Route 60 Improvements

56 Replies to “Route 60 Improvements”

1. There is another improvement that should be considered in segment 4 – Olson-Meyers P&R. Ideally, the bus would not detour in there at all and just serve a stop on the street. But, to make this work, you’d need some capital improvements, such as bus shelters, a traffic signal, some regrading (to make road flat at the bus stop location for accessibility), and painting the curb lane red (to both make the bus faster, and to serve as a buffer between people waiting for the bus and cars, while also slowing down car traffic and making the street feel less highway-like).

   But, even if SDOT can’t afford these improvements, there are still tweaks that could be done to make the detour less burdensome. For starters, while detouring, the bus could stay on 2nd Ave., rather than doing a detour on top of the detour, just so people who park their cars in the parking lot have a slightly shorter walk. Traffic lights could also be added for where the bus exits the P&R and returns to the road, as opposed to the stop sign, where the bus just so supposed to wait however long it takes for an opening in the traffic.

   The fact that this area seems completely omitted from the survey is a disappointment.

   1. Drivers frequently stop in the middle of the route here to use the dedicated restroom, on the secondary detour loop.

      The route ought to stop in front of Arrowhead Gardens senior housing, particularly eastbound, to avoid the loop-de-loop-de-loop, and save residents the walk over to the bus stop. The shelters and restroom are sunk-cost fallacy barriers to this straightening.

      The slope on the main road is too steep for a bus stop next to Arrowhead. But really, most riders west of Arrowhead have much faster options to get to Link or downtown, so this is mostly about trying to save several minutes that few besides the driver notice.

      I notice because Westwood is my closest grocery store option.

      That Westwood does not provide Metro drivers a free restroom option is shameful.

      1. Wow, making passengers wait for the bus driver use the restroom in the middle of a route is really bad. Still, I’ll be the grocery store would allow bus drivers to use the restroom if Metro paid them to do it. If Metro is too cheap to pay them, that’s Metro’s fault.

         But, the broader issue here is the assumption that everyone is going downtown, so east/west travel times don’t matter. Clearly, some people must be going east/west, or section 4 of route 60 would not exist at all. To ride all the way from Westwood Village to Capitol Hill, I would expect H+Link to be faster, and similarly, H+G to be a faster option from Westwood Village to First Hill. The point of section 4 is (or should be) to provide east/west service, not just to offer a glacially slow one seat ride to First Hill/Capitol Hill for people that don’t like to transfer.

      2. The long tail is an artifact of when route 60 sat in line to stop in front of the emergency room at the VA.

         The extension beyond Georgetown was part-time for awhile before going all-day.

         The route was significantly twisted while the 16th Ave Bridge was being replaced.

         Increasing frequency beyond half-hourly is a fairly recent thing, but necessitated by the large number of Cleveland High students commuting to and from. It really isn’t necessary off-peak, at least on the south end.

         What we have now is so much better than past rider experiences, and I am grateful for the frequency. It is my main bus, and Beacon Hill is the station I use most, by far.

      3. @asdf2… restroom access is a basic need for any person. If drivers need to use the restroom, they should be allowed to. It’s not every trip that a driver is using the restroom constantly. But they should be allowed to go, if needed, in the middle of a route.

         Is it worth keeping the Olson Meyers P&R? Long-term, no. That land could be sold off and restroom access can be found at the end of the route instead.

      4. Was not Arrowhead Gardens a TOD? Was some P&R land devoted to housing? There had been low utilization? Route 113 is still out there.

      5. usually king county metro makes some contract with the grocery stores to allow metro drives to use the restrooms

         i checked google briefly and found in 2015 they had such a contract with the Target at westwood. though i guess target doesn’t open until 8 am

         > Target stores located at The Landing (Route 676/F Line) and Westwood
         Village (Routes 673/C Line & 21) are now confirmed as comfort stations.

         Target, 2800 SW Barton St, Seattle

         https://mkcclegisearch.kingcounty.gov/View.ashx?M=F&ID=3664547&GUID=0F42C59F-3EA3-4B58-A15B-98A88D98FCD1

         I’m not sure about the current state of contract but i assume target is still letting bus drivers use the restroom

      6. Drivers frequently stop in the middle of the route here to use the dedicated restroom

         Drivers making an unplanned “pit stop” would still be possible. But it wouldn’t stop there on a regular basis. Unplanned breaks are just one of those things. I had a driver stop at the 75 at a Shell station on 125th while the bus was headed to Northgate. I guess when you gotta go, you gotta go. The quicker the route, the less likely drivers need to make unplanned stops like that. But again, that is neither here nor there. They could still make that stop if they needed to.

