Metro has announced a new stop schedule design that will roll out over the next few weeks. This is the first redesign of Metro’s bus stop signage in over a decade.
The primary difference is the how the departure times are listed. In the previous version, times would be listed in rows, with three values per row. Now, the times are listed in columns, read top to bottom. Additionally, PM departure times are now in bold, matching the online schedules.
I think the column approach will be easier to read. When I read one of the current schedules, I often read down the first column to find general time of day, then read the rows to find the exact next departure time. This new design will simplify this process.
Metro is adding fare information and other helpful details to the bottom of the schedule. As a reminder, ORCA readers n every bus now accept all major credit/debit cards for paying the full price adult fare ($3).
This is an open thread.
I really don’t like the “every 10 minutes” or “every 15 minutes” when I’m consulting a schedule. I get that it’s more compact, but the stop level schedules should at least say that takt that the buses come at. So :01/:16/:31:/:46 or something. Every 15 minutes is nice, but it can still be a pretty significant wait.
10 minutes from what? Doesn’t tell you how long the wait will be.
I assume it is based on the last scheduled time they list. Thus if it looks like this:
10:06
[Every ten minutes]
3:36
3:43
That means it runs 10:06 am, 10:16 am, 10:26 am … 3:36 pm and then it changes. It seems really easy to follow if it is running every ten minutes. In this case it is “running on the sixes”. It gets harder to figure out when it will come if it is running every fifteen minutes unless you are really lucky and happens to fall on the hour.
I can see why they made the change, given how people often use a schedule. If I’m trying to figure out when the bus will get here, I check One Bus Away. But if I’m planning my day, it is helpful to know how often the bus comes. If it runs every ten minutes, I won’t bother trying to time it. If the bus runs every half hour, I’ll schedule the trip. I could use the Metro schedule for this but it is quite likely I’ll use something like Google Maps, as the trip may be more complicated. So overall I think this is good. It is more compact, which is really helpful for those big set of schedules (as shown).
Yes, but it would still be better to directly say the takt. And agree that for every 10 minutes, it’s really easy to do the math. Even 15 minutes isn’t so hard, since it’s only three other numbers. But a bus running every 6 or 12 minutes is going to be fairly annoying – and some Metro routes do run at those cadences. Granted, every 6 minutes makes a schedule not particularly relevant anyways and all the G stops have live arrival boards.
I just think it would be better if all the “Every N Minute” blocks said “Every N Minutes, at 3/15/27/39/51 past the hour” or whatever the relevant information would be. It wouldn’t add much space, and it would give riders more information. It probably matters most for 12 minute service too, since people are more likely to be accustomed to breaking down time in 15 minute chunks than 12 minute chunks.
I really don’t see the point of spelling out every arrival time for frequent service. It takes longer to navigate the information and those time are not actual arrival time anyway.
When you walk to a stop and find out your service run every 10 minute, what else can you do except for waiting?
I agree with HZ, if the kind of person waiting cares so much about specific scheduling for a frequent route, they will just check their phone instead of relying on a paper schedule. Otherwise if it’s every 10 min what can you do besides wait. It’s not like buses here perfectly follow the printed schedule anyway.
HZ,
If I walk to the bus stop and see “every X minutes” and I have other reasonable options, it’s useful to know when the next bus is scheduled. At my local stop, I’ll often take the 36 or 60 south to Beacon Hill light rail, but if a bus isn’t coming in the next 5 minutes it’s usually faster to walk. Buses come often enough that there’s usually one in 5 minutes, but not always – since a 12 minute and 10 minute takt don’t allow for opposition scheduling. I’ll usually look up the schedule on my phone, but not always, and I think it’s better to convey more information when practical. I see no downside in saying the scheduled times within the context of an “Every 10/12/15 Minute” block.
And I think it’s good practice for agencies to articulate that every X minutes means the buses come at the same time every hour (well assuming X is evenly divisible into 60). Riders may not be aware of this, and it’s a useful rule of thumb for riding transit in general.
blumdrew,
You use case makes sense. I’ve been struggling with taking advantage of the bus outside my door to grocery store that is 10-minute walk away, but I’ve since given up because the chance to catch that 30-minute frequency bus perfectly is small and it is just simpler decision to walk there.
