West Seattle Transportation Coalition report #2: Speed up RapidRide C, yes; reroute in The Junction, no

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Midway through the West Seattle Transportation Coalition‘s comment period for the proposed RapidRide C Line rerouting in The Junction, WSTC co-chair Amanda Kay Helmick called for a show of hands: Anybody in favor of this?

Two-dozen-plus people were in the room – from WSTC members to first-time attendees – but none offered any show of support.

The reception Tuesday night for the SDOT-initiated suggestion of moving the route onto California SW between Edmunds and Alaska, to save a minute per trip, indeed seemed just as chilly as it had been during November’s Southwest District Council meeting (WSB coverage here). Thanks to a reader tip, we had first word of the proposal back in August.

Maybe chillier: Marci Carpenter, a WSTC member who had a spotlight at the podium with political leaders celebrating last month’s transit-funding vote, asked sharply, “Why in the world would you break up the West Seattle transit center with this?”

She was referring to the collection of bus stops on SW Alaska and 44th west of California in the heart of The Junction.

The question went unanswered, but by that point, SDOT’s Jonathan Dong had said he, Metro’s Paul Roybal, and a consulting-firm rep were not there to try to convince WSTC that this would be a good move, but rather to listen.

And they heard a lot, including suggestions for other ways to speed up the route. It’s not the concept that is drawing opposition – it’s the thought of frequent buses running along a block that is already busy with pedestrians and, with hundreds of apartments under construction and a midblock crossing spanning almost two blocks, going to get busier. (Once 4730 California is complete early next year, the raised crosswalk midblock will lead to a passageway along its north side, connecting to the north side of Mural, and on to 42nd, while the crosswalk’s west end is close to the breezeway leading toward 44th.)

One phrase surfaced over and over again: Signal prioritization – equipping/programming traffic signals to interface with buses, maximizing their progress along their routes. Dong said that more of it had just been activated on much of the RapidRide C Line route, “but some areas could be amped up a bit more,” he acknowledged.

The proposal for keeping RapidRide on California up to a right turn on Alaska – instead of the left turn to Edmunds, right turn to 44th, right turn to Alaska – was attributed to a consulting firm. Dong said the time it takes to make those turns “can discourage transit riders.” Putting a stop on the southeast corner of California/Alaska would allow more waiting/boarding space than the current stop which “gets a little cramped because of trees, and the narrow sidewalk,” while the new Junction 47 development “plans to rebuild the sidewalk – we’ve been in discussions with them.” Dong also said the revision “is consistent with the Seattle Transit Master Plan.”

When comments opened, the first was from Pete, asking if SDOT had considered how the RapidRide runs would work with street parking on that side of California and the midblock crosswalk, as people make short stops, running in and out of businesses.

Next, WSTC board member Ray Krueger recounted a trial run of watching the bus and riders in The Junction, and again mentioning traffic-signal priority – something that does not exist, it was noted, at California/Alaska.

Board member Michael Taylor-Judd pressed that point, asking why it wasn’t in place on key parts of the route, and how far it would go toward speeding up RapidRide, rather than trying to make this change. Signal priority was promised years earlier, he pointed out, adding that the California route option had been discussed and discarded back in 2008, and community stakeholders were in agreement that they wanted the transit center that’s on the west side of the California/Alaska intersection.

Signal prioritization was promised and needs to happen now, board member Marci Carpenter reiterated, then asking, “Why in the world would you break up the West Seattle transit center” alignment to make this change?

Board member Marty Westerman accused SDOT of “historical forgetfulness.” Shortly thereafter, Chris Arkills, transportation adviser for King County Executive Dow Constantine, broke in, saying that while they still weren’t sure this reroute would be a good thing, RapidRide’s routing hadn’t been revisited since its launch four years ago, and he expected SDOT and KCDOT would bring up improvements whenever they could.

Interjected Chas Redmond, “and we need to keep bringing up transit signal prioritization every chance we can.”

That wouldn’t necessarily be the only way to save time along the route, co-chair Helmick said, wondering about its south end, and how it serves (and doesn’t serve) Arbor Heights.

WSTC board member Deb Barker wondered when the Transit Master Plan had “adopted this layout,” as SDOT’s Dong had seemed to say.

She suggested the reroute would be disruptive to businesses and should be evaluated by the city’s Office of Economic Development, because of the potential monetary impact businesses might feel.

