By KIAN NAEEMI

The Harborview Medical Center area is a bottleneck afflicted with crushing traffic. Multiple roads funnel traffic east into James Street, where traffic then struggles onto I-5. At the same time, bus routes 3 and 4 are trying to serve the same kind of trip on those roads, getting people to the Link Light rail and the Third Avenue busway, two major transit arteries which provide an alternative to I-5. These buses should be alleviating traffic (and to some extent they do) but they are unable to fix the traffic while in it. Better bus routing and transit priority improvements can make buses in the area much more effective at maneuvering through the James Street logjam.

The Seattle DOT should work with King County Metro to reroute routes 3/4 off the chronically clogged James St. onto Cherry St. (with a reverse bus lane), put bus lanes (for ambulance use as well) on 9th at Harbourview, and make Jefferson from 9th to Broadway a local only road. Heading eastbound, the reroute would result in: buses taking Cherry from Third Ave and taking a right on 9th to join the current routing for the rest of the route. This preserves the vital 9th and Jefferson stop serving Harborview. Here’s a map.

Discussion about the routes on James Street has previously focused on moving buses onto Yesler Way. This is arguably the easiest option, however King County Metro has already studied moving the 3/4 to Yesler and decided against it. But with the new 2024 Seattle Transport Levy now here, it is possible to choose the best option, which wouldn’t cost too much more. 

And so, adding wires to Cherry Street is the right move to get the 3/4 moving again. Cherry is one-directional eastbound under and west of I-5 and is configured with an unnecessary 3 lanes up to I-5. Under I-5 it becomes two lanes, however one lane is extra large. The best solution is to replace one lane with a reverse direction bus lane like where RapidRide lines run on Columbia St, to allow buses to go westbound. One problem is that doing this without widening the street may require removal of a bike lane. Additionally, a slip lane that heads up to I-5 at Cherry and 7th Ave needs removal. The required intersection reconfiguration would be temporarily disruptive, but shouldn’t cause much long-term harm since it is relatively quiet.

This new road configuration will be nowhere near as disruptive as bus lanes on James St, and way less circuitous as rerouting buses onto Yesler Way to cross I-5. Cherry Street’s lack of traffic is stark compared to James St., and moving the 3/4 onto it would not be disruptive to riders since stops on Cherry would be at the same height as those on James. The King County Jail would lose a direct connection to these buses, but it would still be a level 300-foot long walk away from a stop on Cherry. This is less disruptive than a Yesler route, which would be a bit more than two blocks away.

Buses are also forced to mingle with cars headed to I-5 via Jefferson Street, and Jefferson is not wide enough for bus lanes. However, the fact that a main arterial with four lanes (James St.) parallels Jefferson St. allows modification of Jefferson Street. to be local-traffic-only, from 9th Ave to Broadway. This could be difficult to enforce, but a small traffic reduction could go a long way.

20 Replies to “Speeding Up Routes 3 and 4”

    1. Thanks for mentioning that. I’ve always felt that a Harborview funicular would be awesome — and as an automated technology it would only require station security for staff.

      I’ll add that the line could be highlighted on the ST diagrams even if Metro or SDOT builds it. The project cost could be helped by shifting streetcar money to it (rather than ST). Or perhaps if ST cancels DSTT2 it could get additional funds in order to “replace” the loss of a midtown station on Fifth or Sixth.

      Finally, it could even be tied into the Harborview campus facilities plan and budget. Imagine if we built transit with funds from elsewhere, would be a complete reversal of Seattle projects using scarce transit money to pay for other things like utility replacement (like RapidRide G did).

      It however doesn’t directly speed up Routes 3 and 4. It would however better free up Metro to consider routing on other streets to connect Third Ave with the Harborview area on First Hill south of James.

      1. Is there any “streetcar money”? The ST2 funds have been used up. SDOT has serious issue funding operations and maintenance. Metro and Vulcan chose to subsidize the SLU Line. That will end. It may be allowed to die.

        ST3 does not need any more projects to fund. If the DSTT2 is not pursued, there will be plenty of under funded projects is all five subareas.

        Existing bus hours could be shifted to other more congestion-free streets that serve Harborview, Swedish, and SU; they included 9th Avenue and Yesler Way. Bus hours do not have to sit in congestion. See service guideline eight re pathways.