Perhaps there are stops where it is more useful to have the kind of schedule as you describe, but I don’t think it is the case for most of the stops where there is only single service that runs every 15 minutes or less frequent.
For a stop that serves two frequent service, that’s really a lot of information to display and digest, I think Metro should probably consider installing more Connectpoint® ePaper signage at popular stops.
BTW, what’s the deal with those older digital board along Route 44. They display Refer to Schedule all the time. I seem to recall boards along another route (perhaps 48?) has similar situation.
HC: If the wait time is over 5 minutes, I usually do something to distract myself. Standing by idly for 10 minutes is monotonous.
“if the kind of person waiting cares so much about specific scheduling for a frequent route, they will just check their phone instead of relying on a paper schedule.”
The purpose of bus stop schedules is for people who don’t have a phone, don’t want to use a phone for that, don’t see why basic transit info should depend on a phone, or find it easier to read a sign rather than pull out a phone when they may have their hands full with shopping bags.
So the issue revolves around whether “10 minutes” is immediately readable and intuitive. I’ve seen it for years at bus stops and subway stations in other cities and I’ve always found it fine. Most cities I’ve seen that do this do it only when the abbreviated times are at the same time past the hour as the entries above it.
Most Metro routes where this would be used have clockface times. The few routes whose frequency is not evenly divisible per hour (e.g., 40 or 45 minute frequency) don’t have to use this abbreviated format.
if I walk to the bus stop and see “every X minutes” and I have other reasonable options, it’s useful to know when the next bus is scheduled.
Yes, and that is what One Bus Away is good at. You can also text the stop number. But quite often you just want to know the frequency. For example, when does it stop running every ten minutes? How often does it run at midnight and what is the schedule then?
I just think it would be better if all the “Every N Minute” blocks said “Every N Minutes, at 3/15/27/39/51 past the hour”
Yeah, that would be useful for every 12 minutes (and maybe even 15) but it isn’t really necessary for every 10.
Ross,
It may not be strictly needed for 10 minute headways, but since it is useful for 12 or 15 minutes, I think it would be good to include as a matter of fact on all the schedules. But it seems like we agree on that.
Every ten minutes is plenty intuitive, but it still could provide more information without a lot of effort. Good schedules should be as information dense as possible while still being readable.
Good schedules should be as information dense as possible while still being readable.
There is a trade-off though. The fewer characters they are, the bigger they can be. The bigger the letters, the easier they are to read.
I think many riders look at detailed schedules on frequent routes as background info only. They look to realtime arrival apps or realtime arrival predictions on electronic signs when they get to or near stops.
I know that I used to be vigilant about having a current printed bus schedule. Nowadays I just look at data in realtime when I’m close to leaving to catch a bus.
That’s especially true for frequencies better than 10 minutes. A route is considered “on time” by Metro when it’s between 1 minute early and 5 minutes late (a span of 7 minutes) and the target is to meet that 80 percent of the time.
So for any routes more frequent than 10 minutes, I don’t see the need to list every bus arrival on a widely distributed schedule because it’s not being followed that closely. Compare that to buses running every 20 or 30 minutes or worse, when missing a bus can mean a very long wait.
Yes, but it’s still useful to know when the buses are scheduled. I know that the 36 leaves my local stop at the 5/15/25/35/45/55 past the hour when I need to get to work, which makes it easy for me to look at the clock and know if it’s about the right time to leave my house, or to check the live tracker. Having that info on the schedules at the stops would help riders in the area also know that. Even if you end up checking the schedule at some point, knowing the takt of your local stop is useful. Plus, it is just a useful concept in transit writ large in the international sense, and so Metro can help riders be accustomed to global norms in transit scheduling by doing stuff like this. It would be a modest change to the existing schedules, but one that would at least moderately improve rider experience.
I think many riders look at detailed schedules on frequent routes as background info only. They look to realtime arrival apps or realtime arrival predictions on electronic signs when they get to or near stops.
Yeah, exactly.
