Metro’s West Seattle ‘concepts,’ @ Southwest District Council

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Metro‘s proposed restructuring of West Seattle’s route system is an emotional topic for some.

That was clear when what Metro calls its “concepts” for change came out last week, drawing triple-digit reaction here.

It was also clear last night when things got somewhat testy among community members who came to the Southwest District Council meeting for the first chance to hear from Metro reps, before two events in West Seattle on November 9th and 17th.

The Metro discussion was part of a one-two transit-related punch that took up most of the meeting, starting with an SDOT update on road changes to accommodate Metro’s RapidRide, the new style of bus service that also is the reason for the planned route restructuring. Some of those changes were questioned pointedly by SWDC members, too.

Jonathan Dong from SDOT briefly recapped the “rechannelization” work that has been, and will be, done to create transit lanes on two West Seattle streets. The 6-10 am bus-only lane on northbound Avalon Way, just south of the bridge, was finished by mid-October. The SW Alaska work (previously reported here), which will bring changes from 35th to California, is expected to be done next spring, he said.

What raised the most eyebrows was his update on “bus bulbs” meant to enable buses to stop in-lane instead of pulling over and pulling back out into traffic. They are planned in more than half a dozen places along the route of RapidRide Line C, including California/Findlay and California/Fauntleroy, with the latter drawing more than a few questions (the “bulbs” will be on the east side of California by Washington Federal Savings, and the north side of Fauntleroy by Zeeks Pizza). The Morgan Community Association‘s rep Chas Redmond was worried the bus bulbs – with other lines using them too – would back up traffic on California. Fauntleroy Community Association rep Vlad Oustimovitch noted that the FCA has been working with project managers a long time to make sure the bus bulbs on Fauntleroy by the ferry terminal don’t cause a traffic nightmare there.

Metro service-planning manager David Hull, one of three Metro reps at the meeting, said the point was to reduce “dwell time” – how long the bus sits at the curb, to keep up with a “frequent service” plan for RapidRide. Redmond warned, “We don’t want Metro to destroy a perfectly functioning peninsula (transportation system).” But in the end, though there were some murmurings about revisiting the plan, Dong said SDOT had finished design of the bus bulbs and planned to break ground “before the end of the year.” The city has prioritized transit, he pointed out.

That led into the Metro presentation, with Hull, Doug Johnson, and DeAnna Martin on hand. (You can see it in its entirety in our clip above – forgive some of the camera angles when we had viewfinder trouble.)

To recap – here’s the link to the first draft of potential changes. Hull stressed that “these are concepts. We are putting them out there because we want to hear what people think. We are looking at the system as a whole to be more efficient and more effective. We should run a system that is productive.” That also means, he said, using a “data-based approach … we want to show you the numbers.”

To create a productive system, he said, “there will be trade-offs – you might go to the same place, but need a transfer.”

Several of the community members on hand were concerned about that – trips that no longer would go transferless.

Some of the major changes summarized included those discussed when the early “concept” came out – Route 21 ending at Westwood instead of serving Arbor Heights. One AH resident on hand spoke in strong opposition to the change, saying that while AH would have “peak” service, that “peak” didn’t work for many people with unconventional working hours, or older residents who need public transit to get around. He accused Metro of not listening; they assured him they are listening, and that what they heard from him was, “Arbor Heights needs service.”

Other questions included the reduction in service for North Admiral. “I’ll be in my car,” one woman declared, if that happens.

No one asked about the plan to cut Route 37, leaving Beach Drive without bus service – but then again, this wasn’t one of the full-blown formal hearings, it was just a briefing for the Southwest District Council, more to explain the philosophy behind the plan than the plan itself.

The big meetings are next Wednesday (November 9th) at Chief Sealth International High School and eight days after that (Thursday, November 17th) at Madison Middle School, both at 6:30 pm.

There is a lot of talking to be done; even after the end of the discussion during the SWDC meeting, the community members converged on the Metro reps and had to be sent out into the hall so the council meeting could continue. You don’t have to wait for meetings to have your say; you can work your way through Metro’s Have a Say website and take a survey, send comments, etc. A final decision on route/service changes is not due until next spring, and they would take effect by the time RapidRide launches next September.

