Rethink the West Seattle RapidRide route, SW District Council says

From last night’s Southwest District Council: A new turn in a long-simmering concern about the the West Seattle RapidRide bus route. Fairmount Community Association‘s Sharonn Meeks and Fauntleroy Community Association‘s Vlad Oustimovitch obtained the group’s support to take the concern to King County Executive Dow Constantine, asking him to reopen the discussion about how RapidRide will get from Morgan Junction to the West Seattle Bridge. Currently, plans call for it to go up California SW through The Junction, then turn to SW Alaska and again to 35th SW and SW Avalon before getting to The Bridge; some have long suggested Fauntleroy Way would make more sense. Why take another look now? There’s one big reason – read on:

The big reason: The city is launching a formal planning process for The Triangle (as reported here last fall, and there’s now a new webpage for the effort, too, from which the above map comes) – with development revving up there, like Link. So with that process in mind, it’s time to take another look, Meeks and Oustimovitch said.

He declared the route “was not part of a rational planning process” and is only a legacy of the fact the Seattle Monorail got killed – RapidRide is scheduled to go along what once was the monorail route – “nothing to do with Bus Rapid Transit.” Following Fauntleroy would be more rational, for multiple reasons, they say, including the fact that a long stretch between Morgan Junction and The Triangle has just been rebuilt. But even without that factor, they say route planning — which includes RapidRide station locations — needs to be part of the Triangle process that’s about to rev up.

“I think there are enough facts out there to reopen the discussion about the alignment,” Meeks said. “If the route were to take Fauntleroy … those streets already have been dug down and rebuilt and are ready to go. If you go down the the currently proposed route, you’re talking about digging streets and resetting concrete, with (a route with) a lot of 90-degree turns. I think we need to go back to the table for the discussion of using our arterial for what it was designed to be.”

Terry Williams of the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce interjected, “Alaska to 35th doesn’t say, ‘RapidRide’ to me.”

Oustimovitch: “Without the 90-degree turns, there’s more efficiency and also more comfort – if you have people standing, everybody might be thrown to the side (when turning) … Since we’re doing the Triangle plan, we can talk about things, even potentially incentives for developers to build additional parking that might act as a parking reservoir.”

Meeks concluded, “This is a peninsula-wide issue.”

Next step: Oustimovitch is drafting the letter to be sent to County Executive Constantine. The dozen-plus Southwest District Council reps who were at the meeting voted unanimously to support asking him to reopen the route discussion; those who were absent will be contacted by e-mail.

Meantime, we have a message out to the county today seeking a general RapidRide update. Earlier this week, the feds finalized plans to help fund the West Seattle route with $21 million, though that was money the county knew about last year and was already counting on, so it did not represent a new development in the plan; the most recent major development had been discussion last summer that the RapidRide branding would not launch on this route – which replaces the 54 – until 2012, instead of 2011.

(A couple more SW District Council-related stories are still to come.)

49 Replies to "Rethink the West Seattle RapidRide route, SW District Council says"

  • KD February 4, 2010 (12:00 pm)

    If they want the RapidRide to be Rapid, Fauntleroy is the better choice. There is nothing rapid about California, especially getting through the junction.

  • nmb February 4, 2010 (12:07 pm)

    I agree. The Alaska and 35th alignment is a time-suck, with stops that see very little use. Just think to yourself, if you were driving from the Junction to the West Seattle bridge, which route would you choose if you wanted to get there in a hurry?

  • Jen February 4, 2010 (12:14 pm)

    Is this proposal to use Fauntleroy from the Morgan Junction to the bridge or to use Fauntleroy from Alaska to the bridge? Couldn’t quite tell … I totally agree that going through the Junction is time consuming, but isn’t a good percentage of the ridership coming from that area? Educate me :-)

  • WS Resident February 4, 2010 (12:15 pm)

    Remember Rapid Ride will be the major trunk line in West Seattle, and riders from other routes will need to transfer to it. It will be replacing Rts 54, 55, and 116 between West Seattle and Downtown. That’s why it makes sense to go to the Alaska Jct. Also, traveling along Fauntleroy misses major commercial and residential areas. There would be less people riding for a faster trip. That doesn’t make too much sense to me.