Yes, but it’s still useful to know when the buses are scheduled. I know that the 36 leaves my local stop at the 5/15/25/35/45/55 past the hour when I need to get to work, which makes it easy for me to look at the clock and know if it’s about the right time to leave my house, or to check the live tracker.
Yeah, but you also probably know how long it takes to get to the bus stop. People often have their trip to and from work “dialed in”. You know the actual schedule, even if you aren’t familiar with the printed schedule. You know that some buses are more reliable than others, for example.
In contrast, consider this example. At the last second my son told me about a soccer game his kid was playing in. I looked at the location and realized I could just take the 348. I think of the 348 as running every fifteen minutes but that isn’t true on Sundays. I got there just fine. But on the way back, I had to wait 20 minutes for the bus. I most certainly would have timed it. The thing is, if I had just glanced at the schedule at the post I would have realized that I needed to time the bus. But the actual printed time would not have helped very much. There is no way I would have remembered the time — I might as well wait until the game is over and look up the time on my phone. Then I could determine how much chitchat I could do after the game. My big mistake was just not looking at the sign.
Ross,
In a sense, yes, my work trip is dialed in. But I use the 36 heading into downtown for a lot more than just work trips, and it’s a useful piece of information to know. Like right now, it means I know I have a few minutes to write this comment before getting the bus downtown. There is value in posting the takt of a bus on the schedule when it’s running every X minutes. So it provides value in two senses – the first being that it allows someone who shows up at the stop at any time to know when the next bus is coming, the second being that it communicates the idea that the bus comes at certain times each hour to the riders.
These are things that I think Metro should provide on printed schedules, because I think they are important. Yes, space is limited, but the schedules on the bus stops are fairly small to begin with.
I’m not saying there isn’t benefit from having that pattern listed, but it is pretty minimal. Just because they print a pattern doesn’t mean I will be able to remember it. That is only likely to happen with a bus runs every ten, twenty or thirty minutes. But that is such an obvious pattern that just printing the start and end time is sufficient.
If it is a pattern like every 12 or 15 minutes, I won’t remember the numbers. That being the case, the only value in knowing the actual, scheduled time (instead of the frequency) is if I’m right there, looking at the sign. But the main reason I would do that is if I’m trying to catch the bus. In that case, the first thing I do is look for the bus. Then I pull out my phone and look at One Bus Away. If I forgot my phone (or it is dead) and there happens to be a clock nearby I could always do the math.
Now imagine I’m at a nearby cafe. I know it won’t take me long to get to the bus stop. Will I remember the schedule on the post (“03, 18, 33, 48”)? No. I’ll look at One Bus Away again.
Thus the real advantage of the posted schedule is that it gives riders a quick glance at the frequency. If the bus is running every ten minutes and I’m chatting with a friend, I keep chatting (I don’t look at my phone). If a bus is running every half hour it is the opposite. I excuse myself mid-conversation, look at the phone and figure out when the bus is coming. This is precisely what I should have done the other day — it would have saved me a very long wait (I just assumed the 348 ran every fifteen minutes on the weekends).
This is common practice in Toronto- frequencies of ten minutes or better are not scheduled. Both because the schedule would take up too much space if you had to list every trip on a route that runs every 3-5 minutes during the day, and also because at that headway buses are often better off keeping consistent spacing from one another than consistent schedule times.
“Frequent service” routes in Toronto that run every 10 minutes or less all day every day don’t post schedules at all anymore, because the goal is for riders to not need one.
That said, Seattle doesn’t run a lot of headways much better than ten minutes, this is a practice more common in cities where headways significantly lower than ten are commonplace.
“This is common practice in Toronto- frequencies of ten minutes or better are not scheduled.”
O, to have many routes so frequent!
I agree about maintaining headway. But if the buses are actually following a timed schedule, then show the first *and* last a schedule, make that clear, “every 10 minutes, but not at a specific time”, so people don’t run into a store and miss their bus.
Or better yet, roll your out Community-Transit-style “Arrivals” on the Metro webpage, including the ability to toggle between major stops and all stops. Roll it out on RapidRide first to work out the bugs.