      7. There had been low utilization? Route 113 is still out there.

         See my other comment. The 113 only gets about six riders a day there. The 60 gets 135 riders almost evenly split each direction. It is hard to imagine someone driving to the park & ride and then taking the bus towards the mall. Of the riders taking it towards downtown, ridership is pretty split throughout the day, with less than 20 riders riding it in the morning. Basically it has lost its value as a park & ride. It is mainly just a way to serve the complex there. The big detour serves it, but stops on the street would serve it just as well. You would need to add a crosswalk, but adding a crosswalk adds other value as well.

         They should also add a crosswalk at 3rd (it is crazy to have a bus stop there and expect people to walk around — I’m sure they just jaywalk). The more I think about, the more I would also change that bus stop as well (after adding the crosswalk for 2nd). I would do the following:

         1) Move the bus stops on 3rd to just north of Cambridge Place.
         2) Now add crosswalks just north of Cambridge Place.

         This would be a little further for those on Third but much shorter for those on Fourth. Again, the crosswalk adds a lot of value (besides just transit). This would make the walk from east of Olson to the park (or surrounding neighborhood) much easier and more pleasant. Right now people have to detour, but they have to cross four different crosswalks just to get across the street. Adding the two crosswalks would make for a nice pairing and make walking a lot easier in the neighborhood. The impact on traffic would be minimal (as they would be timed with the other lights). With the stop on Olson moved further south (to Cambridge Place) it puts it closer to the stop at Roxbury & 5th. I would consider getting rid of that stop. A lot depends on whether they eventually allow pedestrian access to Roxbury from the south (with the new development). Right now pedestrians have to walk all the way around. Given that (and the new stop) there isn’t much gained by having a stop there. Riders might as well walk to 8th if they are in that area (and walk to Olson & Cambridge Place if they are to the north).

   2. Ideally, the bus would not detour in there at all and just serve a stop on the street.

      I agree. From what I can tell you would need the following:

      1) Crosswalk (with beg button) on 2nd (crossing Olson). To save money this could go to the north of 2nd (instead of on both sides). The only people that would have to make an additional crossing would be those using the self-storage.

      2) Bus stops and shelters just north of 2nd. You would want full fledged shelters (like those on the park and ride) but you can probably get by with one shelter for each bus stop. Despite the presence of the park and ride, this does not have particularly high peak ridership. It is a pretty small parking lot. It gets about 6 riders a day from the 113 (a peak-express to downtown) while ridership on the 60 is spread out through the day. Just one shelter would likely be enough.

      There would be other benefits to the crosswalk. There are no crossings on Olson between Roxbury and Myers. This means that someone on 3rd or 4th SW has to walk all the way around (for example, from a church to the complex served by the park and ride). This also means that it is a long walk to the park. It wouldn’t take much work to greatly improve the situation. The greenbelt to north of Olson and east of 3rd is essentially an undeveloped part of the park. If they added an entrance and walking trail it would connect quite well with the rest of the area. Someone in the apartments could just walk across the street and be in the park.

2. If the goal is reliability for those waiting to catch a bus, add Real Time Arrival signs at Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill Stations, and add “Arrivals” to Metro’s website.

   I’ve given up on route 60 trying to follow a schedule. Headway is more important, and I appreciate the City’s investment in that. I just want to know when the bus is really coming, so I know when to leave my apartment, or how long I have to shop at the Red Apple.

   ST and CT have snazzy “Arrivals” on their websites. Metro can figure it out, too.

   1. You don’t use OneBusAway? I feel most riders use apps or Google to track buses rather than looking up static schedules on Metro’s website.

      1. tbh..Metro, CT and ST need to give up “Trip Planner” and simply rely on Google. I have yet to see a tourist or one of my friends use an actual transit agency website to plan their trips.

      2. Transit agencies need to provide a trip planning tool that doesn’t rely on an external private service like Google Maps.

   2. I’ve used the CT Arrivals feature several times. It is pretty much spot on.

      Not only do they show reasonably precise arrival times, but they do it for every single stop (which means riders can easily see the entire list of stops on a route).