29 Replies to "Metro's West Seattle 'concepts,' @ Southwest District Council"

  • West Seattleite November 3, 2011 (5:43 pm)

    We gave them more money via car tab fees and they are reducing service? Clearly, Metro’s finances need to be investigated.

  • iggy November 3, 2011 (6:00 pm)

    Not sure if it will help, but my friends and I are filling out the online survey and asking Metro to not cancel the 22. There are many older and limited mobility folks as well as people working in SODO who rely on the 22. It is a haul for many to walk to the 54. The Mayor and others have been begging us to give up our cars, but for those of us who need to travel in the middle of the day and can’t walk blocks of hills, cars are becoming the only option. I know they based many of the decisions on ridership and peak times, but many older folks have been paying taxes in Seattle and King County for 40 years or more and this is a slap in the face. Tough decisions ahead for the community.

  • Alice November 3, 2011 (6:22 pm)

    Hi WSB – do you know where I can find the proposed map of Downtown routing?

    You linked to the West Seattle (plus) one, and I found the North Seattle (plus) one … I can’t find downtown. I’d like to know my full route before weighing in on the proposed changes. I’ve always had a changeover downtown – either as a route that changes numbers (isn’t that the WEIRDEST thing for a bus to do?) or by actually transferring.

    It’s looking like Water Taxi might be a better solution than before, but I can’t tell until I see all of downtown.

    Also, what does it mean if a route is on the “All Day” map but not the “Peak” map?

    Thanks!

  • DF November 3, 2011 (6:55 pm)

    Ever consider multiforms of transportation to your destination? Put on your raincoat and helmet and hop on the bike and ride to the bus stop. Just an idea.

  • MSW November 3, 2011 (7:03 pm)

    I did the multiform transportation during the viaduct closure. It takes a lot of time. My time is important to me and I don’t want to waste it with multiform transport. I’d rather spend time with my kids and not on bus, water taxi, light rail and trolley. Yes, I took all those to get to work for 5 days. So…no thanks. One bus #57 is fine for me.

  • DF November 3, 2011 (7:25 pm)

    Well, happy ridin!

  • so November 3, 2011 (7:40 pm)

    public transportation is not just for the 8 to 5 crowd. it should be available for all hours to get home from work, hospital, shopping, partying or whatever. and not have to use a transfer every tme. the current system trys to do that. leave it alone or add to it.

  • raincity November 3, 2011 (8:20 pm)

    A representative from Metro was on the water taxi this morning handing out pamphlets about where the meetings will be and he got an earfull from a group of passengers willing to take the time to discuss there concerns. The route 37 was talked about and I think the rep got the idea we felt like they were cutting off a whole area of west seattle.

  • Nick November 3, 2011 (8:48 pm)

    Please, DO NOT CUT ROUTE 37

  • chas redmond November 3, 2011 (8:52 pm)

    if you go to Metro’s change route page and do a comparison between the changes in the north sector (Ballard, RR D) and the south sector (West Seattle, RR C) at least the number of lines cut or replaced is equal – 9 for each of the two sectors. Ballard doesn’t make out any better under Metro’s performance rating system – the bad bus lines in the Northwest are being cut or combined equally to those here in Alki, Admiral and Arbor Heights (a run on “A’s?”).

  • Grant November 3, 2011 (10:24 pm)

    I hope people keep add ideas, and let the planners know what services are needed, and when. The current route plan is somewhat broken. The 22 is insane, needed but insane. Rapid Ride is nice too but honestly it’s one of those thing that might make matters worst. You see we keep adding to adjust for growth and ridership, but more isn’t always better…. Better is better. Have routes make 20 or 30 twist and turns, and stopping every three blocks has to go. I don’t know what the fix will be, but as a community we have to voice our opinions & desires and understand that these fixes or changes or concepts needs to make sense for years to come, and isn’t just a band aid

  • jno November 3, 2011 (11:31 pm)

    To be clear, this is NOT a plan for a reduction in service, it is a revenue-neutral restructuring of existing service hours. Yes, some may lose a one-seat ride and/or experience reduced service in areas with the lowest demand but ultimately more people will benefit from a more robust and efficient network. If this draft were implemented without changes, we’d see reliability improvements, increased frequencies in many places as well as two new east-west routes.
    .
    And whether you like the particulars or not, the fact is that Metro is required to come up with a plan for a more decentralized network for the legislature to consider giving them any new funding when the $20 tab tax expires in two years.

