Three urbanist lessons from The Netherlands. (Alex Davis, 4 years ago)
Musical interlude: Can’t Stay with You Baby (I’ve gotta to find a car to drive me downtown) (Jimi Tenor). Ghost Town (The Specials, 1981).
This is an open thread.
Three urbanist lessons from The Netherlands. (Alex Davis, 4 years ago)
Musical interlude: Can’t Stay with You Baby (I’ve gotta to find a car to drive me downtown) (Jimi Tenor). Ghost Town (The Specials, 1981).
This is an open thread.
Metro’s front page still lists the expired routes, and none of the new route numbers.
People have become more aware and more concerned over the issues involving the bus stops for the proposed RapidRide R. I agree that there is a problem. While I generally support stop diets I think the planners went overboard. I will try and explain why in this comment. Much of this is copied from previous comments I made.
The international guideline for stop spacing is 400 meters, as explained here. Interestingly enough, this is also about as far as someone will walk for a bus. The two are related based on geometry for a typical street grid (as Walker explains). This is why the RapidRide E works so well. The stops are often five blocks (or 400 meters) apart. But there are obviously exceptions. Lack of development is one. In the case of the RapidRide E, there are no stops by the cemetery for obvious reasons. Limited street access is another issue. If the only potential riders are right along the transit corridor then the stops can be up to 800 meters apart. A corridor that cuts diagonally creates an interesting situation. It is quite reasonable to take advantage of the grid and put stops at the 400 meter mark (relative to the grid). But because the bus is traveling at an angle, the stops are longer. If the bus is running at a 45 degree angle (and stopping at the 400 meter mark relative to the grid) then the stops would be about 565 meters from each other* . That is roughly the stop distance for the RapidRide G on the east part of Madison (between 12th and 17th or 17th and 22nd).
With that in mind, it is worth focusing on this bus route. Rainier Avenue often cuts diagonally. There is development along the whole corridor — almost all of the existing bus stops gets plenty of riders both directions. Thus we really should be aiming at somewhere between 400 and 600 meters apart. There are various reasons why it might be a bit more or less but that is the general idea. I list the bus stops heading downtown (inbound). There are some differences which I dig into later. I end the analysis at 12th & Jackson since the plan is to keep the existing stops from there.
Existing inbound stop gaps:
260 meters: Henderson to Cloverdale
380 meters: Cloverdale to Rose
500 meters: Rose to Holden
385 meters: Holden to Othello
300 meters: Othello to Frontenac
340 meters: Frontenac to Holly
410 meters: Holly to Graham
380 meters: Graham to Kenny
260 meters: Kenny to Orcas
280 meters: Orcas to Brandon
400 meters: Brandon to 39th (AKA Dawson)
330 meters: 39th to Edmunds
280 meters: Edmunds to Alaska
380 meters: Alaska to Genesee
440 meters: Genesee to Andover
270 meters: Andover to 33rd
324 meters: 33rd to Walden
380 meters: Walden to Mount Baker Boulevard
200 meters: Mount Baker Boulevard to Mount Baker TC
480 meters: Mount Baker TC to Bayview
320 meters: Bayview to Walker
230 meters: Walker to Plum
140 meters: Plum to Grand
430 meters: Grand to I-90
540 meters: I-90 to Rainier & Charles
210 meters: Rainier & Charles to Rainier & Dearborn
440 meters: Rainier & Dearborn to Jackson & Boren
200 meters: Jackson & Boren to Jackson & 12th
With the exception of skipping Plum Street, there are no easy fixes. Skipping any other stop eliminates a gap that is probably too small but creates one that is probably too big. The stops have to be shuffled around to improve the stop spacing. This also shows that the stop spacing isn’t that bad. A bit too many stops but compared to most of our bus routes there aren’t that many. In any event, here is the Metro proposal:
640 meters: Henderson to Rose
500 meters: Rose to Holden
390 meters: Holden to Othello
630 meters: Othello to Holly
410 meters: Holly to Graham
630 meters: Graham to Orcas
280 meters: Orcas to Brandon
400 meters: Brandon to 39th (AKA Dawson)
330 meters: 39th to Edmunds
660 meters: Edmunds to Genesee
730 meters: Genesee to 33rd
350 meters: 33rd to Walden
580 meters: Walden to Mount Baker TC
800 meters: Mount Baker TC to Walker
900 meters: Walker to I-90
710 meters: I-90 to Rainier & Dearborn
580 meters: Rainier & Dearborn to Jackson & 12th
There are now plenty of big gaps. There are seven gaps that exceed 600 meters. In other words, seven red flags. Several of these are bright red (with gaps of over 800 meters). To be fair, there are particular issues that may justify such extreme stop spacing. I dig into that in the other comments but first, here is my proposal:
640 meters: Henderson to Rose
500 meters: Rose to Holden
390 meters: Holden to Othello
630 meters: Othello to Holly
410 meters: Holly to Graham
450 meters: Graham to Juneau
460 meters: Juneau to Brandon
400 meters: Brandon to 39th (AKA Dawson)
330 meters: 39th to Edmunds
470 meters: Edmunds to Oregon
400 meters: Oregon to South Dakota
490 meters: South Dakota to 33rd
350 meters: 33rd to Walden
580 meters: Walden to Mount Baker TC
480 meters: Mount Baker TC to Bayview
550 meters: Bayview to Plum
570 meters: Plum to I-90
650 meters: I-90 to Rainier & Dearborn
710 meters: Rainier & Dearborn to I-90
This is still a pretty aggressive stop diet — maybe too aggressive. I erred on that side of things since that is the goal of this project. But there are only three stops that exceed 600 meters and none that exceed 700. There are good reasons for these long gaps which I mention in the other comments. I will rehash them here later. Right now there are 28 existing stops. Metro proposes 17. I propose 20. Obviously I support my proposal (going from 28 to 20). But I think the Metro proposal is so bad that I would rather stick with what we have now than adopt their proposal.