      I have had bad experiences with One Bus Away, some of them probably due to my stop being too close to the start of a route.

      I use Google to project vehicle travel times, but not for transit.

      1. The CT arrivals tool is pretty good, though basic. Being too close to the start of a route is a common issue for any tracking tool. What’s truly needed is something like Pantograph that gives riders a visual of the actual vehicle and its location …but it needs to work for busses that are laying over rather than only in service.

      2. As an occasional CT rider, I don’t know of any more info I really need.

         “Run has not yet started” seems more illuminating to me than a picture.

   3. Are you saying that CT Arrivals is more accurate than One Bus Away in Snohomish County? That would be really surprising. I just pulled up both apps and did spot check (same route, same bus stop) and it was showing me identical data for several minutes. I would be very surprised if the data was different or there was something messed up with the software of One Bus Away.

      If there is a problem in King County it is probably due to the buses not giving proper data. I’m not sure why this is, but it is common. The same problem occurs with the kiosks. At Northgate I’ll wait for a bus and the sign says it should be arriving in ten minutes. Then it shows up two minutes later.

3. Route 60 ridership will have an article Thursday. We were already working on it when this survey came out, but there wasn’t time to finish it by today, and we wanted to announce the survey immediately to give people plenty of time to fill it out before the deadline.

   1. I’m very curious to see the outcomes of this. Anecdotally, Pill Hill seems to drive the vast majority of 60 ridership and while eliminating the detour to Madison/9th would improve speed and reliability, I think it would have very large negative impacts on ridership. This would be especially impactful for Pill Hill as I would assume that those heading to the area would be more sensitive than typical to having to walk an additional few blocks.

      I’m curious to see if my assumptions are correct and to see if we can draw any insights on how ridership has not only fully recovered to but even exceeded pre-pandemic levels.

      1. I think the biggest problems facing Route 60 on First Hill are the FHSC and the Yesler Terrace layout.

         FHSC was a political solution from ST2 created to compensate for losing a Link station. It wasn’t thought through well. Then it was further hampered by forcing both routes to operate in Broadway traffic thanks to the McGinn insistence on Broadway bicycle tracks after the alignment was chosen (both 12th Ave and Boren were considered early on for FHSC tracks).

         Along with that comes the slow transit operations through Yesler Terrace. Both FHSC and Route 60 face daily tedium crawling those few blocks. The redevelopment may look pretty and “urbanist”, but the transit operations through there sucks!

         Repairing these detrimental anti-transit operations problems is not cheap or politically easy at this point. As a result, I’m not expecting this study to end up doing much.

      2. I’m also curious, partially because I have almost the opposite conclusion. I basically only ride the 60 off peak (since that’s when I’m heading to Capitol Hill) and I find that at those times it’s almost entirely people riding from Capitol Hill to Little Saigon or Beacon Hill. I’ve had a lot of trips later in the day where no one boards or alights on the Madison/9th segment. It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the draw for the 60 in peak hours is hospital workers, while off peak has more consistent general demand in the denser commercial/residential areas on the route.

         First Hill needs more than just the 60 connecting the major hospitals, and the 60 really would benefit from a straighter route. I know most of the 3/4 ideas have involved Yesler, but I wonder if they could reasonably be sent via 9th and Seneca instead. The trolley wire is there, and I feel like I’ve seen an old map where they did. Or if not them, maybe the 13?

4. Do riders actually travel from West Seattle to Beacon Hill using this route? Do they go all the way to First Hill and Cap Hill? If not, the route should be split into two between West Seattle and Beacon Hill and Beacon Hill and Cap Hill. And if ridership is super low in segment 4 (which I suspect it is), then simply delete that portion and make a single route between Cap Hill and Georgetown via Beacon Hill.

   Also, it’d be interesting to see what the travel times are like along Madison. Ever since the G-Line pushed traffic into a single lane, the 60 has perpetually gets stuck in congestion.

   1. Do you use Route 60? If you did, you would notice that many ride through Beacon Hill on the bus. Unlike at other Link stations or transit centers, the bus doesn’t almost completely turn over.

      Route 60 is the only First Hill route from SE Seattle south of Mt Baker to go directly to First Hill unless Route 9X is counted — but that runs only a few times a day.

      SE Seattle is populated by many who rely on First Hill medical services. It houses hundreds or maybe thousands of medical support staff that work on First Hill. These are the closest hospitals and ERs to SE Seattle. Any yet Route 60 is the only direct route.

