UPDATE: 7 Metro bus stops in West Seattle proposed for removal

Thanks to a reader tip about that sign at the northbound Metro bus stop on California/Dakota, we’ve learned that it’s one of seven stops proposed for removal – not “moving” as the sign suggests. Metro says it’s part of a plan to “rebalance” Route 50. First, here are the stops that are part of the proposal:

Metro spokesperson Torie Rynning also provided context in responding to our inquiry:

Many of the bus stops along Route 50 under consideration for removal were placed before Metro became an organization in 1973.

Over time, changes in land use, bus service, and pedestrian infrastructure prompt a re-evaluation of bus stop placement and subsequent rebalancing effort. Meanwhile, higher ridership at the bus stops along California Ave SW increases the amount of time it takes passengers to board and leave the bus. This delay increases throughout a trip the more frequently a bus stops. Bus-stop rebalancing presents a cost-effective way to optimize recent service investments.

All stops proposed for closure are within a few minutes’ walk to another nearby stop. The proposed changes allow for the same coverage of transit services by maintaining stop spacing of approximately one-quarter mile. Consolidating bus stops helps keep buses moving and on-time for Routes 50, 55, and 128 that share stops along California Ave SW between SW Admiral Way and SW Alaska St. All that said, the changes currently posted at bus stops are proposals, subject to change based on input from transit riders, and your readers are encouraged to let us know what they think.

As noted on the sign, you can comment to Metro’s Shelby Cramer – text or voice 206-263-1109, email scramer@kingcounty.gov.

ADDED WEDNESDAY: The changes would take effect with the March “service change.”

40 Replies to "UPDATE: 7 Metro bus stops in West Seattle proposed for removal"

  • AC November 26, 2019 (12:12 pm)

    Another one they should consider is the stop on Oregon, given there are basically two stops on the same block (Oregon + Alaska). 

    • Jon Wright November 27, 2019 (9:39 am)

      The stop on Oregon serves the senior center.

  • newnative November 26, 2019 (12:13 pm)

    This states route 50 but these stops also serve 128 and 55. 

  • Sue H November 26, 2019 (12:45 pm)

    “All stops proposed for closure are within a few minutes’ walk to
    another nearby stop.”
    .
    Sure, that’s great if you’re not disabled … that was the same thinking with Rapid Ride stops “only” being 1/2 a mile apart on California. Why don’t they just adjust their schedules as to how long it actually takes, rather than removing stops. If they’re so rarely used, then the bus will never stop there, so what’s the difference? To the person needing that spot, it makes a big difference to take it away.

    • newnative November 26, 2019 (4:44 pm)

      This is the larger argument. We have blind people who use these stops. 

  • Mj November 26, 2019 (1:21 pm)

    Sue it’s a balancing act, fewer stops means faster travel times for users.  In exchange users walk a bit further to their stop!

  • Forest November 26, 2019 (1:43 pm)

    I wonder, how many of these bus stop removals on California Avenue are in the blocks where new apartment complexes were permitted and built without off-street parking because they would be served by frequent and convenient bus service?

    • neighbor November 26, 2019 (3:12 pm)

      That designation doesn’t require the bus stop to be on the same block. It just has to be within 1/4 mile, so none of these changes affect that. There’s still frequent and convenient bus service on California Ave.

      • Ex-Westwood Resident November 27, 2019 (1:30 pm)

        The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

        Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

  • Yma November 26, 2019 (1:51 pm)

    So- cutting more buses, & the traffic out of West Seattle keeps getting worse. Yay.

    • WSB November 26, 2019 (2:27 pm)

      This isn’t about cutting buses – cutting bus stops.

      • Yma November 26, 2019 (3:45 pm)

        Thanks WSB for pointing outs the facts & keeping me honest. 

        • gatewood neighbor November 27, 2019 (5:44 am)

          Yma made my day. This might be the only time I’ve seen a internet commenter change there mind.

  • carole November 26, 2019 (2:40 pm)

    The stops at Charleston and California have a traffic light; California and Stevens do not.  Pedestrian safety is a major issue here.  The. Charleston light has sound to assist those with disabilities. There is a blind woman who uses that stop and those sounds to safely cross.  Charleston is a busier corner, with businesses on all 4 corners (including a preschool and Meeples where many school kids hang out) and more foot traffic crossing California.  Similarly, Dakota has the flashing activated crosswalk. If they must remove stops take out the ones that don’t have crosswalk assistance.

    • KBear November 26, 2019 (9:54 pm)

      Charlestown. 