As I wrote elsewhere, Metro uses the same technology as CT. You can text your bus stop (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/rider-tools/mobile-and-web-apps/text-for-departures) or use One Bus Away.
Texting your bus stop is great if you happen to already be at the bus stop and know where to look, or your stop is one of the few major stops in the printed or online schedule.
I would like to know when to head out to the bus stop, and mine is not one of the listed major stops.
I would like to know when to head out to the bus stop, and mine is not one of the listed major stops.
One Bus Away lists all the stops. You can select a stop and see all the scheduled times for that stop the rest of the day.
Google Maps also has all the stops as well. The interface is a bit different on the desktop version. On the phone version you immediately get the “departure board” if you select the bus stop. On the desktop version you can select “Departure Board” and see all the buses that are expected to arrive then. It seems to have a limit though — it only showed me buses for the next four hours or so.
Just like the posted schedules are important for people without phones, the “text for arrivals” feature are also an equity tool as much as anything else. I’ve met people who receive free text-only phone service who can’t afford data plans; they rely on texting their stop number as much as they rely on the posted schedule. I think this is a relatively common arrangement for unhoused people.
This informs schedule design: if most people have access to some real-time arrival info, then having an exact schedule becomes even less valuable, and it makes more sense to use the schedules more as a quick reference for headways.
How much money are they spending on this and the cost of employing these “designers”? We really should be focusing on building actual transit instead of these pointless changes that don’t help anyone.
I think it is easier to read and there is less confusion. I’m sure the cost is minimal.
[Update — I guess they’ve been doing something similar for a while. I didn’t realize that with my previous comment. ]
Good information design is absolutely an important part of a good transit agency. I’m happy that Metro employs capable designers who make modest updates to information that riders use to navigate the system, which makes it easier and more enjoyable to ride and navigate the transit system.
And I am 100% sure that Metro’s design team is relatively small, and does a lot of work across the agency beyond just schedule redesigns.
Marketing/design is a form of communication. They are responsible for how and what transit agencies say. And as any experienced rider knows, communication is a skillset seriously lacking among transit agencies – especially Metro. Everything from its rider alerts advising stop closures, to website layouts, text alerts, schedule changes, surveys, maps – Metro needs to contract its work to an actual design firm rather than relying on (sorry to offend) the old fogies who have been in their position for way too long.
I don’t think contracting to a design firm is necessary or relevant. Plenty of public agencies are capable of creating high-quality information about public transit networks. If anything, I find that design firms can often focus on the wrong aspects of transit, and I would hope that Metro is able to disseminate effective graphical, web-based, and other information. It’s just a matter of prioritizing the right things.
The issue is the agency’s priorities, not how old or longstanding the designers are. If Metro told them to research what contemporary designs and standards other agencies have innovated with in recent years, they could find them and generate samples to consider.
Every agency has full-time graphic designers for all its tons of outreach materials. It doesn’t cost any more to have them do this job once every few years.
The cost of the graphic designers is negligible compared to the cost of actually running the buses. I wouldn’t worry about it.
If it is good design, people will stop bothering bus drivers for direction. People will call KCM customer line less. If the design is more compatible with existing frame, it will cost less to install them. If the design doesn’t require color printing, it will cost less. All this indicates investing in good design saves money.
If you call ST’s zombie ads not building actual transit, I agree, but this is building actual transit.
Is something wrong with the example schedule? The 7 runs at 10 minute frequency or better most of the day
I was about to say the same thing. I have no problem with the layout but the information isn’t accurate.
Having the time before and after the 10-minute headway not be a multiple of 10 minutes apart looks like a proofreading fail.
Regardless this is all a 20th-century patch for a bus agency that has 21st-century media that can provide more accurate and up-to-the-minute information, if it would just take a look at CT’s Arrival technology.
One Bus Away is the same technology as CT’s Arrival. But it is often handy just to know how often a bus runs. If a bus runs every ten minutes I don’t plan my day around it. If it runs every half hour I do.
I saw the new schedules on Capitol Hill yesterday. The larger type for the stop times is easier to read, and the overall layout is more aesthetic.