      It also provides a direct connection to First Hill medical services from South Park and White Center too.

      So severing this route at Beacon Hill creates a new major inconvenience, especially for medical trips.

   2. I happen to be one of those beyond-Beacon-Hill riders. I am rarely the only one. I depend on route 60 to connect to Link, and to get home. I also depend on it to get to grocery store options up the hill (with no sidewalks as an alternative way to get up the hill).

      That said, most of the 60 riders south of the station are going somewhere along 15th Ave S.

      White Center eastbound is the busiest stop southwest of Cleveland High. Or at least it was until Bartells went out of business, and the lights at the bus shelter went dark.

      Arrowhead’s ridership is modest, but the bus is a lifeline to civilization, not just for Arrowhead residents, but also for residents of the RV community just outside the City Limits. Those residential towers are where they are largely because of the lack of NIMBYshed. The Golden Rule of transit service precludes cutting them off.

   3. So it sounds like, according to Al & Brent, there’s enough demand to keep the route between Cleveland and Cap Hill. So does it really need to run all the way to West Seattle?

      1. It’s the only frequent bus serving South Park, so it has to run at least that far. A connection up to the hill to Westwood Village makes sense to me, though I haven’t personally ridden it (yet – I’m a regular 60 rider, but only between Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill, with irregular trips to Georgetown).

      2. Hence, the route should be split between Cap Hill and Cleveland or maybe Georgetown. I feel West Seattle constituents are very intra-West Seattle focused or downtown focused …rather than prioritizing going to south Seattle. A South Park to West Seattle route certainly should exist but does it need to 1) run every 15 minutes and 2) also run to Georgetown and Beacon Hill?

      3. Jordan,

         Westwood Village is the closest full service grocer to South Park by bus. South Park residents deserve good transit, and the 60 is the only frequent bus they have. Maybe it could be split at Beacon Hill station, but I don’t really see any reason to do that. Both ends of the line have pretty good reasons to have frequent service, why separate them?

         Like Al, I imagine there’s some ridership from South Park/White Center to First Hill. The 60 is slow, but it’s faster than the 132 to G, and only marginally slower than the H to G. And people go places based on what’s convenient and habitual. Parts of West Seattle are more white collar (and oriented towards downtown), but Burien/White Center/High Point are much more working class and I think more likely to use a crosstown service as a result (both in the sense that they are less downtown oriented, but also because working class folks tend to be less wealthy so then are more reliant on transit, and therefore much more likely to use crosstown service as part of every day life).

   4. Looking at the map, I think section 4 of route 60 is needed for basic directional coverage along the Georgetown l-South Park-White Center corridor. Without it, yes, these trips are possible, but only with extreme detours, to the point where a 15 minute drive would take over an hour by bus. The fact that it’s part of a route to Capitol Hill is just for Metro’s operational convenience.

      Also, if section 4 of route 60 were discontinued or made peak-only, that would leave the TOD next to Olsen Meyers P&R without any all-day bus. That also seems like a bad idea.

      Maybe the 60 doesn’t have the ridership to justify the expense of regrading the road to move the stop to the street. But, they can still make the detour less onerous by eliminating the secondary detour, adding traffic lights to get the bus back on the road more quickly, and shifting the driver bathroom point west to Westwood Village, during the layover period. It’s little stuff, but it adds up.

      1. I’m definitely in favor of a South Park-West Seattle route. The question is does it need to be extended all the way to Beacon Hill and Cap Hill. I wonder what the ridership patterns at like at Olson Meyers…. how many people are actually using it for parking & riding and if the senior residents are going more east vs west or equally both?

      2. I think there needs to be a general revisiting of the routes running through SE Seattle generally. The blog and the agencies keep looking to modify the speeds and stops of each route individually — but the bigger issue to me is the structure of the transit system generally.

         Consider that the RapidRide program has never been introduced into SE Seattle. At the time, that was more valid because SE Seattle had the only Link line prior to 2016. But now with Link running to lots more places with plans to run it to even more places, that reasoning now rings hollow.

         And RapidRide R has been a carrot on a string hung in front of SE Seattle for well over a decade but remains delayed further year after year. Meanwhile, things like Judkins Park Station opens, Graham Station gets designed and ST seems hell bent to build West Seattle Link.

