Move RapidRide route to California SW in The Junction? SDOT is looking at it

S August 7, 2014 (4:07 pm)

Bad Idea, this would slow and cause traffic there. One min is not worth the headache they would cause. Who dumb idea was this and they need to be fired.

colleen August 7, 2014 (4:12 pm)

As I sit at 2nd and Columbia where the next two C lines are each running 10 mins behind and read about them trying to save a minute in the junction I can’t help but feel metro has once again missed the point

ddr August 7, 2014 (4:23 pm)

How about “moving” the C-line all the way up California so the majority of people in West Seattle (north of the Alaska Junction) will once again have a bus line into the city?!

blaughw August 7, 2014 (4:34 pm)

To move the stops for only the C-line east on Alaska doesn’t make any sense.

The west side of California has four bus bays, two of which are used for RR. Moving the southbound (from Downtown) junction stop east would just snarl up traffic before California/Alaska because the buses can’t clear the intersection.

Moving the Northbound stop to the east side of the junction could work, since there is already a right-turn light activated during the westbound traffic signal. I assume there is enough space for a C-line bus to turn there, but I don’t know.

In all, I’m glad they’re looking at ways to improve service. I don’t happen to think that re-configuring the junction is viable.

And don’t get me started on bus bulbs…

M August 7, 2014 (4:43 pm)

People not seeing the big picture. A minute per bus when there are 6-10 buses an hour adds up over the day/month/year. People complain about wanting Metro to be more efficient, well here you go.

jwright August 7, 2014 (4:52 pm)

WSB boilerplate comment:
.
[Insert specific decision] by [insert name of government agency] inconvenienced me! I don’t care about the big picture, [agency] should reverse [decision]!

brian August 7, 2014 (5:03 pm)

How bout a rapid ride down delridge? 120is one of the most used routes in west seattle with way more overcrowd than any rapid ride. Delridge needs more buses period

iggy August 7, 2014 (5:06 pm)

Bad idea. The 4-way walk is one of the few remnants of civility left in West Seattle public spaces. Pedestrians are important for the Junction. Let’s try to keep it safe for them.

dsa August 7, 2014 (5:11 pm)

Time spent focusing efforts at getting a direct link for Alki/Admiral to downtown would be a better project.

onion August 7, 2014 (5:15 pm)

Two serious concerns: 1) California through that stretch has a lot more traffic than the current route. 2) They would probably need to reconfigure the intersection by restricting other traffic so those large buses could make the turn.
Other issues: Proximity to the other bus bays, and the potential impact on car traffic heading east of California on Alaska.
They can study away, but I will be surprised if this pencils out.

Thomas M. August 7, 2014 (5:27 pm)

North Admiral needs bus service to downtown, not to a transfer at the Junction. A few 55’s at rush hour does not cut it. Overall, I like the
C bus and only drive downtown if I have to be somewhere outside Seattle shortly after my down town activity.

Josh August 7, 2014 (5:32 pm)

I have a better idea: move Rapid Ride ANYWHERE away from Barton!!! Take the criminals with it.

CandrewB August 7, 2014 (5:33 pm)

Can’t believe I am posting this but I agree with Metro on this one. That little dance around the Junction is the longest part of the trip home.

Paul August 7, 2014 (5:46 pm)

I love the class warfare. Move it north of the junction so that most of the west Seattle residence can use it. Move if from Barton to rid us of the criminals. I won’t apologize for living on the wrong side of 35th.

Grow up

NW August 7, 2014 (5:50 pm)

I agree that it would be a better drop off and pickup point to move the stop east of California ave. and cut down on time it takes to weave thru to 44th then edmonds then California.

Joe Szilagyi August 7, 2014 (6:10 pm)

Source on the claim that the majority of West Seattle lives north of the Junction?