  • Kathy November 26, 2019 (2:50 pm)

    I’m writing to Shelby, I don’t think it is fair that you can drive right up to or under the grocery store (PCC), but under this proposal to remove the stops at SW Stevens and California Ave SW you will be forced to haul your groceries a few hundred feet  in inclement weather to get to the bus.

    • newnative November 26, 2019 (4:49 pm)

      The stop at PCC was only recently reinstated due to construction. Hanford is more than a block away and it would be ridiculous to have to walk to Hanford with a load of groceries for many people. 

    • SLJ November 26, 2019 (5:53 pm)

      I just saw a new stop right in front of PCC. 

      • prayforrain November 27, 2019 (3:07 pm)

        That stop was there for years but temporarily removed during the construction of the new building.  Not sure I’d call it “new.”

  • NW November 26, 2019 (5:36 pm)

    How about we consider bus drivers and do what is in their best interest and consider throughout the year the many delays we have created for them in West Seattle: Summer Fest, Farmers Market, Summer traffic on Alki, Harvest Fest, Hometown Holiday, Uber customers in bus zones, increasing single car occupancy, increasing battery powered traffic skateboards scooters “”””@“”” . The route 50 has high ridership and is a seniority route lots of these drivers on it have been driving 10 to 20 yrs. I know from speaking to many that they also have a hard time getting a break at the end of their route because the bus is running late! . 

    • TreeHouse November 26, 2019 (6:35 pm)

      I strongly dislike this cultural idea here in America that streets can only be used by motorized vehicles. Summer Fest, Harvest Fest, Farmers Markets etc are clear examples where communities come together and enjoy benefits of our public streets without cars. I’m envious of Europe’s pedestrian-only shopping streets and their multimodal prioritization of streets. Maybe one day we will break free of the auto industry’s car-first culture and realize our streets can be used for so much more. 

      • East Coast Cynic November 26, 2019 (6:52 pm)

        If we as a country find the political will to massively fund and build public transportation like the Europeans, then we can break free of the car-first culture.  But don’t bet on it for the foreseeable future.

        • West Seattle since 1979 November 27, 2019 (2:10 am)

          The 50 isn’t a fast bus anyway. Why not at least keep these stops open for the 50 only, for people who may not be able to walk the extra distance?

    • Matt P November 26, 2019 (8:25 pm)

      The drivers will get a break when their route is shortened because it has fewer stops on it.

  • flimflam November 26, 2019 (5:50 pm)

    i’ve always thought there are way too many stops in general on all metro routes….

  • Mj November 26, 2019 (5:55 pm)

    newnative – carrying groceries can be done.  Simply purchase two very sturdy tote bags, have the weight evenly distributed and carry home your items.  

    • Question Authority November 26, 2019 (11:58 pm)

      What if they only have use of one arm?  What if they have a bad back/hip/knee/ankle or pinky toe?  What about also recommending a foldable cart to carry such bags this distance you feel is easily navigated by all?  

      • Silent Bob November 27, 2019 (9:54 am)

        I hope my message won’t come off as rude, even though I’m sure some will think of it that way. Many people bring up the issue of older or disabled people using various services, like public transit or public parking and sometimes it just bothers me that people feel everything needs to accommodate THEM personally or someone they know. Just over a year ago, I ended up breaking both my wrists (at the same time) and had surgery;  I was told not to carry more than 1 pound in either hand for months as I healed. What was I to do with no one else to get my groceries? Let me tell you, riding the bus was a hassle too, because it’s usually standing room only, and people couldn’t necessarily tell that I couldn’t hold a rail or handle. I managed, I didn’t expect extra bus service or stops. I went to the store more frequently for less items, and probably went against my doctors orders and carried my groceries with the bag on my shoulder or crook of my elbow. It sucked, but fortunately I knew it was “short-term” so I persisted. The overall point is, it sounds like people will only need to go a block or two further than normal with these changes, and for *most* folks I feel that should not cause significant issues.

    • Gene November 27, 2019 (5:50 am)

      MJ-wow-seems like you’ve got it figured out-for an able bodied person that is. 

    • tsurly November 27, 2019 (9:11 am)

      Next time anyone wants to accuse Mr. Surly of being an ablest or not being sensitive to the limitations of others, please remember MJ’s comment.

    • newnative November 27, 2019 (11:39 am)

      Wow, MJ, I’m usually the one that gets ripped for being ableist but you take the cake this time. I mostly walk and carry my groceries on my back. But the topic is bus stops and the newly-reinstated bus stop at PCC (plus the one across the street at the LIGHT) is oddly enough on the chopping block. It makes a lot more sense to keep the bus stop closest to the PCC , across from the high school and public park. It encourages people to ride the bus and it helps less abled people with the load. 