Businesses also were mentioned by Susan Melrose, executive director of the West Seattle Junction Association, who said many of her organization’s member merchants are concerned about walkability and how it would be affected by this change. “It’s not just about (saving) a minute – it’s about the character of the community,” Melrose said.

As the discussion concluded, Dong promised to send WSTC leadership answers to the questions that were raised, so they could be circulated. He called the proposed reroute part of a “collection of projects” that also included signal prioritization and possible changes in boarding. He said he’d be at the Junction Neighborhood Organization’s meeting on January 13th, and that overall, “this is your time to tell us your concerns.” (If you have an comment, you can e-mail him at jonathan.dong@seattle.gov.)

WSTC report #1, progress on low-bridge issues, is here; WSTC report #3, on city plans for what happens to West Seattle in case of disaster, is in the works for later today.

23 Replies to "West Seattle Transportation Coalition report #2: Speed up RapidRide C, yes; reroute in The Junction, no"

  • WestofJunction December 11, 2014 (5:55 am)

    The biggest problem with RR when it hits SW Alaska is getting to the California/Alaska bus stop. There are only two lanes in each direction, one a dedicated left turn lane and one that becomes straight/right for all cars/busses. Its a really short block, and a really short green light. Cars zipping in front of buses to get in the lane and really slow right hand turning cars makes it a real bottleneck. That bus only lane up SW Alaska did not improve traffic flow, made it worse. And there is no need for a dedicated left turn only lane.

  • JW December 11, 2014 (7:17 am)

    Signal prioritization…. Does that mean they will change the timing on the Light at calif and Alaska ? It’s very frustrating when it takes 2 to 3 lights to get through the intersection when traveling north and south.

  • Sue December 11, 2014 (8:12 am)

    One thing I’m a little confused about is that everywhere (including here) has said the proposed new spot would be on Alaska, just east of California. But at http://www.westseattletc.org/2014/11/ it mentions ” SDOT is looking into moving the Rapid Ride C terminal from eastbound SW Alaska to northbound California SW. Basically, from next to Key Bank to in front of the new condos next to Talarico.” So am I correct that the proposed spot is on Alaska, not on California?
    .
    Either way, I still think it’s a bad idea and they should leave the current routing as is. In the grand scheme of things, 1 minute is nothing and will simply create a bigger problem in terms of traffic and more loss of parking.
    .
    Also, thank you for covering this meeting. I had intended to go, but was not able to.

    • WSB December 11, 2014 (8:25 am)

      Both verbally and per a handout from the meeting, it was made clear the bus would be stopping on Alaska, not California. The handout was like the map atop this story, only with a couple added boxes showing some numbers of how many seconds RR takes/would take to get through lights/turn. I tweeted a pic of it during the meeting: https://twitter.com/westseattleblog/status/542531748970500096

  • jwright December 11, 2014 (8:46 am)

    JW, they said on account of the all-way cross there was not going to be any transit prioritization of the signal at California and Alaska.

  • KC December 11, 2014 (9:19 am)

    So you only have to look as far as California and Morgan (south bound California to west bound Fauntleroy) to see what a mess this will create through the heart of the junction

  • Peter December 11, 2014 (10:26 am)

    The opposition to this change doesn’t make sense to me. Some thoughts:

    •Transit signal prioritization: YES! We need more of it. But to use it to oppose other improvements in bus service is just absolutely ridiculous. Do both.
    •One minute is nothing/insignificant: One minute multiplied by dozens of riders multiplied by over 30,000 runs a year creates operational efficiency, lowers costs, and improves service. That one minute is significant and important.
    •Breaking up the transit center: People are perfectly capable of crossing the street to change buses, and in fact many already do.
    •Loss of parking: There is nothing indicating parking would be removed. That’s just a ubiquitous catch-all for opposition to pretty much anything new in West Seattle.
    •Walkability/harm to business: I don’t see any way in which this change could negatively impact walkability. This will make the buses more visible, likely encouraging ridership and increasing foot traffic in the Junction, thus benefiting businesses. And if the bus has to occasionally wait for people at the crosswalk, that’s still much less time than having to circle the block.

    The current loop around the block is an unnecessary and costly inefficiency, and I don’t see any reason not to eliminate it. This proposed change will save money and improve service.

