All posts by Ross Bleakney

RapidRide G is set to open next year as what many consider the first (and only) Bus Rapid Transit system in the state. The buses will run quickly, traveling in the center lanes on Madison for much of the way. Just as importantly, the bus will run every six minutes every day until 7:00 PM, making it the most frequent individual line in the region.

Along with this important addition, Metro is proposing several bus changes in the area. To call these disappointing is to put it mildly. The 10, 11, 12 and 49 would run every 20 minutes at best. The 47 may be eliminated. This is a major degradation in one of the most densely populated, highest transit ridership areas in the state. As an alternative to these plans, I propose the following:

As with the previous maps, you can make it full page (in its own window) by selecting the little rectangle in the corner. Selecting individual routes highlights them, making them easier to see (with a short explanation as necessary). There are different “layers”, visible on the legend (to the left). For example, you can hide or display the routes that haven’t changed. Feel free to ask questions in the comments if there is any confusion.

Changed Routes:

• 2 — Doglegs over to Pike/Pine to better complement the G.
• 8 — Sent to Madison Park, replacing the 11, and resulting in fewer turns.
• 10 — Goes south to Pike/Pine, combining with the 2 for better headways along much of the corridor.
• 14 — A little more efficient coverage in Mount Baker.
• 27 — Combines with the 14 for more efficient coverage in Mount Baker.
• 47 — Same routing as before, just operates more frequently.
• 49 — Sent to Beacon Hill, to take over that part of the 60. Runs opposite the streetcar.
• 60 — Truncated at Beacon Hill (runs from Westwood Village to Beacon Hill Station).
• 106 — Sent to Yesler to get better combined headways with the 27.

Frequencies:

Every bus would run 15 minutes or better midday. The 47 would run every 12 minutes (like the current 60). Buses like the 8 and 48 would likely run that often as well (if not better). This is based on current service levels and the savings found simply by building a more efficient network. It would be expected that these buses run more often as we pull out of the pandemic and its aftermath.

While these numbers represent a big improvement over the Metro plans, it is when you consider combined headways that things start looking especially good. Broadway along the streetcar path would have 6 minute headways. Yesler, east of 23rd would have 7.5 minute headways. So would Pike/Pine, between 3rd and 15th. All of this can occur at today’s heavily reduced service levels. It is definitely plausible that the 2 and 10 run every 12 minutes in the future, for combined 6 minute headways along their very productive corridors.

Complementary Service

Metro has struggled with the 47 for quite some time. Part of the problem is that it lies fairly close to the 49. Yet there are no routes to the west of the 47, until you get to Fairview (on the other side of the freeway). Thus the spacing between the lines is relatively close, but if you eliminate the 47, you create a large service gap to the west. Compounding the conundrum is the fact that Summit is one of the most densely populated areas of the state, and very close to downtown. A bus should get good ridership there, as long as another bus doesn’t poach its riders.

Sending the 49 to Beacon Hill solves this problem. The 47 and 49 go to different places. Thus riders in the Summit neighborhood walk to the 47 if they want to go downtown. Those headed to the south end of Broadway (or Beacon Hill) use the 49. This pattern continues to the east, as buses alternate between going downtown and going north-south. The results are striking. For most of the people in the area, bus service to downtown is better than ever, while we have more of grid.

Drawbacks

None of this comes without some cost. Service is eliminated on 19th. As a result, I could see a small modification in the northern tail of the 10 to cover it, using Aloha. Otherwise, it isn’t that far of a walk to a fairly frequent bus. At worst you catch the 48, which would require a transfer. Since the G runs every six minutes, this is about as painless a transfer as you can have. Losing service on MLK is perhaps a bigger hit, but it isn’t that far of a walk to 23rd for most riders. If funds become available, I could see adding a coverage route for MLK, and maybe even 19th. But at this point, what the area needs more than anything is better frequency on the core routes.

Likewise, it is clear that the grid for this area is nowhere near complete. It begs for a bus on Boren. Similarly, I could see serving the north-south gap between 23rd and Broadway. These are ambitious, future plans that should be considered when we pull out of the mess we are in.

But for now, we should create a set of core routes that run frequently even in the worst of times (like now). What I’ve sketched out does exactly that. The savings are large, and should be put into running these routes more often, even if they aren’t running as often as we would like.