Bree August 7, 2014 (6:21 pm)

Just hoping that does not mean more bus bulbs which backs up traffic on an already busy street. Traffic in another area recently was majorly backed up due to waiting for a bus at the bulb. Would prefer to see this busy area not become more congested due to the possibility of bus bulbs. That brings up a question: with Metro being short on funds, why do they keep building bus bulbs. Those have to be costly…

old timer August 7, 2014 (6:38 pm)

FWIW, I think making the RRC wait to cross California
twice, once on Edmonds and again at Alaska, is really taking more than 1 minute. And, it is a real PITA to take longer to get thru the Junction than it does to get from town to the first stop on Avalon.
Why can’t they run the RRC the same way they do when we close the whole junction down for our various festivals?
Put the RRC stops over by Jefferson Sq.
Whatever they do, at least the RRC routing is ‘being looked at’.

West Seattle Hipster August 7, 2014 (6:50 pm)

SDOT and Metro, two organizations that have questionable leadership. How about fixing more pressing issues?

.

Leave the junction pedestrian and shopper friendly.

KP August 7, 2014 (7:08 pm)

The bus bulb at California and Fauntleroy causes nothing but havoc. The line heading west on Fauntleroy trying to clear California can be 4-5 lights long, often while cars sit idling waiting for the c-line to clear their space. Metro and SDOT don’t talk as it is, until they can work cooperatively, through-put will only regress.

AmandaKH August 7, 2014 (7:11 pm)

from the SDOT website: “Curb bulbs (are installed) to help buses stop in lane rather than pulling over to pick up passengers and then waiting to re-enter traffic”. It means more efficiency for Metro, and since they are taking 60-80 people somewhere, instead of a SOV – they get priority on the street. It means that drivers are forced into compliance with “for the greater good” philosophy.

themightyrabbit August 7, 2014 (7:25 pm)

I see no problem with this improvement. I don’t see any traffic increase issue. Or safety issue. Metro drivers are much better than most drivers on the street, period. As long as no more changes to the bus stops, since that would be over the top. I’m all for shorter trips.

ttap August 7, 2014 (7:31 pm)

We were sold a RapidRide line of Happy Smiling People having nice rides downtown with just a tap. :-) :-) :-)

What we have are over crowded bus, and gruff badged patrollers with Kevlar under their uniforms demanding to see our Orca card.;-

Keep the Edmonds turn,
hands off the 4 way walk, and
get rid of those outside card tapper.

TomV August 7, 2014 (7:36 pm)

This just makes me angry. There are so many better ways to move people in/out of West Seattle and so many other ways to spend the taxpayer’s money. A project that saves 1 minute commute time is not a good investment – it is also a poor way to develop our Junction neighborhood. Isn’t one mega bus stop enough? If this goes through, parking spots will disappear along California Ave., more street congestion will occur and the character of our sidewalks will be lost to yet another bus project. Based on my own sources, the plan is a done deal and the feasibility study and community outreach will simply be a nice gesture on the part of SDOT. Again, this is very disheartening and I wish that our city officials would listen before they decide.
As for better ways to move people, residents North and South of the Junction deserve faster service!! One way to accommodate faster service during commute hours is to have 2 or 3 Rapid Ride buses that bi-pass the Junction and travel along Fauntleroy instead of California Ave. In doing so, there will be two stops along California Ave that won’t get service as often (the Junction and Findlay?). If anything put a new RR bus stop on Fauntleroy (near Juneau). This will be better for those closer to 35th and will give people options . I am sure that ‘we’ have other ideas that SDOT would like to hear, so lets hear them.
Whether you support this project or are adamantly against this project, now is the time to share and let your city officials know! If not now, then say good bye to California Ave. as we currently know it. Please speak up!!

Eric1 August 7, 2014 (7:49 pm)

If they want to speed up the C-Rapid ride, they need to run it down Fauntleroy like the 54E did. Of course, it won’t make all those junction apartments qualify for zero parking so you won’t see it. Tells you who is in charge of this city.

Chad N August 7, 2014 (7:58 pm)

Excellent idea if the logistics work out.

If they move the outbound routing, they should also move the inbound routing, and potentially other California bus routes as well.

This would need to be considered along with a thorough re-thinking of California Av through the Junction. Why does California have two traffic lanes in each direction through the Junction, but one lane everywhere else? The Junction has the most pedestrian activity, but the street markings set it out as the speedway section. Having the bus stops on California may work better than on Alaska east of the Junction.