  • Julie February 4, 2010 (12:27 pm)

    I ride the bus to and from downtown from the junction almost everyday and my experience is there are a lot of people who get on/off the bus here. Not only is it an area that has high density residential but it’s a major transfer point. I think it’s a mistake to have the rapid ride circumvent the junction altogether. But I do agree that the 35th/SW Avalon jog could be avoided. Skipping the alaska junction basically just makes it the 54 express.

  • Michael February 4, 2010 (12:46 pm)

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
    This is an UNELECTED body) asking to put transit in a corridor they WANT to develop rather than a place people can get to it.
    If this was someone accountable to citizens, there’d be hell to pay. But unfortunately they’re basically acting as a lobbyist.
    Avalon has a HUGE nearby concentration of people who want to use transit. Read up on “walksheds” to understand how even moving transit a few blocks can drastically change use patterns.
    Let’s not even get into the perceived socioeconomic issues (yeah, poorer people live off Avalon).

  • JEM February 4, 2010 (1:03 pm)

    Seems odd that one bus is basically replacing two different routes. Since the 54 uses California and the 54 Express uses Fauntleroy, I guess this rapid ride line is really only replacing one of these routes and riders of the other route are out of luck?

  • Julie February 4, 2010 (1:03 pm)

    I think that if they added a stop near the ped bridge that would be great access to the avalon corridor. Or keep the bus on avalon but skip the 35th jog. But moving the rapid ride away from the alaska junction and avalon doesn’t make sense. They could just rename it the 54 express.

  • KatherineL February 4, 2010 (1:07 pm)

    Moving the stop away from 35th and Avalon would make it very difficult for me to ride. Are they thinking of running straight from the Junction onto the bridge with no stops? So that everyone north of the Junction has to make their way over there? If not, I don’t see any safe place to make a stop on Fauntleroy up at this end.

  • KBear February 4, 2010 (1:15 pm)

    The only thing that’s rapid is the waiting period for the next bus that meanders its way through West Seattle before getting stuck in traffic on the bridge.

  • WestSide February 4, 2010 (1:32 pm)

    Elected leaders stand firm! Don’t give in to a few opportunists who want to grab this route to serve their own desires. King County led a good process to decide this route. It provides service to the most people in a way that is fair for all. A Fauntleroy-only route will not serve enough people, including we seniors who live nearby.

  • dsa February 4, 2010 (2:05 pm)

    Alaska Junction is the hub. Setting a new trunkline somewhere else is insane.

  • vlado February 4, 2010 (2:25 pm)

    It is the portion of the route in the “Triangle” area that turns left on 35th and then goes right on Alaska that is the concern, not the Junction itself (although that is another issue that deserves discussion). The current route has two unnecessary 90 degree turns in that area, making for additional travel time that can be eliminated by having the bus go straight on Fauntleroy instead. That twist in the route was introduced during monorail planning because Huling objected to having it run through its automobile sales area on Fauntleroy. Things have changed since then with Huling, and there is no monorail track to worry about with the RR bus line regardless.

  • DW February 4, 2010 (2:38 pm)

    There’s far too many cases of Seattle “community groups” getting involved in transportation and infrastructure decisions very late in the game – see 520, AWV, Light Rail, etc. At this point, the opinions have been heard and the decision has been made. Time to move forward.

  • Kassandra February 4, 2010 (2:42 pm)

    I don’t think this is about “opportunists” looking out for their own interests, it’s about creating an efficient system that serves the most people and gets them to their destination quickly. There’s no point in creating so-called “rapid ride” that wouldn’t be rapid at all as currently planned with twists and turns through the Junction and down California. It needs to go along a major arterial without stopping at every intersection and the Fauntleroy route is the best way to accomplish that.