I agree. The stop spacing is a problem. Many stops are too far apart. Thanks for analyzing this and stating it in quantitative terms.
There are other issues like the Rainier Beach area paths, the need to install ETB wires and transfer points.
And as we’ve both suggested, some route restructuring should be studied — especially north of Mt Baker Station.
To me, these issues suggest that the project is not being approached correctly overall — and that’s bigger than just stop placement. The project has a unstated singular objective — make buses faster. Yet it’s a long urban street with destinations almost continuously located along it and signals that are closely spaced. Plus the route seems to carry lots more than a normal percentage of mobility-challenged people. And with Link somewhat close by, few riders want to ride most of the entire route length — although the rider trip length is not being researched or debated. The route has personal safety concerns associated with it too so that’s an additional dimension that should be affecting stop placement.
Finally, the route is important to immigrants from other places that are not familiar with how to respond to local transit proposals and get results. Each immigrant community also has different key destinations on the route too — and those of us not part of those communities are somewhat unaware what destinations are key to each one. Rainier Ave is not a typical suburban setting like Aurora or Pacific Highway.
Getting any transit operator in our region to revisit their approaches to things is very difficult to do. Is there a way to get Metro to take a step back and not just throw out a map with proposed new stops and expect to make incremental adjustments to them? To me that’s what’s needed. That’s probably what’s been needed all along — otherwise Rainier would have been one if the first RapidRide lines opened well over a decade ago.
What ought to happen to route 9? Will it remain an awkward overlay of the 7/R, but stopping more often?
It is a feeble peak-direction-only route now, but the return of Rainier/I-90 transfers ought to revive its ridership.
Having Pill Hill and Seattle U. as destinations cries out for all-day service.
I think the 9 should be cancelled. It performs poorly. It no longer makes sense. At one point I’m sure the 7 ran so often that you might as well have a limited stop express, but going to a different place. Sort of like the 309 heading to First Hill instead of more 312 buses (if I remember my numbers right). But those days are gone. The 7 never runs that often. The money saved by not running the 9 should be put into running the 7 (or some other bus) more often.
Especially this stretch at the northern part of the route needs the extra stops given the density and destinations.
I assume the plan is curb side stops and curb side bus lanes still?
This is an explanation of my proposal. I break it down into sections. This is the first one, from Henderson to Holly, where I just accept the Metro proposal. Here is why:
Henderson is tricky. It is about 650 meters from MLK to Rainier (via Henderson). I could see them adding a stop in between there but the street grid is awkward. The midpoint is at about 46th. Unfortunately, 46th doesn’t go through to the south. To the north it is better — there is a pedestrian walkway. Thus a stop at 46th & Henderson would help mitigate the loss of the Cloverdale stop. But again, not that many people would benefit. If you are on Renton Avenue you would just go to the stop close to Link. Given the relatively low ridership of the stops (on other buses) between Rainier and MLK, I can see why they just skipped it and decided to as well.
As you round the corner and start heading north on Rainier you encounter some interesting street patterns. East of Rose, the streets are set at a 45 degree angle. This changes the dynamic. For example, from here it is just as quick to walk to Rose as it is Cloverdale, even though the latter is closer (as the crow flies). Thus to the east you gain nothing from the Cloverdale stop. It is a different story to the west. There are some people that would have a much bigger walk. But given the situation to the east there aren’t that many. Cloverdale doesn’t get that many riders, either. Given the choice between making the stops too close together or too far apart, I can understand why they chose the latter and I can accept that decision.
For the northern gap I want to back up a little bit. We need stops at both Graham and Othello. Othello has intersecting bus service while Graham will probably have it in the future (after they add Graham Street Station). The gap between Graham and Othello is a bit more than a kilometer (if you follow the street). This is awkward. Either you have too many stops or too few. They went with too few which is understandable given the relatively low ridership at Frontenac. The good news is that the gap between Holly and Graham is about perfect. This means that if the area around Frontenac ends up being developed they can simply add it back in as an infill stop.