West Seattle since 1979 August 7, 2014 (8:08 pm)

They’re conducting a feasibility study. Thst doesn’t mean they’re going to do it. They say they’re going to ask the community, I’m assuming in the form of a survey. Some people on here are acting as if it’s a done deal. No, someone who thought this up should NOT be fired and yes I did mean to yell. If everyone got fired who ever had a dumb idea, no one would have a job.

When the survey or whatever is ready, WSB will let us know and we can tell them what a bad idea it is.

clark5080 August 7, 2014 (8:14 pm)

I am looking at it as they are going to spend thousands (or maybe ten’s of thousands) of dollars to move it and they only gain maybe 1 min? Doesn’t seem to justify the expense

JanS August 7, 2014 (9:01 pm)

Joe…who really gives a rip what the exact #’s are, and what the source is. You know as well as I do that Admiral north of Calif. and Arbor Heights are underserved by Metro. And there are a helluva lot of people in those areas. Everyone made a big thing out of finally getting Rapid Ride…well that’s just hunk for those south of the junction, along Alaska St. east of the junction. But for the rest of us? Service has declined…a lot. Luckily I work at home, so no morning commute for me, but as a kidney transplant patient, I have numerous doc appts. on First Hill. And I drive…every time. It takes me 20 minutes by car. I doubt if I’d get out of West Seattle in 20 minutes on Metro. So, yes, I agree, lets not screw with the configuration in the junction, and maybe put some time into thinking what could be done for someone at 53rd and Admiral, who wants to go downtown at noon. And they wonder why there are still so many cars on the bridge. SMH !!!!!

Mickymse August 7, 2014 (9:33 pm)

There sure are a lot of people commenting on here who think they “know” something, and just can’t understand why the experts don’t know any better.
.
Hmmmm, could it be that they, you know, look at data? For example, it doesn’t matter what the population is north of the Junction, bus service is reduced there because there is less need for transit service there.
.
I know it sucks if you’re actually one of those Admiral residents who needs transit… but it’s rather hilarious to hear complaints about lack of service from areas that vote down transit funding.
.
As for Rapid Ride service, it may have its problems, but it’s moving more riders, more often, and with faster commutes. Again, though, everyone wants faster buses, but then complains when Metro puts in changes to prioritize the buses over cars.
.
You don’t get to have it both ways. 60-80 riders on a rush hour bus trump a dozen cars with single drivers. Bus bulbs get built because drivers refuse to follow the law and let them back into traffic. A one-minute time savings for 60-80 riders over several buses an hour adds up to lots of time and money savings and system efficiencies. So, make up your minds about what you want already!

fiz August 7, 2014 (9:36 pm)

Won’t be parking MY bike in the new corral if RR buses are turning there.

JanS August 7, 2014 (9:52 pm)

who says I voted down funding? You’re ASSuming….do you have specific information that the funding was only voted down in the Admiral District? If not, don’t spread falsehoods..thanks

michael ford August 7, 2014 (10:11 pm)

could part of metro wanting to move the bus be because when i’m on the c line coming home from work around 12:30AM the c line drivers are running the stop signs leaving the jct and the one in front of the hardware store going south bound. tapping the brakes is not a stop and i’ve reported the drivers doing this over and over!!!! besides if metro wants to save time get them to raise the speed again on hwy 99 as the c line drivers are speeding there as it is now posted 50MPH yet most c line drivers are doing well over 60MPH on the part of the route. i’ve used my garmin gps unit and also have clocked the c line drivers doing 45-50MPH down california ave sw south bound at most times of the day or night. do you feel that a 60 foot long bus can safely stop at those speeds with riders standing on the bus? i don’t feel it is a safe thing to be doing by metro drivers and i was told by tom randal that metro can check the gps of the buses yet it seems metro really doesn’t care if we the riders are given a safe ride just one that fits the box metro chooses to force onto us the riders!!!!!