  • alki_2008 November 3, 2011 (11:45 pm)

    @DF – please consider that not everyone is able-bodied enough to use “multiform transportation”. Appreciate that you are capable, but please don’t denegrate those that aren’t capable of (not just unwilling to) use alternate means.
    .
    Save the 37!!! Heck, it only runs a dozen times each weekday…during peak hours, and doesn’t run at all on weekends. Many people rely on it. Is it really going to save much to cancel it?

  • dq November 4, 2011 (12:10 am)

    I respectfully disagree with jno and say that this IS a reduction in service as there will be large areas of West Seattle (Beach Drive, Alki, Arbor Heights) that, under this “concept”, will completely lose bus service to their area.
    Note that the 37 and the 53 will go away entirely, and the 51 will only serve the east side of California Ave.
    The Water Taxi “replacing” the 37 (as is suggested in the “concept”) is nonsensical, unless they increase the size of the shuttle and allow it to drive along Beach Drive.
    It is not as simple as losing a one seat ride, it is more a fact that we will be walking a mile or more to get to any ride. And, DF, there is only space for 2 or 3 bikes per bus, so your idea of a multiform transportation to the bus, although appreciated, is not a reliable solution for multitudes of people getting to the bus.
    The reality of this “concept” is that it will put more folks from the entire west side of West Seattle back in their cars.

  • jno November 4, 2011 (1:51 am)

    dq – well, if you look only at the neighborhoods that would see cuts, of course it’s going to look like a reduction. (But really, Alki would see MORE service with the 50, the extended and more frequent 128, and year-round water taxi shuttle service.) The plan as a whole cuts no service hours.
    .
    The reality is that the 37, 53 and tail of the 21 are among the worst performing routes in the system. It’s absolutely regrettable that people who rely on those routes would see them disappear. But the number of people who are forced into their cars will be outweighed by the number for whom a service enhancement will make the bus a reasonable alternative. There would be more intra-peninsula choices overall and less focus on making you go downtown when leaving the peninsula. People in Delridge and Westwood, where demand is already the highest in West Seattle, will probably love this.
    .
    I think this is the direction Metro should be going. More emphasis on direct, frequent routes between residential and employment centers and points of interest; less emphasis on service that is inefficient because demand is insufficient. Factors like social equity should be weighed, but decisions ultimately should be driven by data and performance – not by noisy factions or special interests.
    .
    The key, though, is that this is still a plan. It’s meant for public consumption and discussion. My sense is that Metro is married to the concept but open to specific ideas for improvement. One that I read in the Seattle Transit Blog comments and would endorse would be to redeploy water taxi shuttle hours. Run one around Alki and down Beach Drive, then back up Fauntleroy to Avalon; run the other to the Junction direct on California. It would restore service to Beach Drive (easily serviced by the shuttle vans at current ridership levels), and (west) Admiral would still be served by two full-fledged routes.

  • MDurocher November 4, 2011 (6:10 am)

    I really would like to keep the 37. Unlike the 54, it’s a reliable commuter bus for West Seattle. Where taking the 54 means walking up the hill to California and waiting to see when one turns up, the 37 is always there on time.

    And by the time it heads across the bridge, almost always packed.

    P.S. And unlike the water taxi, it’s not breaking down all the time.

  • DF November 4, 2011 (7:57 am)

    Bike 2 bus stop. Walk to bus stop. Skateboard to bus stop. Move closer to bus stop. Urban villages in west seattle. Move into them so you are closer to the bus. Carpool. Paddle to work. Adapt or don’t.