Having the times in columns is what Metro always did until a couple years ago, when it switched to some shorter schedules in rows, which confused me until I figured it out.
“Every 10 minutes” was already common in San Francisco’s MUNI schedules in the 1980s when the schedule just repeated for several hours. Many subway schedules around the world have that too.
I dread seeing what Metro did to the 62 schedule. It runs every 15 minutes, but the schedule at Roosevelt station the past few years says “Every 20 minutes, or better”. There’s a big difference between it’s 20 minutes, 15 minutes, or 10 minutes! Passengers need to know which it is at different times, especially for a Link feeder, where many people are waiting to transfer. It’s really frustrating if Metro thinks “20 minutes or better” is acceptable messaging: if it is really 20 minutes, it’s bad. People want to know whether they’ll likely have to wait 20 minutes or not.
It doesn’t help that the 62 is notoriously unreliable (one of Metro’s top ten worst for all-day routes), so that the nominal 15 minutes really means often 20 or 25 minutes. This may be why Metro won’t reveal the times on the stop schedule, so that it can paper over it with “20 minutes or better”. But the paper schedules and online schedules have the full schedule, so why doesn’t the bus stop do (as Metro always did until a couple years ago).
Having the full schedule at bus stops was one thing that made Metro better than other transit agencies. In some other cities the sign simply says “Bus Stop” and a phone number to call for the routes and schedules. Or just the route numbers. Metro was impressive in listing where each route goes to and what times it comes. Metro should build on that reputation, especially now that more and more cities have implemented it systemwide with even more information at bus stops than Metro has (like a route map schematic).
The schedule at Pine & Bellevue has another problem: the “11, 12, 49” panel is in the left column, and the “3, 10” panel is in the right column. The last revision was like that, and this one is too. How many installers does it take to put the columns in the right order? Or is it Metro’s fault for putting the stop/ordering codes in the corner wrong?
They still don’t have the stop ID numbers?
TriMet puts the stop ID number at each stop, so it’s easy to enter the number on either the TriMet web site or PDXbus and get an immediate real time arrival display on your phone.
Eg: enter the stop ID number here:
https://trimet.org/home/search/
You can also enter it into TriMet’s phone system to get it that way, if you don’t have a web enabled phone or are using you home landline or payphone or whatever.
Anyway, it seems like a stop ID number would really help.
CT has stop ID numbers on theirs too. Metro has it on the stop flag itself. The issue *might* be due to the fact the schedules at the stop are based on the nearest timepoint rather than the actual stop itself.
The Stop IDs are more useful at the CT stops because one can look up the real arrival time for the next bus at that stop, on CT’s state-of-the-art website.
Also, they typically have much longer headway on their routes, so knowing the real arrival time is more important. Just knowing there will be a bus within 20 minutes is a luxury all but two handfuls of their routes do not have.
The stop ID numbers are printed on the metal “flag” part of bus stop sign. These prints are meant to be put in the eye-level holder and not including the stop number on the print makes is one less thing for Metro workers to have to double-check when they’re updating the schedule sheets in the eye-level holders.
Yeah, and you can text it for departure times (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/rider-tools/mobile-and-web-apps/text-for-departures) or use One Bus Away.
Showing the Stop number and how to text it for RTA is higher-value information to put in the space riders know to look than showing the full list of scheduled arrival times. IMHO.
Next benchmark for bus stop schedules: actually list the times for that specific stop rather than the nearest timepoint. If I’m waiting for the 40 at 8th & Leary NW, it doesn’t help for Metro to tell me the time at Ballard & Market or 34th & Fremont. Community Transit lists times at each stop.
The longer the route, the worse the gaps are. For example, the 62 doesn’t have any timepoints between 35th ave and Greenlake and omits Roosevelt Station.
There are still bus stops that merit a lot better than paper schedules.
One of them is Beacon Hill Station, where we often have to take turns squinting to try to read the schedule in the dark. And then we get used to it just being a way to estimate headway.
“Arrivals” on Metro’s website would massively ameliorate the information gap between the printed schedules and reality.