M August 7, 2014 (10:15 pm)

For those of you that want an express bus on Fauntleroy, there already is one. It’s called the 116.

http://metro.kingcounty.gov/schedules/116/n0.html

Data August 7, 2014 (10:41 pm)

@joe: US Census data puts the area north of the Junction at about half of West Seattle’s total population. They report by zip code and our zip codes span the border so you have to play with a few different views. Also consider that the northern area contributes more in property taxes yet receives less service per capita.

wa August 7, 2014 (10:54 pm)

How about stop putting the bus stops where they BLOCK ALL TRAFFIC. THE BUSES sit for alot longer then the times Metro says. Last time I checked people can walk an extra few feet to the next stop and old people its good for you.

jwright August 7, 2014 (11:00 pm)

I have to echo what Mickymse said about all the armchair quarterbacking. I feel a lot better entrusting decisions about transit to professionals who understand all the theory and practical challenges of implementing transit solutions and have legitimate practical experience vs. laypersons and their anecdotal notions.
.
As an aside, a common theme of WSB comments seems to be how West Seattle ain’t what it used to be, too crowded, too many cars, etc., etc. The reason it is crowded with bad traffic is because our city is thriving. My in laws live in a dying town in the middle of Kansas. Nobody there complains about new apartments or traffic. And even there they have gangs.

Magic 8Ball August 7, 2014 (11:11 pm)

So if the stop coming into West Seattle is West of CA, then imagine the Rapid Ride crossing two lanes of traffic to turn left onto CA. Maybe they can reconfigure the street with a double-cross (pun intended) so the bus can be the only thing making progress in the afternoon.

jwright August 7, 2014 (11:18 pm)

Data, but isn’t that changing with all the development in the Junction/Triangle area? It seems to me that the impending population density of the Junction is going to warrant more transit than the north of the peninsula.

Quiz August 7, 2014 (11:24 pm)

If it’ll save a minute, move it. Add up all those riders every day. That’s a lot of minutes.

McFail August 7, 2014 (11:24 pm)

Does anyone think the Les Schwab stop is annoying? One bus doesn’t pull up far enough for the second bus so the second bus has to wait for the signal to cycle…

dsa August 8, 2014 (12:16 am)

It will likely happen. Just read the article again. Metro referred the question to SDOT to look at for feasibility. To me that means Metro has decided and wants SDOT to make it happen.
.
As for forcing north enders to transfer at the junction or points south, the issue is the alternative 15 to 20 minute car trip to town can run around an hour by bus.

West Seattle since 1979 August 8, 2014 (12:18 am)

Eric, I believe more people go to the Junction than up Fauntleroy, so that’s why the C goes there. The old 54 always went to the Junction too, for 28 years or so. It was only the 54X that went up Fauntleroy, and I think they deleted that due to low ridership. So it’s nothing to do with new apartments or parking.

West Seattle since 1979 August 8, 2014 (12:26 am)

Or actually it was probably more like 26 years that the 54 existed. Anyway, since the 1980s.

flimflam August 8, 2014 (3:28 am)

i’m sure metro will make a wise and informed decision, like always.

WSB August 8, 2014 (6:55 am)

As noted in the story, it is not a Metro decision. It’s Metro’s bus line but it’s SDOT’s road and their idea, according to Metro and SDOT.

Smitty August 8, 2014 (8:05 am)

Weren’t we just told last week during the Fauntleroy re-channel review that 1 minute difference was no big deal? Or, is that just when cars are affected?

TomV August 8, 2014 (8:12 am)

For those that think we should leave this issue to the professionals…take a stroll down Broadway/Capital Hill. That community left it to the transportation professionals and will be paying the price for a long time to come.

RayK August 8, 2014 (8:18 am)

Hopefully SDOT sends a team into the neighborhood to survey both the bus traffic flows and road conditions. 42nd Ave between Alaska and Edmunds is rapidly deteriorating to a technically ‘poor’ condition from ‘fair.” 44nd Ave between Alaska and Edmunds is close to a technically ‘good’ condition. Both routes feature three turns and one stop sign.
The greatest difference is the very narrow and sharp right turn NB from California to Edmunds which sometimes causes delay while bus drivers navigate it.
I’ve witnessed the turns during Junction street events causing the temporary reroute and it’s a tough route for drivers.
None of the comments above consider the current RR stop at a minor transit hub where at least five bus routes offer transfers.
Transit riders from north of Alaska better start using transit. The current routes are already targeted for termination or rerouting (128) due to low ridership.
Let’s hear from actual commuters who pass through the Junction on the many routes. I see riders streaming into the C Junction stop between buses and there are few walking from the new high apartment buildings.
I am an occasional rider yet I use the 50, 22, 128, C and hope to use the 37 soon for the Alki scenery.

