You may recall that Metro was supposed to have an “information table” at the QFC on 45th from 4-6pm Sunday. Reader Ju wrote to let us know that the event was, shall we say… unspectacular. Here’s what Ju had to say yesterday:
Hi Wallyhood,
According to http://metro.kingcounty.gov/have-a-say/calendar.html, KC Metro was going to have an “information table” at the Wallingford QFC today from 4-6pm with information about proposed changes to the bus system in 2012, including eliminating the route 26. By the time I got to QFC at 5 pm, there was no sign of Metro. Someone at QFC told me that Metro was there briefly, but the person who was there wasn’t able to answer any questions, so they closed up shop early and left.
Given that Metro is planning to eliminate a route that services Wallingford, Metro really should provide the neigborhood with more information and more chances to give feedback. An info table probably wouldn’t have been sufficient, even if had been done properly, and it’s really outrageous that they weren’t there as long as they said they would be and that they didn’t even send anyone knowledgeable who could address the community’s concerns.
The next public meeting is tomorrow (Monday the 14th) in Greenwood from 6:30 – 8:30 pm at Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N 85th Street Seattle, WA 98103. It would be great if you could get the word out about this meeting. Greenwood’s not too far from Wallingford. Hopefully concerned Wallingfordians can attend this meeting and voice their concerns. I hope Metro will have a meeting closer to Wallingford soon as well.
Thanks!
No, thank you Ju!
Anybody willing to head to Greenwood tonight can get more information about the Greenwood meeting here on the Metro calendar. The calendar says it will be a “public meeting,” not just an information table that may or may not be there for more than 15 minutes, and may or may not staffed by someone knowledgeable about the upcoming changes to Metro service and how they will impact Wallingford.
Also, thanks to Mike Ruby who says the Wallingford Community Council is considering how to respond to the proposed Metro changes as well. Check out his assessment of some of the changes, and his comment about the Council, here in the Comments section of our last Metro-related post. Thank you, Mike.
Update from Ju, 11/15:
I got to the QFC around 4:10pm and spoke to the woman behind the Metro table. By the time I was checking out at 4:30pm she was gone. It seemed like she felt her job was to encourage you to fill out the feedback forms if you were unhappy about the proposed changes – she didn’t try to justify what Metro was proposing.
I think the proposed changes are really bad for our neighborhood. Reduced service on 40th, lack of a one-seat ride to Downtown from most of the neighborhood outside of peak hours and no one-seat to Fremont for folks north of 40th. If these changes go through a lot of us will be spending a lot more time making transfers in either the U District or Fremont. They’re proposing some additional peak service on the 16 but I know a lot of us don’t use it northbound during peak times due to the congestion around Seattle Center and Mercer (or because it’s too far of a walk).
I showed up at 5 and was surprised to find no one at the store.
This change has a huge impact on me and my family.
I’m appalled that that Metro didn’t even meet their scheduled commitment to provide information at this location.
If you are also affected by this change, please contact Metro about the change and the lack of outreach to the neighborhood.
Lame. I guess buses aren’t the only thing that Metro can’t keep on schedule.
Oh, Doug. 😉
Yes, here’s the link to the Metro feedback form online: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/cs/FeedbackBusRide.html
or just email them at: [email protected]
You can bet MY feedback has now been sent regarding the 26!!!!!!!
I’ll be sending my feedback form shortly. I’m heading to the Greenwood Meeting tonight to see for myself if it’s truly as uninformational as described. Let’s fight this!
Hey, Gaelen, are you willing to writing another Comment tomorrow to let us know how the meeting goes? Curious, and not going to make it there.
I have no idea what happened here, but to be fair to Metro, I did go to their information and comment session in West Seattle last week and it was both well staffed and well attended.
It seems they didn’t do a good a job this time, but they did do a good job last week.
Hold the phone! The # 16, although being rerouted for a few blocks near North Seattle Community College, will still go right down 45th and all the way to downtown, with added trips. This is a one-seat ride to downtown and is not being eliminated, nor even changed within Wallingford. Route maps for the 36 Express look like you can catch it at 45th and Latona/Theckeray depending on direction, and at Stone near Bridge Way. if you live in lower Wallingford, and don’t want to walk out to Bridge/Stone and will miss the 26’s meandering route from Fremont to lower Wallingford… you can catch the revised #31 along 40th between I-5 and Wallingford Ave, then along 35th from Wallingford Ave to the Fremont Bridge. So you do not, in fact, have to take the bus from Wallingford to the UW to get to Fremont or downtown.