         Organizationally, letting Metro and ST and SDOT transit planning to occur in parallel tracks with each one leading their particular study alternatives is a problem. Each one only studies and recommends what they can change — add an infill station, change a route frequency or path, modify street geometry — but no one is painting a bigger integrated picture for citizens. Instead each agency is forced to adapt to independent decisions for other agencies.

         Maybe it’s time to advocate for an independent, integrated transit planning staff. I have no idea what something like this would look like. But the current piecemeal approach yields inefficient results.

      3. “I’m definitely in favor of a South Park-West Seattle route. The question is does it need to be extended all the way to Beacon Hill and Cap Hill.”

         I think it comes down to how much longer the trip would be if the 60 option weren’t there. Cap Hill, you can go downtown and transfer with similar travel time. Beacon Hill is closer, and I think the bus offers a bigger time advantage, especially if you’re going to a part of Beacon Hill that isn’t right by the Link station.

         If the 60 is to be split, Beacon Hill would probably be the place to do it, but then you add transfers for some short trips in a straight line between South Beacon Hill and north Beacon Hill, which seems bad. And, each piece might be too short to operate efficiently. Hence the decision to run it the way it is.

   5. I’m not sure if it makes much sense to terminate at Georgetown.

      West Seattle (well actually Westwood Village) is a pretty good terminus as it connect with the rapidride H and rapidride C

      https://seattletransitmap.com/

5. A new coach type would be an extraordinary cost that is not affordable today.

   Metro could test the Route 60 flow on the Madison Street segment; what is it today with the G Line configuration? What was in 2018 before the G Line construction began? I expect Route 60 flow is worse now.

   RossB suggested that it could be shifted to Broadway. Of course, the McGinn SDOT took lanes from Broadway for the FHSC and the two-way PBL.

   If Route 60 is to serve 9th Avenue at Harborview, then yes, the Fir Street pathway should be deleted. SDOT and Metro know what parking spaces need to be deleted at the intersection of 8th and 9th avenues. 9th Avenue has ETB overhead; a variant of routes 3 or 4 could serve 9th Avenue between East Jefferson and Seneca streets. It is a network.

   In White Center, the inbound pathway is awkward at SW Barton Street; the left turn may be difficult with Barton traffic not stopped.

   1. > A new coach type would be an extraordinary cost that is not affordable today.

      I was more suggesting it as an opportunities if king county had more all (both) side buses. probably more an idea for when the existing buses need to be replaced due to old age, not to purposely buy and sell off existing buses.

6. A really terrible bottleneck is in front of Beacon Hill station. The layout forces arterial traffic to run through the middle of a de facto transit center.

   Outside of some sort of one-way street configuration in the immediate area or a full-on transit mall (with all vehicles diverted off Beacon Ave or Lander Street for 2 blocks) or moving Metro stops away from the station entrance, it will continue.

   That’s a problem for SDOT to study and fix, rather than Metro. This survey and study can’t resolve this bottleneck. It’s controversial to modify station area circulation here too. But it’s needed.

   Of course, the problem is known. There have been multiple studies dancing around it. But nothing that comes out of those studies is helping.

   The basic issue is simply that the streets in the area are all very narrow with tight corners, and that constrains things to the point that fixes have to start significantly restricting traffic movements (like converting streets to one way or closing transit route streets to traffic). That’s such a heavy political lift that no agency will even propose doing that.

   1. SDoT just spent a fortune redoing the street in front of the station (while replacing a water main), reducing car lanes to one each way, removing the cheat lane, adding Protected Bike Lanes. adding bus islands, and installing a couple more shelters and space for two buses to board each way. About the only thing they missed was Real Time Arrival signs.

      I must be traveling off-peak, as I have never witnessed high car traffic volumes at the station.

      Give the improvements a year to work before deciding they reduce car speeds too much. And feel free to drive around the back side of the Red Apple.

   2. I live right next to the Beacon Hill station. Car traffic on that part of Beacon is not the main problem.

      Most of the non-local car traffic in this area is on McClellan or 15th going to or from I-5. The problem for the 60 is the northbound turn from McClellan to Beacon. There’s no protected left phase and there’s always cars coming west down McClellan from the stop sign at McClellan & 15th; and because that’s a stop sign, the cars come drip-drip-drip with no breaks. So basically the bus has to sit waiting in the intersection until it turns red. In addition, the general light timing at Beacon & McClellan strongly favors Beacon.