Rick August 8, 2014 (8:20 am)

I’ve seen “regular” buses go around the stopped RR buses using the left turn lane on California as many cars do. I find that a bit ironic. One of the expediency claims for the bus bulbs was the pay stations and that RR has 3 doors so they can load faster. Every other bus that stops at those has 2 doors. What’s the logic? Plus, when you load a rider in a wheel chair, you’re just plain stopped (as in everybody) until that process is complete. And the occasional Access bus that uses the California stop to go into the round building to pick up customers. There’s work to be done.

NicMarie August 8, 2014 (9:53 am)

Has anyone even thought of how disastrous this would be on a busy day in the junction? The pedestrian crossing would have to be removed for this not to totally jam up the C. I’ve had plenty of times when groups of people crossing at the pedestrian lights have made my time through the junction 10min. (Not complaining, I use the crossings too, just saying!) How many of US use the turn on Oregon, 44th, and Edmonds when traveling East to AVOID exactly that? Terrible idea.

Community Member August 8, 2014 (10:24 am)

Transit professionals tend to look at delays in terms of (time)x(people), so the one minute is multiplied by the number of people on the bus. That is also the logic behind bus bulbs, and why they can say that adding a minute to a car commute isn’t a big deal to their point of view.
.
Many commenters are saying that this move would ruin the all-ways-crossing pedestrian flow. Can someone explain why? I am not understanding why a bus couldn’t turn on the green light. I understand that the turning bus might need two lanes to turn in, but it seems that would effect cars backing up behind the bus, not pedestrians crossing when all traffic is stopped.
.
I don’t have a pro or con position; I am just trying to understand why others are saying the effect would be unfriendly to pedestrians.

sam-c August 8, 2014 (11:48 am)

lol at Smitty’s comment!

Smitty August 8, 2014 (1:00 pm)

“Transit professionals tend to look at delays in terms of (time)x(people), so the one minute is multiplied by the number of people on the bus.”

OK.

Soooooooooo……..even if there is just one person per car, you don’t think the one minute addition after the Fauntleroy re-channel is significant? Heck, I can even take a liberal slant on this it if you want. How much more CO2 is being spewed into the air during those (people) X (1 minute) X (365)?

jwright August 8, 2014 (2:33 pm)

Smitty, I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. The Fauntleroy reconfiguration was a safety thing, not primarily a moving people efficiently thing. It is impressive (to me at least) that the road could be made so much safer and only add 1 minute per trip.

Smitty August 8, 2014 (4:24 pm)

Good point, jwright.

That said, they neglected to let us know the “before and after” statistics on the side streets and “cut throughs” that more people take now as a result of the re-channel. But, that is another topic, I guess.

pjmanley August 8, 2014 (5:26 pm)

Folks, please! You can’t compile the same minute over and over again, multiplying it times 60 riders. It doesn’t work that way. Nobody, including metro, is saving 60 or 80 minutes. Never is it “a lot of minutes.” Y’all are recounting the same one or two minutes, per individual, over and over again. Saving two minutes per trip, for anyone person, or every person in the city, is never “a lot of minutes.” This is flawed thinking.

frequent-rider August 8, 2014 (11:38 pm)

They should keep the route as is, and give transit override of more traffic lights. That would eliminate several minutes of lag.

miws August 9, 2014 (7:58 am)

frequent-rider, I tend to agree with you.

.

I don’t ride the “C” very often, so am not really affected directly, however, the 54 was my main bus route for years, as well as the 22, and others over the years that did that jog along 44th.

.

Now, apparently Transit Signal Priority has finally been implemented with RR, it’s been talked about for years, way pre-RR. I’d say maybe at least 20 years, and a good portion of that time, as if it were literally ready to go, and would/could be implemented at any time.