  • d February 4, 2010 (2:58 pm)

    First, I have had a hard time envisioning this bus as a transit bullet. It will just be among the bigger things sitting in traffic. But it’s the lemons handed to us,so press on.

    But shouldn’t /couldn’t/mustn’t parking reservoirs and incentives be part of the discussions with Triangle developers regardless of rerouting El Rapido? Just trying to clarify, is it just terminology, or is that different than pursuing a full-fledged Park n Ride? Because that is what I think not only makes sense in The New Triangle SOMEWHERE, it is a necessity. THAT should be the priority. Unless Mayor McFlipFlop pulls the light rail rabbit out of his hat of promises, of course.

    And, thirdly, if someone can explain to me how this Bullet Bus serves the Delridge District, I would like to have that clarified too. And any parking “reservoir” options for the forgotten South Delridge peeps under consideration? As she said, it IS a peninsula issue.

  • Admiral Resident February 4, 2010 (3:04 pm)

    If this isn’t about opportunists why is the entire north and west portions of the penensula being left out?? If this is a penensula-wide issue what about Alki – Admiral??

  • arbor heights mom February 4, 2010 (3:09 pm)

    I’m bummed the closest I can get to the rapid ride is Roxbury, but I guess the density thins out a bit south of Barton. Maybe I can time the 21 to hit it at the right time.

  • Alki Resident February 4, 2010 (3:14 pm)

    If this was an Unaminmous vote where were the Alki-Admiral Reps on this — asleep, in the bar??

    • WSB February 4, 2010 (3:26 pm)

      The associations represented last night included Admiral Neighborhood Association, Alki Community Council, Southwest Seattle Historical Society, Fauntleroy Community Association, Morgan Community Association, Junction Neighborhood Organization, Ocean View, Fairmount Community Association. I know I’m missing someone so I’m heading back to check my notes – those are the people I know from memory. RapidRide has been decided as a Westwood-Fauntleroy-Junction-Triangle-Bridge route for a couple years now – we publicized all the meetings, discussions, etc. – concerns about other areas would be best addressed to King County (aka Metro) leadership. I believe a Delridge RapidRide is still under discussion for the future but no commitment that I’ve heard of. I’m playing phone tag now with a Metro manager and hope to catch up with him before day’s end for the followup questions we mentioned – TR
      (added 3:37 pm) South Seattle Community College and West Seattle Chamber of Commerce also were represented.

  • ericak February 4, 2010 (3:46 pm)

    The other groups present for the vote were South Seattle Community College, West Seattle Chamber of Commerce and Log House Musuem. The remainder of the groups will vote via email – they are, West Seattle Juncion Association, Senior Center of West Seattle, and Highland Park Action Committee. The council did not recommend a re-routing, but instead requested the discussion around Rapid Ride be re-opened given the new interest/attention in planning in the Triangle area. The city does not have any interest in developing park-and-ride lots, so our communities are hoping to find creative solutions by involving developers in the conversation around planning.

  • mickey mouse February 4, 2010 (3:48 pm)

    I am very dismayed that this route still seems to serve no businesses or residents north of the Junction. Why does it not come north on california to at least admiral?????
    I have written to board, metro and city council to no avail. Going to the ferry dock is more inportant that all of us north of the Junction?

  • Joan Jeffery February 4, 2010 (4:12 pm)

    I agree that the route is cumbersome, would add travel time overall, and discomfort to standing riders. The route does not appear to be the result of extensive study, but merely utilizing the old Monorail route; which was much contended and not based in good transit planning.

    Asking for opening up discussion on the matter is not self-serving but good, responsible community involvement.

  • JW February 4, 2010 (4:44 pm)

    Um…it’s taken TWO (?) THREE(?) YEARS and god knows how many dollars to decide between what functionally comes down to either increased service on the 54 Local or the 54 Express.

    THAT’S IT. Oh yes, we might get a sign at the bus stop telling you when the next one’s coming (it’ll take at least a year to get the kinks worked out after it launches) and some bigger buses and some shiny new shelters.