I’ve come up with a few suggestions based on the latest proposal for Metro’s network following Lynnwood Link (P3). My goal was to improve the proposal while retaining as much of it as possible. As has been the case in the past, I’ve made a map to make it easier to understand the suggestions:

As with the previous maps, you can make it full page (in its own window) by selecting the little rectangle in the corner. Selecting individual routes highlights them, making them easier to see (with a short explanation as necessary). There are different “layers”, visible on the legend (to the left). For example, you can hide or display the routes that haven’t changed. Feel free to ask questions in the comments if there is any confusion.

I would not expect every suggestion to be implemented. I’ve listed each one in the order of importance, starting with the most important first:

65 and 77

The 65 is back to what was suggested in P2. The 125th/130th corridor is one of the most important in the area. Not only is it the fastest way for someone to get from Lake City to Link, but also the fastest way to get to Aurora and Greenwood Avenue. There are several reasons why making this corridor part of the 65 is better than the proposed 77:

1. Avoids the awkward turn in Lake City mentioned previously.
2. More bus stops in Lake City. The stops on the 65 manage to be within walking distance of almost all of the apartments in Lake City. In contrast, the proposed 77 only covers a subset of the area, before heading south on Lake City Way, leaving a significant gap in coverage. For example, this versus this. The 65 would provide a much shorter walk for a lot of people looking for the fastest way to Link (or Bitter Lake, Ingraham High School, Aurora, Greenwood, etc.).
3. More one-seat connections. Both the P2 version of the 65 and the P3 version of the 77 serve Bitter Lake and Ingraham High. Connecting those areas to Nathan Hale High School, Wedgwood, Children’s Hospital, the U-Village and the east part of the UW adds a lot of value. In contrast, south of Lake City, the main destinations on the 77 are Roosevelt and the UW — areas served by Link. I don’t see too many people sitting through the hairpin set of turns to get from Roosevelt to Bitter Lake — they will simply take Link and transfer. The P3 version of the 77 appears to be two buses awkwardly glued together, whereas the P2 version of the 65 works for a lot more trips.
4. Good match of frequency. The proposed 65 is not as frequent as the 72, but is still a lot more frequent than the 77 . While I feel that Lake City Way should have good frequency between Northgate Way and Roosevelt, it isn’t as important as the critical 125th/130th corridor. The frequency on the P2 version of the 65 is much better than the P3 version of the 77.

With the 65 being sent to Bitter Lake, the 77 can cover the area between Lake City and the station (30th, 25th, etc.). Northbound, the bus would turn left on 127th, then right on 30th. If 127th turns doesn’t work, then 130th might. Either way, it wouldn’t make a detour, like the proposed 77; there would be fewer turns, with the bus always headed the same basic direction. Going the other way, it is even faster, as it simply stays on 30th until it merges with Lake City Way.

348 Replacing 67

Most of the suggestions here are revenue neutral (or close to it). In this case though, the changes would save service hours. That is why I think it is so important. Most of the routes in the P3 proposal have very poor frequency. This change allows the buses to run more often, with no additional funding. This is critical if we are going to have a good transit system.

This comes with trade-offs, but rather minor ones. Some riders along the 15th NE corridor lose their one-seat ride to Northgate, but they gain a one-seat ride to Roosevelt and the U-District. The route complements buses like the 61 and 75 (which go to Northgate). It is a bit faster to get to Northgate Station instead of Roosevelt Station, but a large portion of the riders heading to Link will take crossing buses to 130th or 145th station anyway (or the 61 to Northgate). For those in between the major cross-streets, this still provides a fairly fast connection to Link (via Roosevelt) while providing a new one-seat connection for everyone along the corridor. The only significant loss is for people along 5th Avenue NE (between Northgate Way and 103rd). They lose their one-seat wrap-around ride to Maple Leaf, Roosevelt and the U-District. The alternative for those riders is to take a different bus and transfer or walk about five minutes and catch the same bus.

This change could be justified without the time savings. With the time savings, I believe it is critical.