    2. A funicular (or gondola) would be great, but it doesn’t solve the problem. Even if the bus went on Yesler it would still leave a hole on James. That is really the issue. The bus can go from downtown to Harborview just fine if it goes via Yesler. The problem is that skips Fifth & James and Eighth & James. We could probably backfill service on Fifth by sending buses on Fifth. But Eighth would be tougher.

    1. Oh, and here is a link to contraflow lane definition (which is part of your proposal): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraflow_lane. To quote the first part of that:

      A contraflow lane is a lane in which traffic flows in the opposite direction of the surrounding lanes. Contraflow lanes are often used for bicycles or bus rapid transit on what are otherwise one-way streets. Here is another link:
      https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/transit-streets/contra-flow-bus-lanes/.

  3. Moving the 3/4 to Yesler would be a big change but it does more than avoid traffic. You would increase service on Yesler itself while the stop on 9th would be closer to the main entrance of Harborview. That part of Yesler has grown dramatically over the years and yet it only has the infrequent 27 and the streetcar (which goes the wrong direction on Yesler) to get downtown. The addition of the 3/4 would transform transit in the area, giving riders a fast and frequent way to get to the heart of downtown.

    It is also a surprisingly fast route. Part of the problem with the current routing is that even when traffic isn’t an issue, it doesn’t follow a direct path. If the bus ran on James/Cherry it would be faster. But instead it has to make two turns to dogleg to Jefferson. Approaching from the other side is almost as direct. Consider a bus heading towards downtown from the Central Area:

    Existing 3/4 — Right on 9th (4-way stop); Left on James (left-turn arrow); Right on Third.

    Yesler Method — Left on 9th (4-way stop); Right on 8th (3-way stop); Right on Yesler (traffic light); right on Third.

    It is one additional turn but the left turn is at a stop sign. Thus even though it seems like a round-about way to get there, it is just about as fast, even when there is no traffic. Yesler also has potential in terms of BAT lanes. It is one of the few downtown streets with a lot of parking. For parts of the road you could easily add BAT lanes on both sides (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VuerJzSaeJsqvk2n9). The roadway gets a bit narrow as the bridge goes over I-5 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/zu5G5LQkFnqQewts6) but you could add a BAT lane one direction or the other.

    The Yesler route is often seen merely as a way to avoid traffic. But it would add a lot of very good bus stops while saving time. It is quite likely ridership would increase as a result.

    1. I don’t think a Yesler reroute would gain much in they way of ridership, since most of the Yesler Terrace area is better served by the 7/14/36 on Jackson anyways. And the 3/4 is really only bad at the peak of peak hours in my experience riding – it’s fine at 4, not fine at 5, and fine again by 6:30. For most hours of the day, the Yesler reroute would add distance and time. The dogleg to Jefferson can slow the route down, especially if drivers are jerks around Harborview, but that isn’t really an issue solved by a Yesler reroute. The bus has to get to Jefferson somehow, since that’s where the wire is already.

      Cherry is a much more natural reroute, since it avoids out of direction travel and minimizes capital costs for adding new trolley wire.

      1. Jackson is not Yesler though. It is a long walk, even if you are headed downhill. It is only as you get further east that the distance effectively shrinks (as the slope of the hill shrinks). That is why Metro has always shortchanged Yesler. The thinking has been that folks will just walk to Jackson or walk all the way downtown. In the past there weren’t that many people there (and they were all considered “captive” riders). But now there are a lot of riders there and they have second-rate transit.

        Consider someone in Yesler Tower headed to the middle of downtown. At noon, every option requires walking ten minutes. That is because the 27 is so infrequent. The 27 requires a two minute walk and can make that trip a lot faster. Sending the 3/4 to Yesler would dramatically improve that trip as well as others in the area.

        Obviously you lose something by skipping James. But you also gain something by going on Yesler. That is my point.

        For most hours of the day, the Yesler reroute would add distance and time.

        It would add distance but save time. Look at the pathway that Google recommends if you are trying to get Second & Madison to Jefferson (between Ninth and Terry): https://maps.app.goo.gl/NdnbBUptnhsqLhXv9. This is at 3:00 am. It is basically the same (five minutes). So when there is no traffic it is a wash. When there is a lot of traffic it is faster to go via Yesler.

