Rapid Ride – California Ave. or Fauntleroy Way

[credmond]

The Metro RapidRide group is having a series of public meetings here in WS for the WS RapidRide. Jan 24 at the Hall at Fauntleroy, 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Jan 29 at the WS Senior Center (Oregon@California) also 5:30 pm to 8:30 pm. And, on Jan 30 noon to 3:00 pm at the Senior Center.

Presently they want the route to come up from the ferry dock on Fauntleroy and turn north on California and then right at Alaska. The stations would be rather large (though nice) and would be on California basically right in the block with ArtsWest and Elliott Bay Brewery – sort of blocking the street view in both directions.

An alternative routing would be straight on Fauntleroy to Alaska and then right. Both routes would go down Alaska to 35th to Avalon and then onto the causeway ramp at Spokane.

The Fauntleroy routing would probably be faster, wouldn’t disrupt the landscape along California, and would take advantage of whatever new construction goes in at the corner of Fauntleroy and Alaska (old Huling/Gee lots). The disadvantage is that folks would have to walk a few blocks from the current 54 routing on California.

Any preferences? If you have them, by all means show up at these meetings. I’d also be interested in a poll (WSB?) which offered the two options. The service is supposed to begin either late 2010 or early 2011 – about the time the Viaduct is closed for work. It’s also supposed to run 18 hours a day on no less frequent headways than 15 minutes – maybe even 12 or 10.

Thoughts?

Share This

[WSB]

How about a streetcar down California … say, Myrtle to SW Seattle. Oh wait, we had that, what, 60 years ago? But seriously, the poll idea is a good one. We’ll put this in queue for the main page as everyone else starts waking up from post-holiday stupor in a few days.

Share This

[WSB]

Just got word of an update to the Metro website with more info on this – will post to our main site first thing in am but I remembered this thread.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/2008/wsea-rr-0108.html

Share This

[Keith]

credmond, the map on the Metro site shows both alternatives going up California and turning right at Alaska. The difference comes at Fauntleroy, where the bus could either take Fauntleroy to Avalon or continue down Alaska to 35th.

I agree with you, it probably would be much faster to travel up Fauntleroy the whole way, starting at the Morgan Junction (and keep the Alaska Junction free of a big new bus station) but from what I’m seeing your option is not on the table… unless I’m misinterpreting your comments.

Share This

[credmond]

I know the option I mentioned is presently not on Metro’s list, that’s why a number of RapidRide advisory members are trying to get a sense of which would be better. Metro never did a route analysis, merely mirroring the existing route of the 54 (not the 54X). A strong showing from residents for the entire alignment being on Fauntleroy would go a long way toward convincing Metro to take another look.

Share This

[JohnM]

Too bad Metro didn’t buy all the property intended for monorail stations. Then they could have had the route all aligned, and wouldn’t it be great if they built an elevated busway from Morgan to the Junction to 35th. I’m sure the schematics and designs could be found somewhere.

Share This

[Keith]

John, that’s what really burns me the most about the monorail fiasco – not that it wasn’t built but that all the land was sold off immediately, making it so much harder (impossible?) to ever have decent public transportation here.

Share This

[rcrawley]

I completed the Metro survey and filled in the comment box with my preference: routing on Fauntleroy, or using the existing east-west stop on Alaska, is preferred to stopping on California in the junction. Not sure if it’s a reliable way to get the feedback to them, but worth a shot.

Share This

[Julie]

The California alignment would be better for me personally, but I’d support the Fauntleroy alignment for speed improvement, depending on how much speed. credmond, do you know the differential? One of my concerns about this “rapid” ride is safety of pedestrians, bikes, and cars sharing the road with these buses. (That grade-separation problem, again!) Seems to me this need for safety will surely slow the buses down. How would the safety compare California vs. Fauntleroy? I have a hunch California has fewer accidents, and if that hunch is correct, I’d guess it has to do with the lower speed on California. How would the “rapid” (I plan to keep quoting it to remind everybody that this is NOT a Rapid Transit solution) buses affect both streets? Would it make less difference on Fauntleroy because it’s already faster?