    Let’s spend another couple of years on it. Yeah!!!

    For crying out loud, are people JUST noticing the (shudder!) 90-degree turns?? What, 1 1/2, TWO years after the route alternatives were published and discussed at public forums announced on this website inviting everyone in the whole neighborhood at public venues over several evenings???

    Take the money we’re bleeding every moment we “study” and “plan” and re-study and re-plan and hire some more Metro drivers and increase service on the 54 lines! The other extra costs will be…what? Reprinting the time tables?

    I better stop now. The fire I’m breathing may melt the laptop.

  • CeeBee February 4, 2010 (4:59 pm)

    Exactly 3 years ago, Metro held 3 West Seattle Workshops to discuss the potential routes of Bus Rapid Tranist. Then they visited multiple community groups. The Fauntleroy option came up at all the ones I attended, but ultimately didn’t make the final cut. And even at that time the new activity in the Triangle area wasn’t even on the radar. So it is reasonable to ask for a reexamination based on changed conditions. Regarding Admiral and Alki, all questions about extending to north were deflected by budget issues (my memory).
    DW – surely you’ve been in West Seattle long enough to understand the time honored role of citizen activism. Join your local community group and GET IN THE GAME!

  • Anon February 4, 2010 (5:34 pm)

    someone is making the argument to eliminate 90-degree turns? oh ha ha ha ha. God forbid we should have any 90-degree turns! I’m sorry, but that is a lame excuse. And I second Alki Resident’s and Admiral Resident’s question. The SW District Council as representing the wishes of all of West Seattle: NOT. Most people don’t even KNOW what the SWDC is.

    • WSB February 4, 2010 (6:00 pm)

      Anon, I’ll bite. We have no stance on the route either way. However, regarding those who want to poke at any particular community group’s motives or who they represent. Like it or not, if you don’t show up for your community group’s meetings, if you don’t show up for Southwest DIstrict Council or Delridge District Council meetings, they DO represent you because you have opted out, defaulted, whatever. I don’t know these folks all that well personally aside from covering every community organization meeting we can possibly get to, but that needs to be said, because most of them are likely too polite to say it to you otherwise. None of these people are paid and they’re not elected. They give time because they care. Sitting in a meeting room for 2 1/2 hours is not exactly glamorous or glorious (not to mention the meetings and other efforts inbetween). But if you really care, then get involved. We publish the dates and times of all these meetings well in advance (see the Events calendar), and reports afterward, plus reminders the day-of. If you work nights, then contact your community council reps (see list on our sidebar, needs to be updated with FB info, we’re working on that) and ask how you can get involved otherwise. Pick apart the ideas and opinions and motions and whatever all you want. But unless you want to walk a mile in their shoes so they can take a break – picking at them or anybody else who gives enough of a damn to get out and get personally involved – is a cheap shot. Next SW District Council meeting is the first Wed, as always, March 3rd, 7 pm. I’m sure they’d love to see you. – TR

  • Robert February 4, 2010 (6:31 pm)

    The route needs to go through the Junction if it is to connect effectively with other routes. The only kinda dumb thing about the route is that it jogs off of California over to 44th, like route 54 does. That is ridiculous. It should stay on California through the junction, despite the whining of a few businesses or whoever it was.

  • vlado February 4, 2010 (6:59 pm)

    Let me add another variable to the situation: the new Mayor is proposing a light rail line to West Seattle. I have no idea how that is physically possible, but it seems logical that LR and RR should be planned as complementary rather than redundant systems. I don’t think that it is any way unreasonable that there be some strategic cooperation on how transit systems are planned for West Seattle.