This is the second gap I analyze, from Holly to Edmunds. There are really only a couple gaps on the existing route that are too close together, and they are right next to each other. In contrast, Metro proposes creating a huge gap between Graham and Orcas while Orcas and Brandon are too close. This is unnecessary. Orcas is not that special. It is an arterial but there are no buses that run on it. I propose just skipping Orcas. Better yet, skip Orcas but move the Kenny bus stop one block to the north, at Juneau. This is a better cross street than Kenny as you can walk east or west a long distance. You would need to add a crosswalk there. That is why I propose the stops that I do from Holly to Edmunds. That is close to ideal stop spacing. It is much better than the proposal and yet it has the same number of stops!
Stop spacing should be analyzed in the context of development potential. Orcas has a small commercial district and signalized crosswalks; it could grow with smarter land use in the adjoining neighborhood. The temporary placements of the I-90 stops during construction also skewed ridership patterns near Judkins Park Station. The new I-90 stops are seeing increased ridership, but keeping the existing stops at Plum, Walker, and Grand would be too much. Which stops will have the greatest development potential?
From Edmunds to Walden the existing stops are tough to deal with. To get decent stop spacing I move a lot of them around. This is still a stop diet — we are just getting rid of one stop instead of two (between Edmunds and Walden). As is clear, Walden is a bit too close to 33rd, either way. Thus I could see moving the Walden bus stop a block north, to Byron. That would shrink the big gap between there and the Mount Baker Transit Center (as will be mentioned in the next section).
Big news on the Eastside: Kemper Development looking to sell Bellevue Square/Bellevue Collection
This covers the section from Walden to I-90. While the current set of stops may be too close together, the Metro proposal has gaps that are just way too big. The standard is 400 meters and this often exceeds double that!
The first gap is understandable. We have to serve Mount Baker TC, which means Mount Baker Boulevard is in a tough spot. Either it is too close or we skip it and have a big gap. The stop is unbalanced. Inbound there are two stops (one at the boulevard and one at the transit center). Outbound they already split the difference with a stop further south (in the middle of the station). I feel like the stop at Mount Baker Boulevard is borderline. It has good ridership — over 200 people coming from farther south — but I feel like folks can live without it.
But the gap between Mount Baker Transit Center and Walker is too big. We should keep the Bayview stop. Bayview to Walker is then a bit too close. We should skip that stop and serve Plum instead. That is essentially my proposal. It retains the the top two stops for ridership in this segment, Mount Baker Transit Center and Bayview. Plum has about as many riders as Walker (and a lot more than Grand). The stops all exist inbound. Southbound you would have to add a stop at Plum. I believe there used to be a stop there, decades ago. You can still see a little bit of the paint from some of the pictures, especially the old ones. There are other alternatives for the exact location of the stop. There are curb cuts off of Rainier but it is quite likely they will go away now that it is an empty lot. It will probably take a few years before they can develop the lot (given the contaminated soil) but eventually there should be a big building there (and no parking off of Rainier) making it an excellent bus stop. There is plenty of density around there.
Overall the stop spacing is still a bit too wide but this would still be a big improvement over the proposal.
This is last analysis, covering the stops between I-90 and 12th & Jackson. This is one of the trickier areas as it involves the turn. Inbound is a bit different than outbound. For an inbound bus (heading to downtown) you can’t put a stop too far north on Rainier, as the bus has to turn. Thus it is hard to have good stop spacing heading north. There is no development close to I-90 which means the large gap between there and the next stop is not as bad as it would be otherwise.
I think the biggest flaw is how they handle the turn. Inbound is significantly different than outbound. We can assume that the farthest north a stop can be on Rainier is Dearborn. We need a stop there. But that means the stop at Charles is too close. It is a judgement call, but I understand why they want to get rid of the stop at Charles and just keep Dearborn. The same thing is true with the stop on Jackson and Boren. At this point I’m OK with the suggestions for inbound. Given that, I can understand why they just went the simple route and got rid of the stop at King as well. Since it doesn’t have a pair on the other side, it is easy to assume that you aren’t actually adding coverage (an idea expressed here). But there is more to it, because of the turn and where the actual stop is.
For example, look at someone at 16th & Jackson. Inbound (e. g. from Rainier Beach to that spot) they currently have a four minute walk. Now they have a five minute walk from the bus stop at Dearborn. This isn’t bad at all. Now consider the other direction. Right now it is a three minute walk. With this change they have to walk seven minutes. It is much worse. That is because they have to cross both Rainier and Delridge.
This is a long way of saying that I think the Metro plan on this section is not that bad. I would retain the outbound stop on King. It is worth noting that about 400 people each day, split evenly each direction. The stop spacing (outbound) would be like this:
340 meters: Jackson & 12th to Rainier & King
390 meters: Rainier & King to Rainier & Dearborn
650 meters: Rainier & Dearborn to I-90
The last gap is still too big (but the alternative is to have gaps that are too small). But the other gaps are fine if not ideal. The inbound stop spacing would be as noted above (no stop on King but otherwise the same as outbound).