I often ride the 26 between Wallingford and Fremont, but find it slow, consistently unreliable or downright late, and mostly empty. I can see why they are revising this route.
I agree that the Metro representative should not have left the QFC table (really inexcusable), but recommend a patient, careful reading of the “Have a Say” web site, with a lot of clicking on the various links, route maps, details of revisions, and so forth. This research could ease many people’s minds somewhat about what they are losing or fear they are losing.
Correction to typo in my post above-should read “Route maps for the 26 Express look like you can catch it at 45th and Latona/Thackeray” (not the 36 – typing while on a bus!)
@Kathy
The proposal is to do away with the 26 local. The 26 Express is staying but will be peak only (am southbound and pm northbound). The 16 is not convenient for a good chunk of the neighborhood (particularly folks east of Stone and south of 45th) and northbound is has poor reliability since it can get stuck near Seattle Center. It looks like the additional service they’re proposing would likely amount to only a few peak hour trips.
If you’re a current 26 rider north of 40th your trip to Downtown will be on the new 63 with a transfer to the 70s in the U District. If you’re a current 26 rider south of 40th you’ll have a choice between the 63 and the 31/32 which will take you to Fremont for another transfer. I don’t believe the 31/32 cross the 16 route at any point.
I am a transit planner who’s specialty is revising bus routes (I am not employed by Metro).
Let me put some context into the impact of a transfer to choice riders.
Using a typical rule of thumb, the introduction of the transfer to get to downtown will cause approximately 50 percent of existing downtown-oriented riders on Route 26 to stop riding.
There are alternatives, such as walk to the 16, walk to the 510/511 stops on I-5, but regardless, there will be a ridership loss here.
I went to Metro’s outreach meeting at the Central Library a couple of weeks ago to give them in-person feedback, but it felt like a waste of time. The representatives who were there to answer questions clearly knew something about the bus system, but I didn’t see a single one writing down anything they were being told by any of the attendees (who were numerous and obviously concerned with the proposed changes). Unless you don’t understand what Metro is planning and need it explained to you, I’d skip the meetings and just give them feedback on the web.
Oh, and IMHO, eliminating the 26 local and “replacing” it with a bus that runs to the U-District is premature until at least the year the light rail reaches 45th/Brooklyn (2021?)
The survey questions pigeon hole you into saying exactly what they want to report: that any disruptions are nominal. I can see why that’s how they want to receive feedback. I’m so sick of voting for tax increases only to have them reduce service to the very people who vote for them.
Should anyone be comforted by Metro’s rationale – which I hope will not be the case – the impetus behind Metro’s proposed change is:
Bus route 26 is to be eliminated in order pay for adoption of the new Rapid Ride routes, none of which will serve Northeast Seattle.
Feel better?
ok, um, did buster say the reaons to eliminate the 26 is to have rail service for another neighborhood?
I filled out the feedback form and g t an email back saying I could call some number if I hav e more comments.
it appears to be a done deal like most of the neighborhood actions.
I live on Thackeray. I have to say, this change is not new news. It has been in the works for a few years. Everyone who doesn’t know is correct that Metro has done a poor job of marketing these changes, but it was told to us, just you had to listen really carefully.
@Claudia – I have to disagree with you. Metro has gone after the 26 before but not to this level as far as I can remember. The last time they mentioned getting rid of the 26 local service was when they came out with the scenario for what would happen if they didn’t get the $20 car tab fee approved. They got the $ but they’re still planning to cut the service.
Metro is a public agency – people shouldn’t have to read between the lines to figure out what’s going on with their bus service. I am anticipating we’ll have significant changes to service when the Brooklyn light rail station opens, but until then I think the entire neighborhood should have a daylong one-seat ride to Downtown.
Hi, all! Ju wrote in this morning & gave us the following update:
“I went to the Greenwood meeting yesterday – it was a nice event with a lot of metro employees to explain changes, answer questions and note concerns. They were apologetic about messing up the QFC event and are planning another session in Wallingford. I told them that informing Wallyhood would be a good way to get the word out about the next session. I also suggested the Good Shepherd Center as a location for another event.