Share This

[credmond]

Julie, I’m on the”rapid” ride advisory board, as are 24 other West Seattleites. From what we’ve learned so far, the California routing would go at the same speed the 54/22/128 go now and would basically stop all traffic when the bus stops because they would build bulb-outs from the curb to meet the bus in the travel lane. This makes for easier and faster ingress/egress but definitely will stop traffic on California because it has only one travel lane. On Fauntleroy it wouldn’t stop through traffic since that arterial has two travel lanes per direction. The time savings would be on the order of a few minutes to as many as 10, depending on time-of-day and day-of-week. The safety factor is one we have only previewed and is clearly one thing folks should bring up at the scheduled “rapid” ride meetings.

Share This

[Ken]

Do any of the advisory board live on the poor side of West Seattle? Do they use the damn near useless 21 (aka 1 hour to downtown) route? Are the feeder routes going to make the RR useful or with typical Metro ineptitude, will the empty RR’s be busily running into Downtown while those who don’t live in condoland wait for the semi hourly North south routes.

Call me cynical but I have lived in cities with real transit and even good bus systems, and Seattle has a joke part time bus system.

Share This

[credmond]

Ken,

The advisory board members all live west of 35th from North Admiral down to Fauntleroy. That was the intention since the RR route follows the 54 (not 54X). However, we – all 19 of us – have pushed continuously for loop bus systems to join up with the RR and to extend the 21 and 60 so they better cover both White Center and Arbor Heights. Metro does plan on a second round of community involvement once the primary route is decided. That second round would include what additional local bus links (or loops) would be necessary to link everyone in WS with the RR route.

Delridge is an exception since the 120 serves the Delridge corridor (down to the Burien TC) on 15 minute centers Monday through Saturday. Delridge bus service has improved and that improvement shows in ridership – the 120 is now one of the top-ten buses in the entire system for ridership. Proving that if you actually provide service, people will use it.

Share This

[Al]

I will constantly say this again, and again. I’m in full agreement with Julie – this is NOT “rapid” transit since there are no dedicated bus lanes and the route simply follows existing routes. The 54x will remain faster than the proposed debacle of the RapidRide route. Bulb-outs in the road? Isn’t this route also designated as a major bicycle route? If so, those bulb-outs will completely ruin that effort. Big bus stops in the Junction? Those streets are very pedestrian friendly right now, large stops (from what I can gather on the web-site) will ruin the ped friendly sidewalk which requires good sidewalk space with no impediments. Why can’t the stops be moved to Alaska and to the 7-11? Why can’t the stops be integrated with the existing Metro stops? This is a terrible idea, especially as it does not give any ADDITIONAL bus options. I agree that the route 21 needs fixing, or the RapidRide moved to 35th instead – I stopped using the 21 last year due to that inept route…hello, Metro? Heard of High Point?…

Share This

[swimcat]

Oh, this whole thing is such a debacle. There are other neighborhoods in WS that need Metro’s attention. The 54 seems to have enough buses IMO; the 21 definitely needs some updating, especially more express buses. I don’t know how anyone who lives in High Point can even get on a 21 express downtown as they seem to fill up before Morgan.

Share This

[JimmyG]

I’m with m and others on this. RapidRide down California will do nothing to alleviate the commute, and doesn’t improve transit.

Metro should stick to getting it’s bus routes that all ready run throughout the city up to par before they go off on a whole new tangent of service.

I’ve never understood the waste of seeing a Metro bus followed right behind it on the identical route by a Sound Transit bus. What is the point of that? Get rid of the duplication of services and streamline what exists.

Share This

[credmond]

Jimmy G, Al, others,

–

The 54 serves a larger transit ridership because it goes through more neighborhoods than the 21. Metro chose the 54 for reasons which included the overall population served. Metro also knows that the 21 is due upgrades.

–

The new Rapid Ride service is “new” money and as soon as it’s implemented, circa 2011, the existing 54 service hours can be completely redirected here in WS. That’s probably enough hours to expand the 21 to 20 minute service, lengthen the service day for the 22, and probably increase the 128 to 20 minute service also. That’s what Metro plans to go over next year, this year they’re working on the alignment and station locations. That’s where the energy should be focused now.