  • Alki resident November 26, 2019 (6:04 pm)

    I am 100% for removing the bus stop in front of Aegis Living at Admiral & Waite St. It is just a half block from the previous bus stop, and the next stop is at the end of the block.

  • West Seattle since 1979 November 27, 2019 (2:12 am)

    Right, remove the stop where elderly and in some cases disabled people live, and make them walk farther.  How about removing the next one instead if they’re that close together? 

  • anonyme November 27, 2019 (5:35 am)

    Many riders lobbied to have the stop in front of PCC reinstalled, and now Metro wants to take it out again.  The only reason the stops north and south of here supposedly pick up more riders is that the STOP WAS GONE FOR TWO YEARS.  Otherwise, this is one of the most utilized stops on the southbound route.  It serves PCC customers and staff, tenants of the new building above, WS High School, etc.  The stop at Lander is almost entirely inaccessible to those with any kind of mobility issue as it is squeezed in between multiple obstacles and the concrete is damaged and uneven.  It is also a long, long walk for any senior or disabled person, especially those carrying groceries.  Metro has a moral and legal obligation to serve this demographic; these are local routes, not Rapid Ride.  If I were PCC management, I’d be putting pressure to bear on Metro to save this stop or risk losing even more customers.

  • West Seattle since 1979 November 27, 2019 (5:45 am)

    Why not at least leave the stops for the 50, which isn’t a fast bus anyway?   Not everyone is able to walk the extra blocks to the next stop.  Aren’t buses for getting around the neighborhood, as well as commuting?  It’s getting so Seattle is set up only for people who are young, or who don’t have any mobility problems or isn’t disabled.  It didn’t used to be like this.  Not everyone can afford to take Ubers everywhere, either.  (Plus people getting in and out of Ubers cause traffic problems too.)

  • anonyme November 27, 2019 (8:36 am)

    Many riders lobbied to have the stop in front of PCC reinstalled, and now Metro wants to take it out again.  The only reason the stops north
    and south of here supposedly pick up more riders is that the STOP WAS
    GONE FOR TWO YEARS.  Otherwise, this is one of the most utilized stops on the southbound route.  It serves PCC customers and staff, tenants of the new building above, WS High School, etc.  The stop at Lander is almost entirely inaccessible to those with any kind of mobility issue as it is squeezed in between multiple obstacles and the concrete is damaged and uneven.  It is also a long, long walk for any senior or disabled person, especially those carrying groceries.  Metro has a moral and legal obligation to serve this demographic; these are local routes,
    not Rapid Ride.  If I were PCC management, I’d be putting pressure to bear on Metro to save this stop or risk losing even more customers.

  • CAM November 27, 2019 (11:17 am)

    Good grief. You don’t build or maintain ridership by eliminating local routes or making them less accessible. This neighborhood needs MORE local bus routes that stop every block or two not less. I don’t usually disagree with Metro’s decisions but this one is just stupid. Stop eliminating services, just make the route longer and account for it in the schedule. 

    • Jon Wright November 27, 2019 (12:31 pm)

      Cam, what you said is true. It is also true that a common complaint about transit is that it takes longer than driving. So reducing the time it takes to go places by bus can also increase transit usage. And when Metro can streamline routes and make them faster, those service hours are available for new routes or increased frequencies. As MJ said upstream, it is a balancing act.

  • John P Woods November 27, 2019 (10:38 pm)

    I use the Dakota bus stop when I’m riding the 50 route to get home. That stop is so close to the previous stop that I barely have time to ring the bell. I can live without the Dakota stop.

  • anonyme November 28, 2019 (7:02 am)

    I agree completely with Cam.  As another commenter noted, public transit exists to serve a wide spectrum of riders, not just commuters wishing to go from A to Z as rapidly as possible.  Many riders use the bus to get around the neighborhood, do errands, go to appointments, etc., which also supports local businesses.   That is why there are both Rapid Ride/Express buses, as well as local routes.  Public transportation will always take longer than driving, but it’s a trade-off, as driving has many downsides as well.  Speed is not the only consideration.  It should also be noted that the Route #128 uses virtually the same route along California as the #50, so Metro’s framing of the changes as a “rebalancing” of Route #50 makes even less sense on closer inspection.   Why close local stops rather than simply restricting which bus stops at them?   Another moronic Metro mess.

Sorry, comment time is over.