If RTA signs ever get installed at Beacon Hill, it would be a bonus if they could show ETAs for the 1 Line.
Likewise, it would be awesome to show bus Arrivals in the elevator rotunda between the platforms. Those of us who see we have 15 minutes to wait for our bus could stand back and let those with imminent arrivals take the one available elevator first.
Hopefully the schedulers actually schedule the service every 15 minutes. I used to commute on a King County Metro service that ran every “15 minutes” but in reality, scheduled from the first stop every 13 minutes then 17 minutes. I could never remember when the earlier trips would be and would miss the bus.
Well, back in the day when there were bus stops I could walk to this didn’t really matter. You learned the real schedule and worked off that. Of course when Metro had a shake up all bets were off anyway.
Lovin’ my choo choo train. The real time arrival times seem to be pretty accurate. For the eastside; whatever you put on a sign is not. YMMV in the big city. Out here in da ‘burbs… meh.
ST needs to throw out West Seattle and Issaquah Link, and focus on the rest of the system
West Seattle is so spread out that Link is literally useless. An open BRT is 100x more useful. They also have the water taxi and C Line already. It’s a nice to have eventually, but it’s not worth sacrificing the Ballard, Everett, or Tacoma extensions over.
Issaquah also should just get really good bus service, and it’s already getting that. I get the political desire for Link (and it can be good for later), but we have more important projects that require delivery.
So in an ideal world we can scrap those two and replace them with a high quality open BRT. Then move the savings towards finishing the other Link extensions AS PROMISED, and the remaining money on infrastructure for buses.
Now, why Everett or Tacoma? They’re also low density right?
It expands the spine of the system, cheaper to build, etc. West Seattle is so close to Seattle, and low density… That the line won’t serve anyone except people who could have otherwise took a faster bus all the way anyways (to SODO or Downtown and transfer there)
But Ballard is absolutely the most important one to build and should be done exactly as planned. ST should focus on adding rail where a bus cannot easily duplicate the service… That means rail running through underground paths or elevated segments that zip past intersections and traffic.
Now, why Everett or Tacoma? They’re also low density right?
It expands the spine of the system, cheaper to build, etc.
Right. But expanding the spine doesn’t provide much benefit either. The destinations are either too small or too far away. There is no network effect. Riders won’t be eager to take the train between Ash Way and South Shoreline or Mariner to Mountlake Terrace. The pattern resembles commuter rail rather than a metro. The obvious alternative to a commuter rail pattern is just express buses. They achieve the same thing and are often faster (since you skip the stops that people aren’t going to anyway). To be clear, there is some network effect — there are some people going to places like to Boeing or Fife — just not enough to justify the high expense. Put it this way — would you build Everett or Tacoma Dome Link if not for Seattle? No. Yet it doesn’t work that well for Seattle trips either.
Almost all the expansions have the same thing in common. You can do a much better job just by improving the bus system. Ballard Link is the only project that could actually have a big enough network effect to justify building it. Unfortunately it is tied to the stupid second tunnel and the stupid West Seattle Link.
With Stride, Link has some value south of Seattle. Tacoma to Bellevue becomes a lot easier now. Huge regional connectivity boost.
It’s also just useful for the airport.
As for Everett, the value drops a bit but they do serve Paine Field which is unique in my opinion.
Even for Everett, Lynnwood is a pretty big stop. You can switch to the 2 Line, Stride S2… And the UW is a major destination with connection opportunities.
I can see usage even if not all the way to downtown.
I’d like to see eventually all major freeways have Link on it within the RTA, along with the major areas within Seattle connected by a subway. It’d be a commuter + light rail “hybrid” allowing for minimal transfers but fast/efficient travel around the entire region. Express bus (or double tracking train) service would complement it to speed up certain popular trips.
But for now Ballard is the greatest priority. And it’s a shame seeing ST screw it over by possibly not even getting to Ballard… And every one of their “solutions” skip SLU.
“ST needs to throw out West Seattle and Issaquah Link,”
You’re preaching to the choir. We have little to no influence on ST about that.