        It would be different if the bus just kept going on James until it became Cherry (and continued that way to MLK) but that isn’t the route. The bus has to dogleg either way and that is what takes time.

        There are other advantages. One of the arguments for the very time consuming detour of the 60 is that it is important to serve the “front door” of Harborview. But if the 3/4 did that, then the 60 could stay on Yesler and provide much improved frequency on that important corridor. It could combine with the streetcar for service every six minutes midday from Yesler to Denny — while saving money! The 3/4 would be faster. The 60 would be faster. I’m not saying there aren’t drawbacks — there clearly are — but there would be some big benefits as well.

      2. @Ross Yes, it’s a walk, but it’s not like most of the Yesler Terrace area isn’t also a bit of a walk to 8th or 9th and Yesler. Sure, the closest building to 8th/Yesler gets a faster trip, but that’s in exchange for a slower trip for people who live near James/8th. I don’t know if that’s a tradeoff worth significant capital investment.

        I don’t really think that Google driving time directions are a good proxy for bus service over such a short distance. Bus operations are different than driving, and at short distances and times the difference between routes is harder to discern when the unit is minutes. If I back the starting point up to Boren/Jefferson, it’s still five minutes to 2nd and Madison via James but now it’s 5 to 7 via Yesler.

        The point at hand here is Cherry vs. Yesler for the 3/4, not if Yesler is good on its own. I see very few downsides to the Cherry idea, while the Yesler idea changes the route substantially and adds time for off-peak riders. If Cherry didn’t exist as an option, I’d be more supportive of the move, but Cherry does exist and it serves the purpose of getting the 3/4 up First Hill faster, better.

        And for what it’s worth, I think the argument for the 60 needing to serve the front door of Harborview is stupid, and the 60 should be on Boren (and terminating in SLU).

      3. Yesler Way and South Jackson Street are close together in the flat but at Yesler Terrace, there is a bluff in between; so the South Jackson Street service does not serve Yesler Terrace; it is served by routes 27, 60, and the streetcar. South Jackson Street was regraded early in Seattle’s history. See David Williams, Too High Too Steep. https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295999401/too-high-and-too-steep/

        It would be served by routes 40 and 62 if they were revised to do so.

        Route 106 was extended to the CID via South Jackson Street in fall 2016. That notion appealed to those who wanted to “save the 42”, the radial service on MLK Jr. Way South that was deleted in fall 2009 and the initial Link segment. The notion of the Route 106 change drawn from the 2013 reductions network that would have shifted Route 106 to 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way in the context of routes 14 and 27 being deleted. (Yes, the reduction network was extreme; the recession did end; only the first phase of reductions was implemented in fall 2014). In the near future, with the Judkins East Link station and growth at Yesler Terrace, it would make sense for Route 106 to be shifted to 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way from Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson Street. Jackson seems to have too much service; Yesler Way only has Route 27 at 30/30 headway; it has activity centers. At Judkins, access will be easier via 23rd than at Rainier Avenue South; the latter pathway crosses Link, is longer, and has more elevation.

      4. I used to live in the area. Walking between Yesler Terrace and Jackson to catch the bus is doable but not very practical due to the topography.

  4. I used to live at 7th and Cherry. I think I’ve taken the 3/4 maybe three times in my entire life, and each time, it felt like a mistake. It was just always faster to walk – even going all the way from 3rd to Broadway is usually faster on foot.

    The best solution would be to toll I5, or even just close the entrances and exits around James. Rerouting the bus to Cherry does seem like a decent interim solution.

    But consider, conceptually – why is it faster to walk on James rather than take the bus? It’s faster because pedestrians have dedicated space on the sidewalk. The same could be done for buses.

    The other idea I sometimes think about is an escalator, like the Central-Mid-Levels Escalator in Hong Kong.

  5. Yes, getting frequent service out of I-5 interchange traffic is important. It is a citywide issue. One approach is to go around it; see North 92nd Street via Northgate Way; see Yesler Way v. James Street. One approach is to spend millions; see G Line on Madison Street. New overhead on Cherry Street would be costly. The freeway ramps are important; Cherry Street has a ramp and traffic. Does the concept allow for bus stops on Cherry Street? The Seattle Transportation levy has many more needs than it has funds; see pavement management, sidewalks, and bridges. Is Trump 2.0 a good time to apply for FTA overhead grants for Blue Seattle?