    • WSB December 11, 2014 (10:31 am)

      Peter – Datapoint, four parking spaces would be removed, according to the SDOT page for this project (unfortunately it is not directly linkable because it’s done in click-to-expand format; maddeningly IMO, way too many government webpages are doing this these days /soapbox) – it’s linked in the first line – http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transit_projects.htm – scroll down to the headline for this one, right under “Current Spot Improvement Projects,” and click on the link; it’ll open the info. – TR

  • Paul December 11, 2014 (10:47 am)

    Doesn’t the current stop have real time information signs providing updates for all the routes there? I presume that would move with the C stop.

  • mikeinhp December 11, 2014 (11:13 am)

    I agree with Peter’s points. I feel bad for SDOT because besides the traffic signal synchronization we are basically not giving them an option.
    *To say 1 minute is minor is unfair to all of the people at the southern most end of the C Line. Furthermore if the C line is faster in the middle of its trip it can then extend farther, thus taking more cars off the road.
    *Saying that Busses will increase traffic is wrong. Busses reduce traffic and should have the highest priority on the road after pedestrians. How about making the street a Bus only street to reduce the expected increased traffic.
    *Parking : Every year goes by it is harder to park in the junction. With the new condos there will be much more foot traffic to businesses. The character of the businesses will change to support this foot traffic. Some can ride the C line and get to these businesses. For people not served by the C line we should preserve the parking (lots) on the outskirts. As it is I don’t go to the junction during peak times because the C line doesn’t serve me and parking is unlikely.

  • Diane December 11, 2014 (12:16 pm)

    Thank you, thank you, thank you to all the community members asking about my constant-mantra-for-2+ yrs-signal-prioritization; I was not able to attend this meeting and so gratified to see many others asking; we were promised signal prioritization for a year before Rapid Ride ever started running; all the planners in RR meetings made a big deal about how signal prioritization would play a significant role in making RR rapid; and yet, we are still waiting; and meanwhile, they come up with this ridiculous idea to change to route to “save a minute”; they could save several minutes immediately by simply implementing the way too long promised signal prioritization
    ~
    I’ve said this countless times in community meetings with SDOT and Metro; I wait for eastbound RR to downtown at the Alaska/Fauntleroy stop by the tire store, and regularly watch the RR bus stuck at the eastbound signal on Alaska at Fauntleroy, waiting behind a line up of cars; THIS signal needs the long promised signal prioritization immediately; I’ve asked our new SDOT director in person at 3 different community meetings when he came to visit; at the WSTC meeting months ago, he promised to get this done; and yet, the RR buses are still waiting at signals behind lines of cars
    ~
    I would love to read a story in the wsblog tomorrow that SDOT/Metro finally responded and are now installing signal prioritization in West Seattle

  • wetone December 11, 2014 (12:21 pm)

    Peter, Bus times will greatly increase with today’s route as traffic in junction is getting worse, especially west side with all the stop signs, increased people from all the new podments being built on west-side of junction, traffic lights on Cali. What takes me 1-2 minutes non rush times takes 2-4+ during rush times. Getting through the intersections will be a mess. I have to wonder if part of the reason for no reroute is the city’s new bike parking ? since it’s located on the S/E corner of Cali & Alaska intersection. City would have to move it to a safer location :)

  • Michael Taylor-Judd December 11, 2014 (12:27 pm)

    No one at the WSTC has suggested that one minute is “minor” or “unimportant.” What has been suggested is that the community was clear when planning this route that there is real value in maintaining the transit center that has developed on the west side of Alaska — even more so, NOW, since the service change that cut some outlying routes and caused more to feed into The Junction.
    .
    Unless there is a proposal to move the stops for ALL of the bus route to the east, then this may speed up the travel time of the RR C itself, while actually INCREASING the travel time of some significant number of riders who currently transfer at the Junction. It also DECREASES pedestrian safety by moving more people to a higher traffic section of roadway.

  • CMP December 11, 2014 (12:40 pm)

    As a frequent Junction visitor and daily bus rider, I really don’t want the RR continuing on California to turn right at Alaska. It detracts from the quaintness of the Junction (it’s bad enough we have those monstrosity apartment buildings as is) and allowing a steady stream of articulated buses through that area is just lame. Fix the signal at Fauntleroy and Alaska if you want to speed things up. N/S traffic on Fauntleroy gets roughly 90 seconds of green light in the morning while E/W bound traffic on Alaska waits for ferry traffic to speed through the intersection. Stop making signals last 90+ seconds around this town and you might shave off more than a minute on that route.