72 and 333

This is a relatively minor change that could have very positive benefits. As of right now, Lake City is directly connected to Shoreline Community College (SCC) via the 330. While the bus does not run often, it performs quite well — in the top 25% of routes in rides per platform hour and passenger miles per platform hour, which is striking given its low frequency. This restores that one-seat connection, while providing other benefits.

The current 330 pathway is a faster connection between SCC and Link, while also getting lots of riders along the way. It is also the fastest way to get from Aurora to SCC. Someone from either end of Aurora (transferring via the RapidRide E) could get to the college much faster. Combining this section with the 72 is a better balance of frequencies. The 72 runs often (for good reason). In contrast, the 333 is not slated to run as often, and this looks to be the strongest section. By having the 72 operate this vital section, headways should be better (now, and in the future).

Under the current proposal, riders from the east can stay on the bus as it goes through SCC. My guess is very few would do that though. It simply takes too long for the bus to weave its way so far west, only to have it turn around and weave its way east. Shoreline Community College is a much better terminus.

345 and 365

Extending the 345 to SCC gives it a stronger anchor. The college is the second most popular stop for that line (second only to Northgate Transit Center). About 40% of the people who board at Four Freedoms head west (to get to SCC) not east (to get to the hospital and Northgate). This restores that connection.

With the 365, service is restored to most of Meridian. The section on 5th is basically an add-on (I don’t expect many riders to “round the horn” and take a bus from Meridian to 5th). Overall, the changes to the 345 and 365 would provide better coverage (and probably significantly more ridership) at little additional cost.

U-District Routing

I’ve largely ignored the subject of through-routing in the U-District. This is a tricky subject, with a lot of trade-offs. I don’t have access to the information (such as reliability data) that would allow me to make a more informed decision. In terms of frequency and total travel time, the 77-75 or 45-72 seem like possibilities. I don’t think the 348 could be through-routed with another bus, simply because it is long. Speaking of which, I also accept that there will be service on Roosevelt Way through the U-District, even though I could make a strong argument for consolidating service on The Ave (University Way). I don’t feel as strongly about that issue as I do the suggestions made on the map.

Deadline for comments is August 27. Please let Metro know what you think.

Along with route paths, the latest proposal for the bus network after Lynnwood Link includes the expected frequencies of each route. This is listed on the page for each individual route (e. g. the 45). Inspired by Davis Lawson’s excellent chart displaying the frequency of routes a few years ago, I made a similar chart for this restructure:

As was mentioned previously, the 65 and 67 are through-routed (one bus becomes the other as it travels through the U-District). There are also a couple pairs of routes that will most likely combine for better effective headways. The 345 and 365 will probably run opposite each other from Northgate to Northwest Hospital; the 45 and 61 will probably run opposite each other on 85th. While there are plenty of other opportunities to combine headways (e. g. the 72 and 77 along Lake City Way) it doesn’t appear to be a priority.

We have until this Friday, March 10th to comment on the Metro Bus Restructure for Lynnwood Link. I’ve written about the initial plan, made suggestions and explored ideas on the subject. Here are my recommendations, in order of priority:

1. Run a bus on Lake City Way to make up for the loss of the 522. This is important from both a ridership and coverage standpoint. The simplest and cheapest way to do this is with a live loop through the Roosevelt neighborhood.
2. Send the 348 to the UW, not Northgate. This eliminates the need for the 67, saving money. Riders lose their one-seat ride to Northgate, but gain a one-seat ride to the UW. The station at Roosevelt replaces Northgate for riders heading south.
3. As a way to save money, eliminate the proposed 324 and cover the area between Kenmore and Bothell with an extension of the proposed 334.
4. Extend the 72 to Shoreline Community College, and truncate the 333 there. This improves connectivity. This is also a more natural fit in terms of frequency, as the rest of the 333 is a coverage route (while the 72 is not).
5. Straighten out routes to avoid long delays caused by turning.
6. Avoid running infrequent routes that overlap or compete with frequent transit.
7. Put the savings from the various cost saving changes mentioned above into better frequency, especially on east-west routes that run on the main transit corridors.
8. Explore extending the 61 to 15th NW, with a live loop like so. The bus would then intersect every north-south bus north of the ship canal. This would be especially handy for trips to Ballard from Northgate and Lake City.