Right now Metro is in the feedback stage for its current proposal. It seems the best way to give them feedback, if not attending a meeting, is to fill out the survey ( http://www.surveymk.com/s/SJGGP69 ) or write to [email protected].
ju”
Thanks again, Ju! Nice to hear they were apologetic & may be planning more involvement with the Wallingford Community.
Cata: The proposed Rapid Ride routes are not rail routes. Of the little I know about them, they are designated bus routes that are presumably like express runs with few stops. The nearest one to Wallingford will run north and south from and through Ballard to Downtown and back.
Rapid ride busses are completely new and differently designed busses. They are way more than an express. It is worth taking a tour of one. Light rail would be better, but this seems to be the bus “answer” to light rail.
The RapidRide E line, currently slated to begin in 2013, will run up Aurora and have a station at N 46th St.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/MetroTransit/RapidRide/ELine.aspx
I attended the Greenwood meeting last night, actually was the last one out, so spent about 2-3 hours talking with both the staff and other residents of various neighborhoods. The meeting was well attended and staffed, I ran into the guy who was supposed to work the QFC event and he said he had accidentally forgotten it (which seemed genuine enough from his manner and tone). The staff there all had pads of paper and writing utensils and I saw most of them taking notes on the conversations they had with concerned citizens. Now, as to how much the passing up of that feedback will change things, I can’t say. I definitely got the feeling that it would take a pretty big uproar to change any of the existing plans. The staff were friendly, fairly well informed (and would admit they didn’t know something if that was the case), a bit combatitive in some cases (but to be fair, so were the citizens). A common response I got back was to write my issues on the feedback form, and part of what I got from that was that I’m not sure to what extent the people that staffed the event can influence things.
One thing that would have helped, I felt, is a side-by-side comparison of the existing routes and the new proposed changes. There was only the new routes to look at, so for anyone visually-oriented, it was hard to conceptualize exactly what we’re losing and what’s being put in it’s place. That being said, I had them verbally explain it to the best of their abilities.
My take is this: No matter how you look at it, we’re losing one of our “one-seat” rides to downtown or greenlake, via the Fremont Bridge. The 16 is important, but misses a huge segment of east Wallingford. The justification is based on higher levels of efficiency and reliability via Rapit Ride lines and restructuring connecting routes. This seems like a very sensible idea in theory, but I’m failing to see enough practical backup to support the new initiatives.
Let me explain what I mean, and make the caveat that I am grossly oversimplifying:
The Rapid Ride lines (one of the two pillars of the new plan) will have a new design for their buses which allows people to get on and off them more quickly and accomodates more riders, will increase in frequency, but will still be using the same freeways that are being used now (i.e. I-5, 99, and the Ballad Bridge route), there will not be a dedicated bus lane for the entire length of the route because business owners don’t want to eliminate any parking. They WILL have a technology that allows the stoplights to take longer to change upon a bus’s approach, hopefully cutting down on the delays caused by stoplights. The basic idea I’m getting at here is that whenever there is bad weather, construction, sports or other massive events, tourists, truck traffic, etc., these routes get jammed up. These are the main arteries, and we’re basically just putting more occupancy onto them without a way for transit to have priority to penetrate traffic. The stoplight technology may help a bit, but that also means that any regular traffic traveling alongside them gets to continue as well. This is why light-rail is such a great idea, it’s always built with it’s own lane.
The other tier of this plan relies on the drawbridges and local buses (which I guess would include the Ballard bridge as well). The idea is to eliminate some routes and put new ones in their place, shorten others and provide connections to the Rapid Rides and other new routes to compensate for the coverage loss. The net effect for people that took the 26 local is that we’d need to depend on the 30 and 31 to connect us to Fremont and the University District for local service downtown. In a perfect world, connections would always happen on time and this process would be seamless. My real-life experience, trying to make transfers in this city, has been decidedly different. No doubt this could be helped by the potential changes to the 5 route and the 17 on Westlake, which may support them starting downtown, rather than Tukwila and southern areas (where our own 26 (as the 124 I believe) gets snagged up now), but that’s still 2 bus routes that have to get it right. I believe they’ll be increasing the frequency on these routes, so that may help (again, no complete dedicated bus lanes).
I’ve run on long enough already, I appreciate your patience with my rather “rambling” narrative. It comes down to this for me: I like having a one-seat ride to downtown and greenlake that is not the 16, especially given the Mercer snag that the 16 runs into downtown (talk about something that needs a change!). Higher frequency of our buses sounds great, but that doesn’t address the problem of our highly-trafficked arteries ( in my eyes ) and won’t be a huge benefit to those of us nearer to the water.