    I’ll admit to skimming comments and the documents but is the Westwood Village westbound RR route addressed? Will that take a left at California from Alaska? If not, why have this bus going down two different roads depending on if it’s heading to downtown or Westwood Village? Methinks this is low-hanging fruit to say “hey, we’re doing something” when it’s really just a waste of resources to accomplish very little.

  • Paul December 11, 2014 (12:51 pm)

    I am a regular C rider who travels through or to the Junction and lives at the south end of the route. I say keep the C stop with the other routes in the Junction. Having the routes all in one place has value. It isn’t all about travel time, especially when the potential benefit is so small. There is enough variability in travel time on the C that the one minute savings would not be perceivable, even if it were actually achievable.

  • natinstl December 11, 2014 (1:22 pm)

    It’s hard enough to catch the bus in front of you if you have to transfer and having them all in one spot makes it easier in general, now we’ll be running from one block to another? I also think we don’t need buses blocking up one of the few pedestrian friendly areas in West Seattle.

  • Peter December 11, 2014 (4:36 pm)

    Thanks, WSB, I stand corrected on the parking. But I still maintain that four parking spaces is insignificant compared to the huge numbers of people the RR busses bring to the neighborhood.
    Wetone, your claims about travel time on CA are grossly exaggerated.
    Michael T-J, crossing one street to transfer will not affect the travel time of the buses and will cost zero extra in bus operation expenses.

  • Carole December 11, 2014 (5:14 pm)

    Peter, it is not just “crossing the street.” If you are catching a 50 or 128 heading north you are crossing 2 streets, and walking another block west all the way to the far west corner of Alaska, in the wind and rain, and maybe the dark. I have been on a C heading west, hoping to catch a 50 or 128 (necessary because of the cutbacks of the 55) and even with the current configuration, it can be a footrace to make a connection. With multiple line connections west of California, it makes no sense to move the C east of there. Regardless of whether if affects the travel time of the busses, it can affect the travel time of passengers, particularly if you miss a connection that only runs every 30 minutes.

  • Eddie December 11, 2014 (7:39 pm)

    How would the traffic situation in and around west Seattle improve if that quaint ferry service to Vashon/Southworth disgorged in town or somewhere else with better connection to our transportation infrastructure? Why not land it in Burien and direct connect it to 518? All those cars passing through our peninsula but not living, working, shopping here serve to clog up access to the city and the freeways.

  • S December 11, 2014 (8:19 pm)

    Eddie, I know a lot of people who ride that ferry and spend plenty of dollars in West Seattle restaurants and shops. FYI.

  • Bruce B. December 11, 2014 (11:26 pm)

    I think they could save a lot more than one minute per trip (due to traffic in the right lane exit from the West Seattle Bridge to WA-99), if they modified the route now to move the RR off WA-99 to the Bus Way between 4th and 5th in SODO, instead of waiting for demolition of the viaduct.

  • D Del Rio December 12, 2014 (10:26 am)

    Just bring back the 54. It was much faster to get downtown than on the C “Rapid Ride”

  • Kathy December 12, 2014 (3:41 pm)

    Did not attend the briefing but find it very weird from the coverage and map that so little was explained about proposed west/south bound C routing. Will there still be a stop at the Junction? Next to Cupcake Royale? By the Park? By QFC? In front of Bin 41? How will the C navigate to turn left/south at California, if that is the plan? I applaud SDOT for attempting to speed up the route, but it seems they needed to get their ducks more in a row before presenting this to the community. I wish West Seattle voices presented on this blog would get over the idea that buses are our enemy and “don’t belong” or will inconvenience car driving/parking on their favorite streets. You know giving priority to buses is what is going to save you from total gridlock, don’t you? In that sense, I did not see any downside to the north/eastbound routing proposed. After all, that all-ways crosswalk lasts a long time and has a pretty good share of the signal priority at the Junction making it easy to get to every corner. Making Alaska Street between California and 42nd Avenues a transit mall and having all buses serving the Junction stop there or close by makes more sense then the current arrangement. It’s not about inconvenience to the cars, cars are already convenient. It’s about convenience to the bus riders.

Sorry, comment time is over.