  • Anon February 4, 2010 (7:43 pm)

    With all due respect, WSB, I appreciate your cheerleading for the community groups 100%. But you and I have a different take on them. And I have been to many meetings of the SWDC, the Delridge DC, the CDC, the CDC committee meetings, the Community Council Federation as well as community meetings such as in my neighbourhood Admiral. (when the council has been active – it’s off and on.) And Yes, I was at the CDC budget summary last week end. Not a cheap shot, but the truth, that most people haven’t the slightest idea about these groups, which is why they suffer from … how to say it?…..lack of diversity, lack of turnover, and frankly, the inertia of entrenched focus. The potential is there, but the model is lacking. It’s the elephant in the room of community activism; someone needs to talk about it, but any mention of the need to change and improve is seen as sacrilegious by the in-group.

    I am sorry to hijack this thread; please back to the interesting discussion about the bus with NO 90-degree turns. which is still a hilarious concept.

  • Paul February 4, 2010 (8:43 pm)

    The Junction is not only a major destination in West Seattle, it is also a major transfer point. Any move to relocate the Rapid Ride route away from there needs to also ensure that the transfer and ride up Alaska to Junction is easy and fast or it shouldn’t be done. I vote for the latter, personally. I mean really, if I’m living down by Westwood Village and want to go to the Junction for an errand, and the choice is driving or taking Rapid Ride to Alaska/Fauntleroy, I’m probably going to hop in the car. Seems to defeat the purpose of having it.
    Long term, I think Rapid Ride really needs to serve the heart of the Junction so a future light rail line doesn’t have to go there.
    Oh, and also, don’t abandon 35th and Avalon for RapidRide — otherwise you lose people who would otherwise transfer from the 21.
    Finally, I just want to point out that not everyone in West Seattle is served by a neighborhood group so, no, SWDC doesn’t represent me. It’s hard to follow what they’re up to (no web site) and without WSB it would be pretty much impossible for me to figure out what is going on there. I searched and couldn’t find any advance notice of SWDC discussing Rapid Ride. Did I miss it?

    • WSB February 4, 2010 (9:45 pm)

      Paul – this was a “new business” item. It was not on the agenda. Most community groups have “new business” or “good of the order” type time where something can be brought up. These are unelected, unpaid, advisory type groups so they don’t necessarily have a sheaf of rules — they also don’t take a lot of votes – most of these meetings are for presentation of information, discussion of issues. P.S. I wish they had a website too … also an issue for most community groups is “if we had one, who would keep it up?” Some are trying Facebook fan pages/group pages now in hopes that might be simpler, but then you have the “walled garden” problem. My recommendation (not that you asked) is one that a certain local group is in fact now trying … just get a free blog-format site ( or, if you must, blogspot) and point that at an appropriate domain that certainly somebody can spring $10/year to purchase – those are very easy to update and you can even give multiple group members/leaders posting privileges.

  • JW February 4, 2010 (9:39 pm)


    Soooo…there’s this neat plan about how the Triangle area’s gonna be HUGE.

    Let’s talk for a moment about the credibility problem affecting real estate developers in this city. Let’s have a look at Hole Foods, right near the area in question.

    Soooo. How seriously do you really think we’re supposed to take the HUGE BIG CHANGES that we’re all supposed to react to and reset all our expectations and alter all our earnestly created plans? OMG! All the new Link tenants and others CANNOT BEAR 90-degree turns. THAT MUST BE CHANGED!

    Just sayin.

  • Jeffro February 4, 2010 (10:13 pm)

    Only two stops are essential: The Junction and 35th and Avalon. Anyone near a bus route west of Delridge can hop on a bus and get to one or the other of those two locations, except maybe Alki. Any other stops after those two are pure bonus.

    That we’re even talking about eliminating the rapid ride option for anyone living along 35th or California is ridiculous.

  • fatcat1111 February 4, 2010 (10:46 pm)

    I sat on the BRT route advisory committee. The purpose of the BRT is to connect West Seattle to downtown. The core of WS, from a transit perspective, is the Junction. It must go there, or it won’t serve its purpose.

    My partner drives the route 55 for Metro, and has noted that there isn’t a clear reason why coaches don’t turn from California to Alaska or vice versa. It would be faster to make that turn directly, rather than turning off of / on to California at Erskine (rather than at Alaska). Further it would reduce accidents there, as most buses “split the lane” when heading east-bound along Alaska through the intersection with California.