To visualize these changes. I came up with two maps, the first of which is oriented towards ridership:

While geared towards ridership, it actually provides better coverage in many places. From a baseline standpoint, most of the buses would run every fifteen minutes or better. The 75, 333, 334 and 336 would run every half hour. But since this has a lot less overlap, and a lot fewer turns, the buses could run a lot more often. East-west service (on buses like the 61, 72, 348, etc.) could be bumped up to 12 or 10 minutes. Some of the half-hour buses buses could run more often. For example, the 334 could run every 15 to 20 minutes to give Northwest Hospital more frequent service, while the 75 could be restored to its current service level (15 minutes).

The second map is geared towards coverage:

This is similar to the other map, but with a few changes. The 336 provides a lot of additional coverage. Service is restored in the Hillwood neighborhood (west of Aurora Village). The bus loops through the Briarcrest neighborhood, passing by a high school, middle school and several elementary schools. The 333 is extended to serve Four Freedoms House. Despite the extra coverage — more than the Metro proposal — it would still have better frequency, as there is less overlap and more efficient routing.

This is another in a series of posts about the bus restructure following the Lynnwood Link extension. This one is geared towards Seattle, although the maps include north King County as well. As before, they cover a number of themes. There is one additional theme worth mentioning:

• Whenever possible, overlapping buses should increase frequency on worthy areas.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. If timed, the routes can form a nice branching system, where the “trunk” has justifiably more frequency than the “branches”. However, timed branches tend to be “brittle”, in the sense that any change requires a similar change on each branch. For example, the 347 and 348 each run every half hour, but combine for 15 minute headways along a popular corridor. We can’t improve frequency on the 348 to 20 minutes without doing the same for the 347. Otherwise service would be worse for that shared section. In contrast, with enough buses along a common corridor, they can form a “spine“, where timing is not important. But you need lots of buses to get to that point.

Challenging Neighborhoods

There are several neighborhoods in northwest Seattle that are challenging to cover. The first is the Haller Lake neighborhood. Other than Northwest Hospital, this is a very low density area (for Seattle). The hospital is especially difficult to serve (it isn’t “on the way“). Northwest Hospital has surprisingly poor ridership, but that may change over time, given its expansion. I came up with at least a half-dozen ways of connecting it to the network, but none of them are particularly satisfying.

The Four Freedoms area, in contrast, has a lot more riders. My guess is there are plenty from the facility itself as well as surrounding apartment buildings. This particular part of town (close to Linden, between 125th and 145th) is one of the more densely populated north-end neighborhoods, and it continues to grow. The 65 will serve some of the riders, and a stop at Four Freedoms House would complement it nicely. However, detouring to the stop is just not worth it. It makes more sense to end a route there, if possible.

Finally, there is Broadview. It isn’t that far from Broadview to the 130th station, but I couldn’t find a combination that was worth it. Like Metro, I find it hard to justify service there, unless the city (or county) had better overall coverage.

Austere Proposal

As with the previous maps, you can make it full page (in its own window) by selecting the little rectangle in the corner. There are a lot more routes, so I put them in different “layers”, visible on the legend (to the left). Thus you can hide or display the unchanged routes or those that are the same as the Metro proposal. Selecting individual routes highlights them. Feel free to ask questions in the comments if you find it hard to understand (there are a lot of lines).

The baseline frequency for these routes is 15 minutes. The exceptions are the 333, 334 and 336, which would run every half hour. It is worth noting that the word “austere” is a bit misleading. This covers less of the city than the “robust” map (although more than the Metro proposal) but that doesn’t mean it is worse. It has fewer routes and the routes are faster. Thus for the same amount of money, many of these routes could run a lot more often. I would especially like to see better headways on the east-west routes (like the 44, 61, 62, 65, 72 or 348). I could see many of these routes running every 10 or 12 minutes.

Most of the routes are the same as the previous austere map (for north of Seattle). The exceptions are:

• 76 — The simplest way to cover this part of Lake City Way.
• 348 — Sent to the U-District instead of Northgate. This saves money, as there is no need for the 67, and the bus spends less time making turns. Riders lose their one seat ride to Northgate, but gain a one-seat ride to the UW. I expect riders on the main cross streets (185th, 145th, 130th) to take an east-west bus to a Link station (that is much faster to access than Northgate) while those in between those cross streets access Link via 185th or Roosevelt Station.