–

Does RR improve the 54 service corridor? or does it improve some other service corridor? The present alignment includes the option of intersecting the RR service with the 21 or saving maybe three minutes and getting on the Fauntleroy Causeway directly. Most of us on the advisory board are arguing for the intersect even though it will “waste” 3 minutes. Anyway, send your comments in and attend one of the meetings next week – WSB has it on the events page. Metro is listening, honestly!

Share This

[JimmyG]

There’s no such thing as “new” money.

Our tax money comes from one source and one source only regardless of whether it’s from the Feds, State, or local government–it comes us, the taxpayers.

They can re-route taxes from one program to another, but the money isn’t “new”.

Share This

[credmond]

It’s not a re-route of taxes, it’s a “new” tax you voted for (or at least the majority did) when Transit Now was passed. So, in the sense that this use of public taxpayer money did not exist before, it is “new” money.

Share This

[Al]

I went to the Rapid Ride open house. Here’s what they are saying, at least what the gentleman I spoke with said: 1) The proposed RR route will replace the regular 54 route and follow the route as it exists now – using Avalon heading both east and west (no more bridge ride up the hill) 2) There is only ONE stop proposed between Alaska & Morgan Jct at Findlay 3) Apparently, the 54x will remain as is 4) They were ’surprised’ to hear everyone complaining about the 21 route – this route will not even be reviewed by Metro until at least 2010 or 2011 – a travesty in my opinion 5) the curb bulbs will not jut into the street, but take as much space as a parked car so should not interfere with traffic or bicycles 6) bus only lanes are being studied for both directions of Alaska between Fauntleroy and Alaska Jct. 7) the removal of the Viaduct and Spokane St construction will not even be discussed, this is like spraying insecticide into a jar of bugs – he ran away when it was mentioned These people do not understand how bad traffic gets or how mass transit is used/needed by West Seattlites. 9) Connection to the 21 may be lost if the 35th/Avalon stop is not utilized 10) The route could go all the way to Westwood Village – as planned now, it starts at the ferry dock. Get out there and give them feedback now! Metro seems set on this route and from what I understand, it’s not rapid, it reduces service, could make you use more transfers, may not connect with the 21 route, and the funds to be expended on this RR could be better used to expand existing service and routes. credmond, can you please direct me to a link of the tax we voted for? I would not mind adding routes that made sense, but replacing an already existing route with one that makes no sense is not a responsible choice. I don’t think anyone would have voted for that. Improving bus service in general is a whole different ball of wax and something we can agree on.

Share This

[credmond]

Al, et al.

try this URL “http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/transitnow/” for present and past on the Transit Now initiative from the government perspective.

–

try this URL “http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//transitnow.htm” for present and past on the Transit Now initiative from an PAC/non-profit.

–

try this URL “http://soundpolicy.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/king-county-proposition-2-transit-now/” for bla-bla from the perspective of a blogger on the local political scene.

–

fascinating stuff, actually. Tracking transportation stuff around here is more than a full-time job, and that’s an understatement.

Share This

[Ken]

If you want to see why the entire Rapid ride program will be mismanaged to benefit the fewest number of people, especially here in West Seattle, check out the young earth anti science creationist view of the project. (Note: this is the same morons at the Discovery Institute that think Dinosaures wore saddles.

http://www.cascadiaproject.org/surfaceandmarinetransportation/busrapidtransit.php

It appears to be a super expensive express bus for Vashon Island.

None of the links above disprove this theory except the King county link that is already riddled with inconsistancies.

Share This

[Al]

Interesting links Ken & credmond. Let’s see if I can summarize…

The Transit Now tax that was passed does indeed single out RapidRide. However, the stress is on providing “unique…branding, frequency and quality of service to customers…will result in a significant improvement in the customer’s transit experience, and make the transit system easier to understand and use.” RR in the West Seattle corridor is described as “West Seattle/Downtown Seattle via West Seattle Bridge.” This does not limit RR to the route 54 only – it’s for the entire West Seattle corridor.