  • Jeffro February 4, 2010 (11:11 pm)

    And I’m a little dismayed by the implication that an opinion expressed here is any less valid than whatever community group can best stack a council meeting. It’s never just a matter of going to a meeting to lodge an opinion. There’s an endless number of these meetings, any one of which the Fauntleroy Community Association can go and derail everything all over again.
    Give me an email address or a form to submit, I’ll gladly do that. But ask me to sit in a room with a bunch of dues-paying members and their representatives acting out of such naked self-interest, thanks but no thanks.

  • chas redmond February 5, 2010 (12:04 am)

    There’s some fascinating reading out there if one follows the links returned with both of these Google/Bing search terms – “anthropology of volunteerism” and “sociology of volunteerism” – and many of the folks who show up representing a community group actually have been elected by the people they are representing – which is usually an organization with members, some have dues, others do not. If you not a member of any group, it’s hard to represent you, making it incumbent on you to show up and represent yourself. Tough call. Yes, commenting on blogs does count, but sometimes those running the show are more swayed by those who show up in person. Just sayin’…..

  • old timer February 5, 2010 (12:49 am)

    I think it’s a good idea to take another look at the routing.
    So much of what is in place is the result of inertia.
    It would be great to start with a clean slate, and new ridership stats, and new deliverables.
    The basic route and ridership counts came from a study made by Mayor Schell, which was appropriated by the Monorail, and then repackaged by RapidRide. Talk about ‘legacy systems’.
    Then, there is ‘The Junction’ and it’s very loud clamor for service with no regard for the many passengers who are going thru the Junction, and do not see it as a destination.
    Having to cross California twice, once @ Alaska and once @ Edmonds easily eats 5 or 6 minutes out of a schedule if the lights run against you.
    Some alternative placement East of California for at least part of the existing Transit Center would be worth looking at.
    But, dealing with Metro is no picnic either.
    They have ‘their way’, and any new ideas presented that they have not pondered for a decade are really stomped quickly.
    And now,with their budget problems, so much more can be dismissed as ‘not possible’.

    Because so much energy has been expended on the existing plans, and because of the entrenched stakeholder positions, I have little hope of anyone making substantial changes.
    But, I can hope!

  • Paul February 5, 2010 (5:15 am)

    WSB – thanks for the reply. Until groups like the SWDC have a way to collect feedback from the people who can’t make it to meetings, I don’t think it’s accurate to say they really represent many people.

    Old timer, just for the record, I live in Arbor Heights and I’m clamoring for service to the Junction. Revisiting the route through the Junction is probably worthwhile, but considering routes that don’t go there is not.

    During the initial public outreach for this route, I commented that this route really needs to connect centers within West Seattle to serve trips within West Seattle (requesting the change that provided service to Westwood Village). If you’re going to operate a route with 10-15 minute headways most of the day, you really need to think about this being more than just a bus for commuters.

  • Brent February 5, 2010 (6:56 am)

    The key to West Seattle BRT is not to agree on a single route, but to agree that there will be a transit-only lane, free of being clogged by personal vehicles.

    If the political will isn’t there to make the BRT lane transit only, then it isn’t really a BRT route.

    I like the idea of having a BRT route the whole length of Fauntleroy (but what will we do with the ferry waiting line lane?), and another BRT route that turns off toward the Junction, then south on California. Delridge is the highest ridership route, and should remain in consideration for future BRT.

    Parking garages really aren’t a useful topic in this debate. Most of the people riding the bus are not interested in driving to a bus stop, when they could just keep driving (a 1-seat ride) to their destination.

    The biggest thing missing from this whole debate is where Link light rail to West Seattle would go, or if West Seattle is even interested in light rail. That’s a far bigger question than the routing of BRT.

  • Al February 5, 2010 (9:08 am)

    Brent – exactly. Without transit only lanes the buses will get stuck in the same traffic everyone else will be stuck in. The north end has some nice new BRT lanes so the question is, why not do the same for the south end?