I’ll make the disclaimer that I am no planner, so this is all from the level of a regular resident that has done only a very preliminary look into the proposed plans.
Gaelen
Thank you so much, Gaelen!
First, thanks to everyone who has been posting accurate commentary and(or) relaying information from Metro. This is much appreciated!
And again, the (many) of us who live in the south end of Wallingford depend on the #26 local to get to work on time.
I am confused about the #26 issue, primarily because I do take it and know it is not reliably on time (either). Frequently I am one of two riders on a huge bus. As we all know, Metro doesn’t have unlimited funds, and I can see the rationale for eliminating portions of this route and substituting others. Many areas of the city have never had “one seat” rides to downtown, and certainly not a choice of two. Wallingford is not a huge neighborhood. Since becoming carless, I have learned to husband my time and use technology (trip planner, One Bus Away phone app, text-Metro-for-real-time-update from any stop) to ensure arriving on time. Neither Metro, nor light rail (tunnel shuts down from time to time), nor cars, nor bikes will be on time 100% of the time.
Mostly, I’m curious about our small neighborhood’s general unwillingness to walk a few extra blocks to a new stop or route, and additional unwillingness to make a transfer, as many people in less affluent areas have to do every trip, every single day.
@Kathy
I am curious about your willingness to pay more for longer trips, less service, less reliability, and less convenience.
I’m not sure if you’ve had to make transfers that often on Metro but they really add a lot of time and hassle factor to trips (particularly if you have a mobility issue). My experience has been that either the other bus is late so you wind up waiting or when it does arrive it’s full and you can’t get on (this is a big concern for me related to trying to connect from the 63 to the 70s when the U is in session). Metro does a lot of things well, but reliable transfers aren’t one of them.
Mostly, I’m curious about our small neighborhood’s general unwillingness to walk a few extra blocks…
My commute from upper Wallingford via the 26 local takes roughly 50 minutes a day. Switching to the 16 will add 32 minutes of walking to my daily commute, walking for a lot of the year in both the rain and the dark.
You may just see it as a couple of blocks, but I don’t think a change to lengthen my daily commute to 80+ minutes is a small thing, particularly when the total commute by car is a mere 20 minutes a day.
I also take the 26 to Fremont, often with my small children. I don’t particularly relish the thought of taking a transfer in the rain, in the dark, on the dangerously high speed 40th with two small children in tow.
Seriously doubt that the loss of the local to downtown and Fremont will have any impact on the ability of people in less affluent areas to get around by bus.
From talking to the Metro folks at the Greenwood meeting, it sounds like the change is largely motivated by a desire to make access from the neighborhood to the U easier and to make another connection to the light rail when it arrives.
For me, I’d rather have the direct connection to Fremont and downtown. When I want to get to the U district, which is more infrequent and rarely with kids, I’m happy to walk down to the 44.
I’ve built my life around our local bus route. I don’t own a car. I bought my house where it is because of the 26. I picked my kid’s elementary and my child care because they were on the 26 local line. I’m sure others have done the same. You shouldn’t be surprised when people like me are upset about the change. It has a significant impact on just about everything I do.
Maybe there are more people on the 26 local line who want to go to the U-district rather than downtown. Let folks on both sides speak up. Metro needs to know what people need and want.
I don’t appreciate folks trying to shut down discussion based on some fuzzy ideas of what’s in the greater good. Just let Metro know how the change impacts you in the pro and the con. They need that information to make rational choices.
@kathy You go girl! I will stand right by you when the affluent come after you – and they will.
I don’t see any commentary here as trying to shut down the conversation, but rather adding differing views and opinions. It is all good discussion, opening us up to differing vantage points. I do appreciate this from the folks both participating and willing to go out on a limb. (Which I dare say shouldn’t even be considered a limb.)
The 26 is a sticky situation. It is slow, untimely and often empty, but it is what the residents have and many don’t want to give it up. I have a house on that line and have been sparring with Metro for years over bus speeds. The ironic thing is they are finally going down in numbers and I have chosen to live on another bus line. One with the new rapid ride bus. I just can’t win.
Yeah, I knew that “shut down conversation” comment would come back to bite me. Perhaps it’s going to0 far. Kathy is “curious”, and that’s great.