      SDOT could probably save 1-2 minutes per trip by arranging some kind of protected left phase there, tweaking the timing, and adding transit priority at the signal.

      1. king county metro is looking at that intersection. though the main improvement they listed was “bus priority lane Westbound at South McClellan Street and Beacon Avenue”

         hopefully they can help out with the traffic light timing as well.

7. Outside of going straight up Broadway, the 60 could still serve Harborview if it jogged on Jefferson with the 3/4. Alternately jogging on Seneca would get it out of Madison traffic.

8. Which part of the route is holding KCM back using 60-ft fleet on 60?

   1. gotta be either olson/myers p&r, but could also be SW trenton st, it’s a tight turn from Delridge

   2. Maybe the Capitol Hill terminal loop including limited layover space.

   3. Some operators have a hard time making the right turn from 14th to Cloverdale, occasionally running over the curb. There is a bus stop that keeps the bus in the right lane. Moving the stop around the corner, so it is after the stop light, like Metro does with most stops now, may be an easy fix.

9. The 60 needs to be severed, in Georgetown.

   The northern part from Cap Hill to Georgetown can remain but should be evaluated for duplication with the 107. The medical district is the tough part, it’s not close enough to the FHSC for that to be a one-to-one replacement.

   The southern part from West Seattle should continue through Georgetown and terminate at Othello light rail. The olson-myers deviation needs fixing, but there are few obvious answers other than another traffic light on Olson/2nd. Westwood village’s bus situation is a mess all its own — the layover and stop locations are really quite far apart in certain combinations (westbound 60 drops at layover on 25th, going to 21/C stop on Barton). Connecting Georgetown and South Park with Othello’s light rail and Westwood’s major retail are fully-worthy goals.

   The 50 has a really similar problem in that it’s a local route that has too many meanders and instead should be two separate routes.

   1. “The northern part can remain but be evaluated for duplication with the 107”. The link between northern Beacon Hill, Little Saigon, Yesler Terrace, First Hill, and Capitol Hill is a core route. It’s not going anywhere, nor should it

      And I don’t see the 60 as having the same issue as the 50 at all. The 50 is about eight routes tacked onto one another. The 60 is two. That’s fine, and I don’t experience abnormally bad service delays as a regular (off peak) rider outside of some major slogs down Broadway.

      I’m all for a Westwood Village – Georgetown – Othello route, though I do think serving future Graham Street makes more sense for that route. I’d want to see ridership data on how many folks use it to connect between WV, South Park and Beacon Hill before any changes though.

      1. Graham St link is a worthy terminal choice too but only if buses can actually handle the very steep hill between Swift and Beacon. If not, stick to swift and othello and go that way.

         I use the 60 from time to time but definitely only in discrete chunks: westwood to georgetown; georgetown to beacon hill. if I’m going from westwood to first hill/cap hill (and especially beacon hill), bad news: I’m driving.

         We need to put the end-to-end travel time up against it’s competition: the H and light rail. The 60 schedule lists end to end around 1h7 to 1hr12, with “estimated time” marks at the cap hill end: an admission of the reliability issues. Metro trip planner says the H and light rail can do it in around 55 minutes in ideal circumstances. There’s zero reason this works for end-to-end trips, it should be assumed that few riders actually do that.

         Totally agree the northern section needs service, just not entirely sure how best to do that though. The 9 is a POS, the 107 doesn’t cover the whole corridor, the tram isn’t a substitute, and so on.

         Also just to get to the 60 I have to transfer to/from the 21 or C — for such an important transfer point, westwood is miserable. miserably planned, miserable facilities, miserable routing through the area.

      2. Looks to me that that hill is about 8% grade on average, with 10% maximum. Not so different than the hill the 60 goes up on Olson Place. In the event Graham Street actually gets built, I think it needs to have a feeder bus anyways and a WV – Georgetown – Seward Park (ish) route fits in the network well. Maybe that’d be the right time to think about splitting the ends of the 60 at Georgetown (though I’d still be mildly against that).

         All of what you say is true from the Westwood Village end, but from anywhere else on the route the 60 is faster or par with a downtown bus + transfer to the G for First Hill trips. For Capitol Hill trips, it’s often better to do a Link transfer but only by a few minutes (making it sensitive to the specifics of how long the transfer is).