  • history lesson February 5, 2010 (9:25 am)

    Vlad and Sharonn are misleading the public with their comments. I attended many of the multiple public meetings on the Rapid Ride alignment. Metro did mailings, held open houses, attended many community meetings at the Chamber, SW District Council, and others.

    The alignment through the triangle was heavily debated and Metro proposed both options using Fauntleroy and 35th. The accusation that this was based on the monorail alignment is complete fiction and Vlad is doing a disservice to the public.

    The reason the 35th alignment was chosen in large part was because it allows for better transfers to the 21. Many West Seattle riders like me who live along the 21 often ride any bus to 35th and Avalon and then transfer to the 21 there.

    I don’t believe that running the Rapid Ride line on 35th and Alaska for these few blocks slows the line down significantly and it offers the opportunity to have a stop coming into the triangle area that doesn’t require a dangerous pedestrian crossing of Fauntleroy.

    Vlad argued all of these points at the open houses and also argued for the bus to go down Fauntleroy instead of California but the ridership projections were much lower. He lost and now he is trying to come back for another bite at the apple.

  • WSTT February 5, 2010 (10:37 am)

    Its impossible to take seriously someone who throws “if you have people standing, everybody might be thrown to the side (when turning)” out as a serious argument- this is someone who speaks for people? In public? Really?

  • cakeitseasy February 5, 2010 (10:43 am)

    Would someone kindly enlighten me? How will creating a “BRT” route be more efficient than simply adding more buses at frequent intervals on the existing express routes (and non express) already running? I’m sure this has been brought up a million times already, but please, humor me.

  • admiral resident February 5, 2010 (11:12 am)

    Those wo think this is the former monorail route are mistaken. That route stopped at the west end of the bride with the intention of serving Alki, Admiral, and Delridge. There is no stop planned there for RR, eliminating this service. Further Metro did conduct local workdshops and attend community meetings then did what they already intendedto do in the first place. Also to the District Council, the triangle is not the only neighborhood in West Seattle, alas nobody lives there, why not serve the people tht live here now??

  • junctionrider February 5, 2010 (12:04 pm)

    The circuitous routing of the proposed route is indeed a legacy of the failed monorail routing. What may have worked for an elevated route does not necessarily work for a street level route.

    You will recall at the RR community forums that the original junction route was to run through the junction, with stops on Calif., but the merchants convinced Metro that the loss of several hourly parking stalls where the stations would be would spell financial ruin for them.

    It makes no sense to run an “express” route back and forth over a stop light controlled arterial, including through one of the longest lights in the city (California and Alaska), and the most congested rush hour stretch in the area (traffic backing up from the light at Calif and Edmonds, through the 90 degree turn at Edmonds and 44th, and north up 44th.

    The weight of residential development is going in east of the junction, from the Rocksport on down to Fauntleroy, including the Triangle. The route should be where the housing density will be, not where it used to be.

  • Paul February 5, 2010 (3:52 pm)

    The current Rapid Ride route will have two stops in the Triangle. It’s not like that area won’t get any service. Skipping the Junction would just be plain stupid.

  • Denny February 5, 2010 (9:51 pm)

    While Brent is right that many 1 person vehicles just drive onto the bridge, there is a very high # of bus riders who drive as close to the bridge as possible, park all over neighborhoods (Youngstown, Triangle, Admiral) and catch a bus downtown. Ignoring this behavior as we move to BRT will only allow it to grow. Some real park/ride solutions would serve our whole penninsula better.

  • Westerley February 16, 2010 (9:43 am)

    Yet again, the Southwest District Council and the Department of Neighborhoods represents a small handful of high-maintenance special neighborhood interests. Don’t re-evaluate the route. We talked about it for years. It’s ridiculous we are even talking about this again. Let’s not spend countless thousands of dollars to entertain this irresponsible non-representative group of people who don’t even represent the facts accurately.

Sorry, comment time is over.