Now, as for the other links, it seems to me that Transit Now and RR are focused on REGIONAL transit, not city transite. Metro wants to get people from outlying areas in and out of the city quickly, “…keep pace with regional growth by expanding service.” So the focus on Vashon as a main service point is valid. They are looking to move that region, not the residents of West Seattle.

But they shouldn’t REPLACE an already existing route that functions very well (the regular 54). In fact, RR could very well use the resources to add an additional route through West Seattle or to “fix” the route 21 since Metro’s own site states the Transit Now initiative would “…increase sales tax to keep pace with growth and free up resources to address over crowding…” This is an exemplary problem on the 21 route (High Point, full buses, lack of express service, etc).

One last thing – in spite of Metro’s statements (to me directly) that this is not to be a solution to the viaduct problem, RR certainly seems to be a “solution”, “…when the…viaduct is closed for reconstruction, RapidRide service to West Seattle will maintain reliable access and provide other benefits as well.” Not without dedicated lanes not only in West Seattle, but over the bridge and down 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, whatever they end up using, in both directions.

RR could be designed better and the funds used smarter.

Share This

[Ken]

Some good points AL.

The 21 has severe problems and peak ridership should be one of the stats available for planners from the fare-box. Why it seems to be ignored is anyone’s guess. We will leave that one alone for the moment…

But looking at the entire West Seattle transit issue, it seems some straight forward ideas are also being ignored.

If we follow the concepts developed in larger cities for efficient mass transit, (substituting RR for those less backward cities above or below grade cores) the feeder collector model seems to be way more efficient than the express flyby system.

In Boston for example, buses spider out from subway stations or arc across between the red, green, blue and orange lines.

A realistic RR could have three stations in WS including the ferry dock, if metro were capable of thinking in circles instead of their tunnel and long spokes system designed to move people from the outer burbs into the city and back out again. This would require that all current bus routes (even the White Center/Burien bound) connect with two of the stations, (pick any two), and maximize the frequency of the RR to the tunnel. Dedicated bus lanes through some of the known bottle necks could make this a system that could cut down on cars going to the downtown core, make restaurants in the junction as accessible as those in the international district to business lunch patrons, and put the hurt on Diamond parking and the parking enforcement legions.

The reasons why this basic approach has escaped current metro and city planners can only be left to conspiracy theorist.

Share This

[Al]

Ken, I completely agree – the spider system also works well when intersecting with other transit options, bus station, trains, trolley, etc. and is easily expandable in multiple directions, not just expandable by going further out.

Share This

[credmond]

Ken, Al

–

One thing which may not have been mentioned at the RR meetings is that in two years, after the present alignment issues are resolved, KCM will hold a second round of community meetings to gather input for the redirection of existing WS bus resources. At that time it’s entirely probable that the 22, 21, 51, 37, 57 and other local routes will be re-routed more efficiently. There’s additional discussion internally at Metro – based on WS feedback on the possible Westwood Village end-of-line, that the 125 and 60 lines could be extended from White Center to Westwood. That would make Westwood a real transit center and would provide an end-of-line stop for the RR system. Delridge corridor already has nearly-RR like service. The 120 was an early beneficiary of the Transit Now funding and that line was increased in service to every 15 minutes, Monday through Saturday and 30 minute service on Sundays, for a daytime duration of 20 hours service (5:30 am through 1:30 am). Metro is also looking for ways to link the 120 with the RR, maybe looping the 120 through Westwood also.

–

Anyway, the point is that Metro is thinking ahead, does realize that WS needs and wants more service, are themselves somewhat stuck with “how” to get to downtown because the whole Viaduct issue has yet to be resolved. And, they are well aware that the spoke system of downtown-oriented buses which worked so well during the 70’s, 80’s, and part-way through the 90’s is now seriously out-of-date. There is a slow evolution within Metro that downtown isn’t the same destination point it once was.

–

And, keep writing and commenting to Metro because opinions do count and we’re pretty aware of our transportation options here in WS and Metro knows that.

Share This

[Author]

Posts