    In 1940-41, Seattle Transit built an electric trolleybus (ETB) network quickly with federal funds as its streetcar network had fallen apart and had great fiscal issues. There had been a cable car on James Street but Seattle did not place an ETB route there until 1979. (See leadership of Seattle and Metro Councilmember George Benson. See routes 2 and 44 of that era). The Pike-Pine corridor may have been the epicenter of downtown Seattle; all routes led to it.

    Before the James Street overhead was added, the East Jefferson Street routes use 9th Avenue. That overhead exists today and lies fallow. Today, it connects Spring-Seneca streets with East Jefferson Street.

    RossB has outlined the most recent attempt to shift the routes 3 and 4 to Yesler Way using new overhead. There were capital cost and coverage (e.g., government buildings, food bank) rationales for not proceeding. There was concern about the strength of the bridge. All projects are constrained by budget.

    There were two earlier opportunities to fund the Yesler Way overhead. Executive Sims had the agreement for the SR-99 deep bore in January 2009 include a one percent MVET for Metro; it would have funded the ETB project, elevated Route 120 to BRT, and protected Metro service from cuts during the recession. Governor Gregoire backed out the agreement during the 2009 session. Metro local option as yet to be provided. Metro Connects and other dreams remain unfunded. The ST2 First Hill Streetcar had $132 million. It could have been shifted to ETB from streetcar; it could have used existing overhead or added new overhead on Yesler Way. Mayor McGinn chose to become a streetcar fan as Nickels was. We got the First Hill line with its deviation to 14th Avenue South, PBL, and goofy batteries.

    The objectives of this concept are important. Moving transit on James Street with I-5 traffic is very difficult. Engineers have been thinking about it for decades. SDOT found answers for Westlake Avenue North. SDOT found very costly ones for Madison Street. Given cost constraints and available alternatives, we could shift some service and add service out of the congestion. SDOT and Metro have already studied the Yesler Way, 8th/9th avenues, East Jefferson Street pathway for more than a decade; it could be used by hybrid buses with the removal of a very few parking spaces. I suggest it be used by routes 40 and 62. (The D Line is another candidate, but branded lines have other constraints; its pathway to its 5th Avenue terminal uses Yesler Way). Some of the East Jefferson Street ETB service could be shifted to Spring-Seneca streets and 9th Avenue. Providing some service on James Street is okay; but should very frequent service be jammed into congestion? The two patterns would rejoin on 3rd Avenue north of Spring-Seneca streets. SDOT has improved transit flow on eastbound Spring Street for Route 2 and the G Line; it was jammed for decades with traffic from the I-5 interchange.

    In the longer term, perhaps the north part of Route 60 could become ETB either on Broadway or 9th Avenue. The flow of Route 60 on the reconfigured Madison Street should be measured.

    Metro and SDOT have yet to replace the ETB overhead of routes 2 and 12 in the G Line pathway.

    1. If the 3/4 were shifted to Yesler you would want to backfill service on James. There are three bus stops on James: Third, Fifth and Eighth. There is no need to backfill the stop on Third (lots of buses go across Third). Fifth is slowly losing service. Would it make sense to shift some buses to Fifth? There are contraflow lanes on Fifth already. At worst it seems like you could dogleg back to Third (via Madison) if you can’t find layover around there (and the north end of Fifth is too congested). I’m thinking of buses like the 101 or 150.

      That leaves Eighth. Without a stop there, riders would be forced to walk up the hill to Ninth (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PboKbcRnYqaJ7TTMA). This is addition to whatever walking they did to get there. But if you are closer to the water then walking to Fifth seems like a better option. If you are farther north, then walking to Madison (to catch the RapidRide G) would work. The stop at Eighth gets a fair number of riders but nowhere near the ridership of Ninth (or a lot of other stops).