  • Alex November 4, 2011 (10:58 am)

    @DF

    Why do you think that the people should be required to adapt rather than the Metro? We are the clients, the metro exists to serve us, not the other way around.

    As others have pointed out, multiform transit just doesn’t work for everyone. It might be a fine solution for you, but don’t think that it works for everyone, or is an optimal solution.

    Useful ideas should focus should be on how to adapt Metro to best serve our needs, not on how we might adapt to metro’s changes.

  • jno November 4, 2011 (11:36 am)

    Alex, your perspective is your own. From mine, Metro is adapting to us by serving more people with its finite resources. And again, it’s not like they have a choice – they have to become more efficient or they’ll lose the meager funding they have now, and then we’ll all be in a much worse situation. Besides, the urban village model has been local policy for more than 15 years. If people choose to live in less dense areas, that is their choice to make – but they shouldn’t reasonably expect to receive the same level of transit service as those in the denser areas, because it ends up being significantly more expensive per rider to do so. These are useful ideas focused on how to best serve our needs, even if they’re not ideally suited to your needs.

  • Alki Observer November 4, 2011 (12:17 pm)

    My two cents: I hope this plan is not implemented. Losing the Arbor Heights loop of 21 for all but what Metro deems “peak hours” and the 37 entirely are bad ideas for our community. Steps backward away from fostering Metro ridership.

  • Peter on Fauntleroy November 4, 2011 (12:40 pm)

    I’m not going to say I agree with all of these changes, but keep in mind it’s been proven that streamlining routes does improve travel time and saves a ton of money for Metro, and can even increase ridership:
    http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/11/02/aurora-a-case-study-in-frequency-versus-coverage/

    As to concerns about accessibility for the elderly and disabled, Metro has that covered with their Access service, which is better for than regular busses because it provides direct door-to-door service at the same disabled fare charged on busses:
    http://metro.kingcounty.gov/tops/accessible/accessvan.html

  • js November 4, 2011 (2:29 pm)

    “And whether you like the particulars or not, the fact is that Metro is required to come up with a plan for a more decentralized network for the legislature to consider giving them any new funding when the $20 tab tax expires in two years.”

    Folks, this is the key takeaway to remember. In two years’ time, the band-aid that is keeping Metro from having to cut service hours is gone. Either we get new revenue from the Legislature at that time, or service hours go away.

    What Metro is *trying* to do with this proposal is to show the Legislature that the revenue they do have is being spent where it does the most good for the most people.

    Clearly, like any service change proposal, there will be winners and losers. Losing your bus route sucks, there’s no doubt. Working with the Metro folks on ideas to preserve at least some access for your neighborhood (Alki, Arbor Heights) makes a lot of sense. Acting as if Metro is out to get you and not listening to its customers is not going to get anyone anywhere. They *have* to do something, or we’ll all be in far worse shape come 2013.

  • Michael Taylor-Judd November 4, 2011 (3:04 pm)

    I completely understand the impact to folks who depend on bus service and will see their access to a bus line completely disappear or reduce to just a few peak commuter trips.
    .
    HOWEVER, let’s also keep a little perspective. Route 22 only has about 1,800 riders per day. I believe the 37 and 53 have less than 1,000.
    .
    In contrast, Route 120 carries 7,000 per day. The 54 and 55 combined carry a similar number (most heading to the Junction).

  • Carole November 4, 2011 (3:41 pm)

    DF says: “Bike 2 bus stop. Walk to bus stop. Skateboard to bus stop. Move closer to bus stop. Urban villages in west seattle. Move into them so you are closer to the bus. Carpool. Paddle to work. Adapt or don’t”

    Hey, DF I moved from the suburbs to a busy arterial specifically because there is a bus stop across the street. I put up with the nearly 24 hr traffic, the delivery trucks, the emergency vehicles at all hours heading to the senior housing..because I had a bus stop across the street..and now they decide to cut the 55. Now what, sell and move again and hope in a couple of years they don’t cut more? Get real.