So I’m sorry. The 26 revision has a very large impact on me, and I’m just a little testy and tired of folks dismissing reasonable concerns as running against the greater good, even though they have a fairly nebulous understanding of the trade offs.
The point is, what may look like a minor inconvenience to you, may be a significant change to others. It’s hard to assess the impact on the neighborhood without taking broad input.
It was, at least, a little satisfying to talk to the Metro folks in Greenwood because, in contrast, they at least seem to have a good grasp of the system and trade-offs.
When I told one rep that we live north of 50th and commute to South Lake Union and Fremont, he immediately, said “Ooo, this is a real bad change for you” without my having to explain. He could knew without my telling him, that the 28 express doesn’t serve the south end of South Lake Union and the 16 runs too far to the west. He knew, without my telling him, that there are an ever increasing number of Wallingfordians working in South Lake Union, and the the Metro service there is currently inadequate. The 26 local provides pretty good service there in what is otherwise a transit black hole.
Anyway, please send your concerns to Metro.
(Glad you’re getting off the 26 bus line, Claudia. Sorry you’re unhappy about the rapid ride line, but I guess if you are moving there, the bus speeds aren’t your top priority. I hope you won’t be campaigning against them in your new location.)
@kathy (comment #26) When I lived at 125th & Lake City Way, I was able to take the 306, 316, 522, 75, 72, and 64 to work downtown… all without transfers. From Lake City.
Oh wait, not the 75. But add the 41 to my list.
What if the headline and the posted image were more neutral? Could we start a new page? . . . and let the discussion continue. KCMetro has done a lot for traffic calming and “one-seat” transportation in east Wallingford, below 45th anyway, and so many of us rely on the #26 and don’t count one not-so-great meeting as being “dissed.”
Point taken, Nancy. But I do hope the headline got more people to take a look. 😉
I don’t campaign “against” busses, however I will always be an advocate for busses going the posted speed limit, and I will always head up neighborhood tree planting projects. (Tree for new house already received!)
I’m glad to see the good descriptions regarding the consequences if the #26 local is eliminated, and I concur with the time comparisons.
This proposed change is not a small one, and it would affect a lot of people that need to get from Wallingford to downtown and back in a reliable way. A transfer in Fremont introduces uncertainty and more likely, the non-reliability described above. That’s a big consideration for those of us with set start times at our jobs.
I also don’t see the distance-to-bus-stop impact as a minor one, especially if it’s twice a day. So I’d ask for some reconsideration regarding the “general unwillingness to walk a few extra blocks” viewpoint. For example, 34th to 40th is a long walk…and that’s even if one does not have physical limitations factoring into the equation.
The “unwillingness to walk a few blocks” discussion reminds me of the most recent revision to the 16.
That change took away my stop on the 16 and forced me to walk a bit farther to catch a 16. It was an inconvenience, but not one I complained about because the impact was relatively small and it was easy to see how the change would improve service for other riders on the line.
The elimination of the 26 local is not a similarly sized change. Likely folks who don’t see that aren’t considering that the 26 and 16 do not go to the same destinations. There are places where they coincide. If you are going to 3rd and Pine you’re fine, if you are going elsewhere you’re SOL.
I feel a need to respond to the comment regarding a “general unwillingness to walk a few extra blocks to a new stop or route” should the #26 be eliminated.
By far the most convenient way for me to get to Downtown or to Green Lake is the #26, for which I currently must walk 2 blocks from my south Wallingford house. If the #26 is eliminated, I will have to walk 10 blocks to board an equivalent bus. Being affluent I guess I could take a taxi to the bus stop.
By the way, I’m 87 years old, so that walking 10 blocks under certain weather conditions can be a challenge.
I just took the survey and, as previously mentioned, I’d definitely say it is somewhat structured to reaffirm transit’s assumptions. That being said, there are boxes for comments, so if you’ve got something to say, use those liberally. Also, to be fair, near the end of the survey there are some questions about how the transfers will affect you. Ultimately, it’s probably the most direct way we have, at the moment of taking our concerns to the ones who make the decisions. I encourage everyone to take the survey, no matter whether you support the changes or not.
Woo hoo! Metro has rescheduled the information table for this Saturday. Margaret has the info here, with an apology from Metro. Now we can all have our say in person! http://www.wallyhood.org/2011/11/metro-meeting-qfc/