And I was surprised how many local Issaquah and West Seattle activists turned out at the retreat or other ST forums to save their Link projects. We’ve been wondering whether there’s anyone in West Seattle wanting West Seattle Link besides Dow Constantine, and now here they are.
I guess if they have the energy and want it…. So be it.
People should’ve showed up for Ballard if they really cared about it.
I’m just really disappointed that SLU is not going to be built. Not a single of their alternatives consider it. That is a complete shame.
Ditching Avalon Station is a forever mistake.
Please make your concerns heard. Sound Transit is performing an outreach
https://soundtransit.sjc1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d7jkaU59BHOdblY?source=other
“I’m just really disappointed that SLU is not going to be built.”
“Ditching Avalon Station is a forever mistake.”
There’s no decision yet. The three scenarios were a starting point for the board to debate what to do. The decisions will be in May if the process remains on schedule.
The cancellations of Avalon and SLU are practically certain.
“The cancellations of Avalon and SLU are practically certain.”
Where do you get that from? Did you hear boardmembers advocating for it at the retreat? I heard them discussing it and raising tradeoffs, not saying, “This is a great idea and is clearly the best.”
I think STB could do more to get the message out about on the general consensus here on ST3. Key facts about the project are entirely missing from basically every other public discussion on the topic. I would love if the non-STB narrative included the reality that the WS, Tacoma, and Everett extensions will be slower than existing busses, that the second tunnel adds little extra resiliency and destroys a lot of north-south connectivity, and that a Ballard stub line creates the opportunity for a new mode
I would love to see an op-ed in The Urbanist about this from an STB contributor—every journalist there seems to completely miss almost all of these points. A Seattle Times op-ed would go a long way too, although I think reaching that audience is slightly less important; I think we should focus the most on directing the most passionate and organized advocates, like the “Build the Damn Trains” people, into wiser advocacy.
Oops, at the end of the first paragraph, I meant to say that “the Ballard stub line creates the opportunity for shorter but more frequent automated trains that allow for shorter and therefore significantly cheaper stations.”
I agree, I would love to see a centralized place with all of the information (especially travel times and transfer effort). Just an objective display of the changes this will bring.
Is there value adding signs directing freeway drivers to Link stations with garages?
In the past two years, 19 Link stations have opened (20 counting Pinehurst). Among those, 13 are close to freeway off-ramps. 10 have parking for Link. Yet I’ve not seen any sign on the freeway advising drivers to get off the freeway.
A fixed sign would be a good first step. A blue sign that says “Light Rail Station” with a Link symbol on it seems easy and perhaps useful.
Some sort of garage counter system would even be better. I hear complains from people who drive to a Link station but cannot find a space. It sucks to pull of the freeway then wind up through several parking garage levels only to not find a space.
One problem with garage counters is spaces can fill up between when you see the sign and when you actually get there. Or, there might be some spaces left, but they’re all handicapped.
There are some train symbol signs above the big green signs for freeway exits that lead to Link stations, at least on I-5 north. See e.g. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8322798,-122.2626408,0a,27.7y,219.57h,120.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saVB5HpCFbIUuwgf57KBEag!2e0?source=apiv3
What do other cities have?
Using park and ride is usually not an impulsive decision but more like a routine behavior, so most people know where they are going with or without sign. And most drivers don’t come from freeway unless the station is the last station (like Lynnwood) or another freeway that is not paralleled to the station is nearby (TIBS).
So, I don’t think there is a lot of value unless the park and ride unless the park and ride is really located by the freeway exit (Eastgate) or the exit only goes to the park and ride (Georgia State Route 400 Exit 5)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sandy+Springs,+GA/@33.9604055,-84.3540374,3a,75y,212.18h,102.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5uh_o7OzHbISHM4TVbU2WA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-12.72080138562282%26panoid%3D5uh_o7OzHbISHM4TVbU2WA%26yaw%3D212.18296782409934!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x88f50c1dc0a2c231:0xa9e9faf26702de1d!8m2!3d33.9304352!4d-84.3733147!16zL20vMHJ3bXQ?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDQwMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Correction: or another freeway that is not paralleled to the light rail route is nearby (driving to TIBS via SR 167 or I-405).