      Assuming we want to backfill service on James, I’m not sure the best option. If you could figure out a way to make James OK for traffic one direction or the other than it could be part of a live loop. So far as I know, the only buses that live-loop downtown are those from Capitol Hill (and that wouldn’t work). A lot of buses through-route. Many take a long time just to get downtown. One possibility is the 125. It takes about half hour to complete its route (one way). It would follow the same pathway to Columbia and then do the loop starting at Third, like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/UgCq2V24RSLFNh4v5. This assumes that travel eastbound on James is better than westbound. (If it was the other way around then it would use Spring instead of Seneca.) Thus it takes a right on Third and then a left on James. It takes another three more lefts (at Ninth, Seneca and Third) to complete the loop (before taking a right on Columbia and heading towards West Seattle). This would also cover part of the 60 and part of the 2, making it easier to move those routes (to Broadway and Pike/Pine respectively). It is quite possible this change would be revenue neutral. It might even save money (since you would be saving time on the 3/4 and 60).

      1. I find it hard to take the idea of backfilling service at 8th and James seriously. There are so many places in Seattle where you need to walk two blocks to a bus, even including one uphill block. If you’re saying that needs specific service, you’ll need to dribble coverage routes all through the city.

      2. I find it hard to take the idea of backfilling service at 8th and James seriously.

        Yet here we are. The city was ready to move the buses. Most people preferred that. But losing service on 8th was too controversial so they decided to keep one of our busiest buses stuck in traffic. Backfilling service could be a solution.

    2. Note: The G Line was expensive. But a lot of the cost was for work that is unrelated to the buses. Since they are running buses on the street they figured it made sense to add concrete. Since they were adding concrete, it made sense to deal with the plumbing issues under the street. Thus they spend a huge amount of money even though the only change for the buses was some paint. I’m not saying that was the only thing. In a handful of places they made the street just a little bit wider. But you could make James a lot faster (as I wrote below) with just paint and some signs. You still have to do the various studies but it shouldn’t require spending as much money as they did on RapidRide G.

  6. This new road configuration will be nowhere near as disruptive as bus lanes on James St

    I’m not so sure. Consider the work that has to be done. You mentioned some of this but I’m going to repeat it anyway:

    1) Between Third and Fourth you would have to reconfigure the street. Here is a picture of Cherry from Fourth, looking west. Right now there is a left turn lane (where that red Honda is in the picture) for eastbound cars on Cherry heading north on Fourth. You would probably just want to widen the sidewalk and narrow the street to three lanes. One lane is the contraflow lane (heading west) the middle lane is the turn lane and the other lane is for general purpose traffic (and the bus) heading east. The good news is that no one can turn right (southbound) on Fourth so that right lane (heading east) would flow fairly well — at least for a block.

    2) Between Fourth and Fifth things are a bit messy. Cars can basically turn left and right from Cherry even though Fifth is one-way. That’s because carpools can get onto the express lanes there. That means that you would have one contraflow lane (heading west), a turn lane for the express lane ramp, a turn lane for those heading south on Fifth and one lane for cars going straight.

    3) Between Fifth and Sixth it would be relatively easy. You would have a contraflow lane on the right side of that picture. That would leave two lanes heading east. One is for cars going straight, one for cars turning right (heading south on 6th towards the freeway). The bus would be on the curbside lane and then have to cross the bike lanes and merge with the only lane of traffic heading east. This includes all of the cars using this way to get to the northbound freeway lanes.

    4) Between 6th and 7th on Cherry, things would change dramatically. You would have to get rid of the bike lanes for starters. But you would also get rid of the left turn slip lane. You would have to change the nature of the sidewalk as seen here. I don’t think you would need to move the utility post but it would be tight. So underneath the freeway it would more like a normal two way street (one lane each direction). Except one lane would be contraflow (heading west).

    But consider traffic flowing east. A lot of the traffic on Cherry is heading towards the freeway. One of the reasons why traffic isn’t too congested through there is the slip lane. Once a car crosses sixth it is basically on the on-ramp to the freeway. The ramp merges with the one coming from Seventh but at worst it becomes a zipper merge. Instead the cars would have to go to Seventh and then turn left. It seems quite likely that there would be large backups there. An eastbound bus would be stuck behind all of those cars.

    5) You would need to harden Cherry between 9th and 7th. Buses don’t go there and I don’t think it is common for trucks to run on the street either.