         There are tons of routes where no one is going to take an end to end trip. So much so that it’s probably be easier to list the routes where people would take an end to end trip. Is anyone riding the 48 from U District to Mount Baker? Probably not, they’re more likely to take Link. Same with the 36, 49, 67, 62, 65, 14, 106, 107, 124, and more. It’s true of like every bus that goes north south in eastern Seattle now that Link exists. Little utility on end to end trips isn’t a reason to split a bus route, something like full turnover of the bus at a given point would be. But even that is only so useful as a heuristic, since there are other operational considerations.

         In general, I think there should be a Broadway – 12th – 15th bus and a Rainier – Boren – SLU bus. I’m not sure the latter has to go all the way to Rainier Beach. Mount Baker – Seattle Center/Uptown would probably work better. I’m fine with the former going to Westwood Village, if only because I think good bus service to South Park may not be a priority otherwise. But yeah, at some point a real bus station at Westwood Village should really be a priority

10. I just rode the 60 home from Capitol Hill at rush hour. It was full with lots of standees between Harborview and Yesler Terrace. The Route 60 ridership chart shows that Harborview is the 3rd busiest stop on the route (after BHS and 12th & Jackson) and 9th Avenue generates over 1000 on/off a day. Harborview is not a deviation or detour. Harborview is a destination. It needs frequent, front door service. Asking people to walk, hobble or roll to Broadway is a non-starter.

    It’s a shame that the planners for Yesler Terrace didn’t optimize transit service to Harborview in their planning; but hey, that’s Seattle.

    I posted a couple of weeks ago that the 60 feels like 2 very different routes with different missions: Broadway to Georgetown and Georgetown to Westwood Village. I don’t ride the West Seattle leg, so there are a couple of questions: (a) would it be useful to connect the West Seattle leg to Link at Othello rather than Beacon Hill Station? (b) do Cleveland HS students ride the 60 to South Park and West Seattle?

    I also suggested extending the Georgetown to Capitol Hill Station segment to Madison Park and deleting the 11. On the surface, that connection seems a little bizarre; but the more I think about it, the more I think it should be studied. The turn lanes already exist at Broadway and John. I penciled out a schedule and I think the 60+11 (at 12-minute headways) and a West Seattle to Othello (at 15-minute headways) could be done without adding any extra service hours.

    1. > I posted a couple of weeks ago that the 60 feels like 2 very different routes with different missions: Broadway to Georgetown and Georgetown to Westwood Village.

       I’m just not quite sure splitting it at georgetown makes much sense. georgetown is just not a good southern terminus. also this leaves the west seattle to georgetown bus route as too short.

       that being said as you noted it could be routed to othello. or actually in the king county metro connects idea they had the east-west segment of route 60 terminate at the future graham station.

       https://platform.remix.com/project/ea35df7d?latlng=47.6324,-122.28814,11.51&layer=hifi&sidebarCollapsed=true

       the metro connects also discussed north-south portion of route 60 was combined with route 36 and went from university district via capitol hill to terminate at othello. you can read about it more at https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/07/30/rapidride-corridor-1064/

       im not sure if metro still wants to build this variant though.

       1. West Seattle to Georgetown is scheduled at about 24 minutes. An extension to Othello (or SODO) would add another 6-8 minutes (guess). A 30-32 minute route is easy to schedule with 15-minute headways.

          Connecting the 60 with the 36 ignores the reality of where many people on Beacon Hill actually want to go (Jackson Street). Forcing a transfer at Zombieland (12th and Jackson) is also a non-starter.

       2. Beacon Hill – C/ID is a super busy corridor, and is a huge driver of 36 ridership north of the light rail station. At least one frequent bus should serve that, I’m generally agnostic about if the tail is linked with Beacon or 15th, but think the current 36/60 set up between Beacon Hill LR and C/ID and FH/Capitol Hill works well enough.

          Metro prioritized the current 36 for Rapid Ride over the Beacon-Broadway-U District corridor.

    2. out of the box idea — should harborview consider a gadgetbahn to cover the few but arduous blocks between broadway and 9th? A totally cost-ineffective and bespoke solution that provides a vital connection to the public. A streetcar branch, a funicular, a cable car (with further connection down the hill in pioneer square — you’ve got my attention) — the kind of stuff this blog usually jokes about.

11. Are the Route 5 improvements still happening? It was way back in August 2023 now that Metro announced they were doing study/outreach for that.

12. Trolleybus???

Comments are closed.