-of-way). But that that would cost extra money. The savings could come from an overhaul of the network but you would probably still need more money.

       In terms of existing routes, I see two options (both already mentioned above). One is the 106. This would likely occur if the 106 is split into two sections (as it would be rather long as an extension). Another is the 1/14. That is probably as close to revenue neutral as you are going to get while still serving those areas. But it also means missing Judkins Park. You could also switch things around. Have the 106 serve 31st and the eastern part of the Jackson and just send the 14 straight down Rainier to MBS. That works (sort of) but it doesn’t seem great. You’ve also got trolley wire to worry about.

       I think the best option is as a standalone route after you’ve done a bigger restructure. Start with a frequency-oriented restructure (like this one). A stand-alone MBS/Boren/SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown route would fit really well on top of this, as long as we have enough funding.

       1. “This would likely occur if the 106 is split into two sections”

          Metro Connects splits the 106 at Rainier Beach. The northern route goes to Boren and SLU. The southern route is extended to replace the 105 to the Renton Highlands. This gives a one-seat ride between the big-box district in the western half of downtown Renton, western Renton, and a Link station. Eastern Renton where most of the population lives doesn’t have any of that now. At the same time, the northern route addresses the Boren gap, and the split keeps the routes from being long.

       2. “I don’t think the combination makes sense for frequent, all-day service.”

          I don’t think the combination makes any sense as a rarely running route now. The one guy who had his office at 5th and Jackson and lived on Mercer Island moved the office a couple years ago.

          Thus, it seems like a good candidate to change. Even the people on Mercer Island would be better served by a different route.

       3. Thus [the 630] seems like a good candidate to change.

          Sure, but that really doesn’t address the issue. The 630 runs four times a day. You could send it to Ballard and it really doesn’t matter. It is an infrequent coverage route that will become even more outdated once Link finally gets across the lake. Then you would be better off just getting rid of the route and putting the money into the 240.

          Metro Connects splits the 106 at Rainier Beach. The northern route goes to Boren and SLU. The southern route is extended to replace the 105 to the Renton Highlands.

          That makes a lot of sense. By splitting in Rainier Beach you can better handle the extension of the 7 to Rainier Beach Station. To cover Waters and the Henderson/Rainier loop you could extend the northern version of the 106. Extending the southern version to take over the 105 has merit as well. The 105 is borderline now — with a bit more money it could run every fifteen minutes. Connecting a good chunk of Renton with Rainier Beach (both the neighborhood and the station) would be worthwhile.

          That being said, I would still prefer a standalone MBS/Boren/SLU/Harrison/Mercer/Uptown bus. At that point there are a number of possible changes for the 106. You could send it up to Yesler (as I suggested). Once Graham Street Station is added, do we really need the 106 to run every fifteen minutes from Rainier Beach to downtown? Maybe you just run it every half hour up to Yesler, opposite the 27. So much depends on funding levels. If we get more money then you could run the 27 every fifteen via Yesler and keep the northern 106 at the same level. That way you would have 7.5 minute frequency along Yesler (which seems reasonable).

       4. “do we really need the 106 to run every fifteen minutes from Rainier Beach to downtown?”

          Yes, because all routes should run every 15 minutes as an absolute minimum to be usable, until you get into rural areas like Snoqualmie where half-hourly or hourly might be appropriate. If there’s not enough reason to run the 106 every 15 minutes, maybe it shouldn’t run at all. But something needs to serve the areas in between Link stations even with Graham, and the only thing we’ve identified is the 106.

       5. Remember that the 106 is the only route south of Mt Baker station, so that’s where 15-minute service is needed. North of Mt Baker is redundant with the ultra-frequent 7. The 106 used to terminate at Mt Baker until Metro extended it for north Rainier squeaky wheels and equity. So that’s where you could reroute it to spread the service hours elsewhere. However, geographically, Rainier is the only option between Mt Baker and 23rd, so the 48 doubles up there too.

          That suggests the 106 could fulfill eddiew’s concept of a reverse-43. It could start at Rainier Beach, go north on MLK to Mt Baker, then follow the 48’s path to John, and the 43’s to downtown. The 48 did go to Rainier Beach in one incarnation.

          Of course you’d need a separate Uptown-Boren-Mt Baker route to fulfill the Boren service raised by this article.

27. Meanwhile July has come and gone without any further updates from ST on testing progress on the 2 line. Radio silence since their big win of dragging a train across the lake other than fwle news.

    1. Sound Transit’s social media team has started posting notable updates on their Instagram and not elsewhere: https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/08/01/friday-roundtable-boren-ave-route-idea/#comment-962102

28. I think the best route to extend onto Boren is RapidRide R.

    I would assume this version of RapidRide R would have a southern terminus at a new layover spot adjacent to Rainier Beach Station, jogging to and from Rainier at Henderson Street, and merely staying on Rainier as it changes to Boren — ending in SLU or maybe Seattle Center.

    1. Many of service hours could be diverted from the Route 7 runs that don’t continue on the Prentice loop. Route 7 would continue to operate into the ID but at a greatly reduced frequency just as Prentice Loop bus runs.

    2. Riders on this route would have three options to use Link — Rainier Beach, Mt Baker and Judkins Park (coming in 2025) if they wanted to go Downtown — as well as Route 106 (north of Mt Baker) and a less frequent Route 7 if headed to Downtown or the ID.

    3. Much of the route has been already been engineered for bus speed and reliability.

    4. The route length is not too long (causing more unreliability) or too short (causing lower ridership).

    5. The route would provide a direct ride between the Rainier Ave corridor and the closest hospital and ER at Harborview. Note that Harborview has direct buses from Routes 3, 4 and 60 and the FHSC from the north already.

    6. Although the vehicle technology is a different topic, the alignment could allow for left-door bus stops at some locations like RapidRide G has on Rainier and/or Boren. It would also increase the left-door fleet, easing the pressure when spare vehicles are needed.

    7. It would make a great alternative on days when Link is disrupted.

    At the very least, it seems like a reasonable alternative to consider.

    1. Only if all branches run at least every 15 minutes. Otherwise it would be falling into what RapidRide should not be and what Metro/SDOT wouldn’t allow it to: something that’s marketed like you can show up anytime without a schedule, but in practice you can’t. That would make people lose trust in the entire RapidRide brand. It would also be the first RapidRide line with multiple branches, so that would be a hurdle to get approved too.

       1. I’m only suggesting one RapidRide (R) line. Route 7 would remain called Route 7 but not need to maintain RapidRide frequency. Most Route 7 riders would move to RapidRide R buses. Route 7 would remain mainly for the Prentice Loop and as occasional minimum connectivity to ID for those that want it.

    2. The Rainier overhead is directly connected with the Broadway overhead. With no new wire, routes 49-9-7 could be combined. Boren has no overhead. Before fall 1995, Route 9 was between the U District and South Rose Street via Capitol and First hills. Routes 49-9-7 would connect several Link stations: U District, Capitol Hill, Judkins, Mt. Baker, and Rainier Beach.

       A Route 7P could serve the Prentice loop connecting with the Link station.

Comments are closed.