    In general the buses heading west would be fine. That is the nature of contraflow; the only congestion is caused by other buses. Since there would be only one route on the street, that would be fine. The problem is eastbound. There are very few places where you can add BAT lanes, let alone bus lanes. The worst part is that buses get stuck behind cars trying to get on the freeway. There are also big parking garages. This means that cars get stuck trying to turn left (into the garage). If there is only one vehicle lane heading that direction, the bus is stuck behind it. But even outside of that, buses would be going in an out of the curb lane to avoid traffic. This isn’t the end of the world, but with a bike lane there the project gets messy. You are removing sidewalks, adding sidewalk, altering or even getting rid of bike lanes. This is not a tiny project. Nor would the traffic impact be minor. Sure, it would be an improvement but I don’t think it is ideal, nor do I think it would be easy.

    In contrast consider how James could be altered for the buses:

    1) Make Jame one-way westbound between Third and Ninth. This just follows the pattern for much of downtown (Columbia is westbound, Cherry is eastbound, James would be westbound).

    2) Have one contraflow bus lane between Third and Seventh. Thus a bus would be the only one using that lane heading up the hill from Third.

    3) Add a BAT lane eastbound between Seventh and Ninth. Buses heading up the hill could very easily go from the contraflow lane to the BAT lane. General purpose traffic would be one lane over. If need be you could ban right turns from eastbound James to Ninth. This would make the BAT lanes more like bus-lanes. Drivers could turn right on Eighth but there would be fewer people doing that. Of course emergency vehicles can use the transit contraflow lanes. That may not be necessary because the only traffic entering James that direction would be from the freeway. There is only one lane heading up to James. Traffic lights could effectively control how many cars are headed up the hill (and not all of them are heading towards Harborview).

    Add westbound BAT lanes and bus lanes on James. Specifically:

    3) Add BAT lanes between Ninth and Eighth. So the only people allowed in that lane would be those turning right, onto 8th. My guess is not that many people to that.

    4) Between Eighth and Seventh there would be three lanes heading west. The right lane would be for cars turning right. The left lane would be for cars going straight or eventually turning left on Sixth. The middle lane would be a bus lane (only buses would be able to go in that lane). Thus there would be a weave as buses and cars changed lanes as they went past 8th. A “skip-ahead” transit light might need to be added.

    5) Between Seventh and Third there would be BAT and bus lanes on the curbside. The bus would easily get into the curbside BAT lanes after crossing Seventh because the curbside lane was a right-turn-only lane. Since there are no right turns on Fifth or Sixth, it would be pretty smooth sailing from Eighth to Fourth. The only reason those are technically BAT (and not bus) lanes is because of the garages there. But in a pinch, the bus can easily move into the other general purpose lane(s). At Fourth there would be plenty of cars turning right. But again, the bus can just leapfrog those cars if need by.

    Thus you only have a couple problem areas — Seventh and Fourth. These are the only places where the westbound bus might have to deal with lots of cars turning right. I think what is listed above is sufficient, but it wouldn’t be that difficult to go a step further. In both intersections you could require cars to go to the middle lane to turn right. You would need a right-turn arrow to go in front of the buses. This would be similar to how people turn right on Second Avenue (in front of bicycles). Again, this might be overkill.

    In general I see a lot less work. You wouldn’t need to change any curbs, bus stops or bike lanes. It would basically just be paint. At the same time, you would have better flow for the buses (that aren’t running contraflow). You’ve just got a lot more room to work with. For drivers this would be a big change. They would shift to using streets other than James if they are headed up to First Hill or southbound on the freeway. Most would just shift to Cherry. This is fine, as there are no buses on Cherry.

    1. How do you have three lanes westbound and two lanes eastbound between 7th and 8th?

      I like the one-way James St idea a lot. I would suggest making James St one-way with a contraflow lane between Yesler and 7th, and keeping three GP lanes (two WB, one EB) between 7th and 9th. I think that would eliminate most of the weaving motions.

      Eastbound:
      1) Contraflow between 3rd and 7th
      2) Single GP lane between 7th and 9th. No left turn on 8th or 9th.

      Westbound:
      1) Between 9th and 8th, bus only lane on the right followed by two GP lanes. No right turns allowed onto 8th.
      2) Between 8th and 3rd, BAT lane on the right followed by two GP lanes

      That basically leaves a few points where buses can still get stuck:
      1) Eastbound, 7th to 9th is a single GP lane. I believe this can be managed via signal timing.
      2) Westbound, as you mentioned, 7th and 4th may have a lot of cars taking a right. I think these are brief enough that it is fine, and the bus can swing around traffic as needed

Comments are closed.