Robust Proposal

With the “robust” map, there are a couple additional modifications:

• 46 — Northwest Hospital is still connected to Northgate, but via 5th Avenue NE, which means a faster connection from the hospital to Link.
• 76 — Extended to Four Freedoms.

Several routes are combined for good headways along major corridors, while increasing coverage. The 65 and 76 combine for 7.5 minute headways along 125th/Roosevelt/130th corridor, similar to how the 344/346 and 348 combine along 185th.

Likewise, the 46 and 346 would run every half hour (opposite each other) for combined 15 minute headways along 5th Avenue NE. They would then combine with the 61 (running every 15 minutes) for 7.5 minute headways between 5th Avenue NE & Northgate Way to the station.

As with the previous proposal, there are a lot of options, and I would like to hear what people think in the comments.

Following a Seattle Times article, the Seattle Bike Blog joins the discussion. (I think the buildings should wear more visible clothing, and stop talking on their phone.)

The Urbanist looks at Sound Transit adding retail to the stations.

There will be some late night work on the Link rails starting tonight. For a complete list of Sound Transit service alerts, check here.

Metro Transit looks to the future (Seattle Times article).

Streetsblog writes about the importance of transit to community colleges.

This is an open thread.

The deadline for comments on studies for the West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions is today. Please ask the board to study sending the trains into the existing tunnel, rather than building a new one.

Benefit to Riders

From a rider standpoint, reusing the existing tunnel would be fairly simple. All the trains would mix, just as East Link will mix with the main line. Transfers would be much better. Same-direction transfers would be trivial (e. g. Rainier Valley to the UW). Simply step off the train and wait for a different one (on the same platform). Even reverse direction transfers would be fairly easy (e. g. Seattle Center to the UW). Just go up and over, using the existing stairs, escalators and elevators.

In contrast, the proposed transfers vary from bad to terrible. Simply going the same direction could take anywhere from three to five minutes, maybe worse. For many this will mean a new, onerous transfer (e. g. Rainier Valley to the UW). For others, an unnecessary hindrance to the new addition. Someone going from downtown Bellevue to Denny might very well ignore the new tunnel and new line, given the poor transfer experience.

Travel to and from downtown would be worse for most riders as well. The stations in the new tunnel are not as good as the old ones. They are deeper, and there are fewer of them. The vast majority of riders, given the choice, would prefer using the stations inside the old tunnel.

Possible Issues

Sound Transit has expressed fear that the trains downtown would simply be overloaded. I seriously doubt it. As a city and a nation, we are rapidly becoming less peak-oriented. There is still a rush hour, but from a transit standpoint, a smaller percentage of trips occur during this time. With some work, it is quite possible the trains could run every 90 seconds, according to Sound Transit. Even running them every 2 minutes would provide the same potential throughput (30 trains an hour through downtown) as a second tunnel could provide. Running the trains more often would require elevating or burying the tracks in Rainier Valley — something Sound Transit has never even considered. But it is also quite possible that we never see 6 minute trains in Rainier Valley anyway, which means the downtown tunnel could handle the extra load with ease.

In the highly unlikely event that we do have capacity issues during rush-hour, there is a very simple, much less costly solution: run express buses. There are plenty of riders who would love to have their express buses back. You wouldn’t need to bring all of them back, just the ones that have proven very popular. For both train and bus riders, reusing the existing tunnel is better.

Sound Transit has suggested that getting rid of the tunnel would be “Not consistent with ST3 plan”. If find this hard to fathom, given they are studying the elimination of stations like Avalon and Interbay (Dravus). Unlike those changes, this would actually be better for riders, not worse. To the extent that people even care about a new tunnel, I’m quite confident they prefer better transfers with better downtown stations.

There are other technical issues that may make it difficult to reuse the tunnel. That is why a study is needed. It is possible that mixing the tracks (otherwise known as interlining) is more disruptive and expensive than adding three new stations (and a tunnel). I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. That is why it makes sense to study the technical issues, to get an idea of the various trade-offs.

Deadlines for comments are today. Please let the board know you want them to study reusing the existing downtown tunnel for West Seattle to Ballard Link.