  • jno November 4, 2011 (5:24 pm)

    Carole: I can empathize with choosing housing partly based on a transit option only to see that option disappear. I moved here when there were still concrete plans to build a monorail. That said, please don’t think that complaining about traffic and noise because you “moved from the suburbs” buys you any sympathy, let alone front-door transit service. We all live in the city, and we all choose to put up with certain things because the upsides outweigh the downsides. And (assuming you are on California north of Admiral) if you think that’s a busy arterial, I have a “busy arterial” in Brooklyn to sell you.

  • DF November 4, 2011 (7:48 pm)

    I guess I need to walk in your moccasins, whomever you are. And if I seemed to generalize well I ok. Way I see it though people need to get of they’re you know what a little more around here!! And as was mentioned in other posts look at things in a broader way. Now go walk to your next grocery outing and hustle damit as that bus is turning onto california as you casually cross the street!!

  • hedgewoman November 5, 2011 (2:54 pm)

    Sounds like we have a Metro employee in the house. . .

    It’s not just “too bad” when you lose your bus route when you do not have a car. How are people without a car supposed to get to work? Not everyone who is incapable of walking a couple of miles twice a day is disabled enough to qualify for Access transportation. Some of us are just middle-aged with arthritis. Move closer to work? Sure, that’s an easy option for everyone. Anyone want to trade me a condo downtown for a shabby bungalow that needs about $15K worth of work? Or, I know, get a job closer to home! We all know there are plenty of jobs in every field in every neighborhood, just waiting to be filled.

    Bus routes are not nice amenities to give people greener options, they are the difference between being employed and having a home and being unemployed and homeless!

    Metro needs to make some changes, okay, but what many of us are saying is that some of the proposed changes are not acceptable to us, the tax payers Metro is serving.

  • jno November 5, 2011 (5:21 pm)

    hedgewoman, I’m not sure who you are accusing of being a Metro employee. I have been vocal on this thread so I’ll state that I’m not employed by Metro nor any government agency, I’m merely a West Seattleite (and lifelong Seattleite) who is passionate about urban planning, infrastructure and transit specifically. My father is a transit operator but my views are my own and not generally shared by him.
    .
    Difficult choices are a part of life – for the people at Metro as much as for each of us – and life is rarely fair. But frankly I believe these changes are more fair on balance because they will serve more people than they inconvenience. I understand that perspective is difficult to keep when you are personally bearing the greatest sacrifice, but all I and I think others are asking for is for people to try to consider the bigger picture as well. Metro is trying to serve the greatest number of tax payers to the best of its abilities and with the resources it has.
    .
    As for your own personal circumstances, are you sure you wouldn’t qualify for Access? If you can provide medical documentation that you aren’t able to walk x blocks to the nearest stop, you should qualify. Do you need to move all the way downtown? No, there will be frequent service in many parts of West Seattle and to more places. (* I am not suggesting that it is easy for anyone to sell in this market. But some properties around us including fixer-uppers have sold within days this year so it’s not impossible.) And I suggest this with no disrespect or underestimation of the implications it carries, but if you are dependent on transit, can’t afford a car, and other alternatives (car sharing, carpool, vanpool, etc.) are not workable, perhaps owning a home in a neighborhood with little density is not right for you.
    .
    Regardless of the magnitude of the impact to you, if you don’t like the changes, tell Metro! They probably have people monitoring threads like this but going to the meetings or using their online commenting system will have a greater impact. But I recommend you suggest alternatives for maximum impact. You acknowledge that Metro needs to make some changes, and solutions will be far more helpful to them than purely negative feedback. They know that any changes are going to impact some negatively and they will hear about it whether it’s from you or someone else. But if you actually make an alternate recommendation, they will have something substantial to consider. I have offered one such idea farther upthread about Beach Drive access and I plan to suggest others that will be more relevant to me personally.

  • DF November 5, 2011 (6:20 pm)

    Passenger. People #itch about buses not on time I feel we all need to look at our actions and how are we promoting bus travel time. Get on board grab a railing and let the driver know “just getting my change together.” Hell I let them know if they hustle ,the driver, he /she may make the next light. OPEN YOUR EYES TO THESE THINGS IN GENERAL PEOPLE!

Sorry, comment time is over.