.

Back in around 2002, (maybe ’01, but no later than ’03) SDOT did a major repaving up 35th, which included rebuilding the 35th & Morgan intersection, and signal upgrades/revisions.

.

At that time, they said that the TSP would be implemented for the Route 21, and the signals along 35th. Now, I haven’t ridden the 21 on a regular basis since the late ’70’s, (it was “my” Route for much of that decade), but the few times I did ride the 21 after that SDOT project, it just didn’t seem that it had been implemented. Or, perhaps, there had been no confirmation that it was in effect (this is pre WSB, so we didn’t have the consistent local news coverage, and comment sharing from the community we now have).

.

So, anyway, I might not be too opposed to a revision in the “C” routing, even if it was “my” Route, as long as it didn’t mean longer distances to make connections to other Routes. But, for many of the reasons mentioned already, such as the kind of unique layout of Junction streets/intersections; the Alaska jog, and the narrowness of Edmunds east of California, I’m not sure this would be too feasible.

.

Mike

Lukas August 9, 2014 (9:30 am)

No, because then Metro will go further to take one lane as a dedicated bus lane and traffic will be further snarled. And street parking will be even further reduced. As a Handicap person I must now drive my car to a bus stop to take a bus into the Alaska Junction just to get to my pharmacy. That is not efficient.

Patrick August 10, 2014 (4:16 pm)

I don’t think I like this idea, but I generally don’t take the C. However, RR was federal grant money, if I am not mistaken and someone can correct me if I am wrong. Would the money come from that? It would still screw up the intersection regardless of where the money comes from and how they intend to change it. Plus, Lukas is right about the bus lane, which is the best option that Metro has right now to keep RR on schedule.

The rest is a little off topic for the intersection debate. What we really need is grade separated Light Rail. We are so behind the 8-ball when it comes to reliable transit that saving a minute or two by changing a bus route may make their numbers look better, but does it really help out the commuter? West Seattle, along with Ballard, lost the Monorail in 2005 and we would both be enjoying that mode of transportation today if we hadn’t. It’s too late to give input to Sound Transit about updating their Long Range Plan update (in which West Seattle was studied, but more than a year later than Ballard, which happened to be added Sound Transit’s Long Range Plan in 2005 for a High Capacity Transit corridor) but it isn’t too late to contact your county rep, Joe McDermott and exec Dow Constantine, both of whom are very aware we need Light Rail here, but the more voices we give them, the harder it will be for Sound Transit to leave West Seattle without Light Rail and out in the cold again. In turn, they take their proposal to the legislators that will be tasked with coming up with and approving a funding package for Sound Transit to bring to the voters of King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties to expand, among other things, Light Rail, and let them know that a funding package without West Seattle included for Light Rail is not an acceptable option. We take buses because we have no other choice for public transit now, but we must make our voices known loud and clear if that is to ever change within a reasonable amount of time. The rail stops won’t be as frequent, certainly, but it would be easier for Metro to work on routes that feed those stops (maybe smaller and more frequent Dart buses?)and we wouldn’t have to worry about a clogged bridge or clogged intersections such as the Alaska Junction.

anonyme August 11, 2014 (7:25 am)

Sounds logical to me, which is rare for Metro/SDOT. That tight loop by True Value makes no sense and serves no one.

Anne August 11, 2014 (10:14 am)

it took many years and a lot of volunteers to get the junction area looking and functioning like it does (remember parking meters?). Please don’t wreck it now with busses, it will look like a mini 3rd ave.
One minute is not worth it. expediency is not always a good reason.

mrwaturi August 14, 2014 (9:21 am)

I find it frustrating, as a bus driver who loves driving the C and D rapid ride buses, that passengers always want faster buses yet get mad if the bus leaves without them. I am not sure what to make of this. The Junction is one of the more frustrating areas the C line traverses. The loop around on 44th can be a serious bottleneck, especially on Sunday because of the market. I don’t think turning left would be a problem onto SB California, but turning right NB California onto Alaska would be a problem. It is just too tight to make a turn in a 60 foot bus as the lanes are configured now.