Back in August of last year, Gary wrote about the possible elimination of #20 bus service which, then, never happened. However, the drama continues.
Wallyhood was contacted by neighbors several weeks ago concerning the elimination of #20 bus service in September as part of a reduction and consolidation of bus service as the Link light rail Lynnwood extension opens this Fall. The #20 serves the northern and eastern extremes of Wallingford. (See Metro’s map here.)
It is surprisingly difficult to substantiate this. Metro’s own blog detailing bus route changes, published in May, notes merely service reductions for the 20. At the same time, their “final network map” on this King County website showing bus routes after the realignment has no evidence of the 20 bus anywhere. This lack of transparency alone has raised the ire of neighbors. Folks tell us that they have met with Dan Strauss who acknowledged the service elimination. (Strauss is the city council representative for that area.) In addition, Metro insiders have confirmed to them that the 20 is going away.
I contacted Strauss’ office as well as Metro for confirmation. That was way back on June 11, and I’m still waiting to hear back. If I do, I’ll update this story.
In the meantime, neighbors are not waiting around to see what happens. A petition is circulating in support of retaining #20 service, and you can fill it out here. There’s even a video which we’ve embedded below.
Some details from Rosanne:
The #20 bus that runs down Latona Avenue is scheduled for elimination in the fall of 2024. We got wind of a possible elimination more than a year ago but after going door to door with fliers and garnering support from the community, the bus continued running, so we thought we had succeeded. But it turns out the elimination was simply delayed until this year when the light rail opens its Lynnwood station in the fall. This means that local neighborhoods from Northgate to University District, West of I-5, will become a transportation desert (Licton Springs, Green Lake & East Wallingford). The nearest buses will entail a walk of several blocks–more than a person who might be elderly, disabled or a person shopping for groceries, or a person with young children will undertake.
No effort was made by King County Metro to reach out to people in this area in advance of their decision. No notifications were put up at bus stops for comment. It has been a well-kept secret until we found out about it almost by accident. Since then, we (neighbors) have undertaken an awareness campaign. We have collected more than 500 signatures [Editor’s note: the number is now over 1000.] of those who want to save bus #20. They include people from the University of Washington, North Seattle College, Robert Eagle Middle School and Bishop Blanchett High School.
We encourage the support of Wallingford residents who may value having the #20 bus as an option to get to light rail (U-District and Northgate) as well as to schools, churches and grocery shopping. We concerned neighbors are in the process of setting up meetings to lobby King County Metro to save our #20 bus. Please consider signing our list: http://tinyurl.com/SaveBus20.
The changes are scheduled to take place in September, so the time to act is now.
I’ve reached out to council member Strauss and Sara Nelson (who lives in the 20’s service area) a few times since May and haven’t heard back. King County Councilmember Baron was kind enough to respond, basically saying it’s a done deal and citing low ridership.
We use this bus all the time and the proposed alternatives are not acceptable routes – what else can we do?
Metro killed one of the busiest bus routes in Seattle (the 26) and replaced it with this feeble facsimile, and now complains about low ridership. Ridiculous. The 20 isn't great, but it's necessary. The lack of transparency from our elected officials is telling, they're hoping we won't notice.
There isn't a single strong voice for buses on the Seattle City Council. Wallingford's District 4 representative, Martiza Rivera, has shown zero interest in improving public transit. Her single issue seems to be "more cops," nothing else matters. Same with Sara Nelson.
The New Metro apparently decides to starve routes to death in order to eliminate them altogether.
And do it surreptiously.
Same goes for the 73.
The Old Metro was much more responsive to Rider Input.
Been riding it since 1989.
Wallingford is becoming a true transportation desert with eliminating the 20.
(The Naming of this website is in itself somewhat confusing (except for this particular posting 🙂 so renaming it may be helpful.
HERE 's another video. The fault lies with KC Metro for inadequate community outreach and for ignoring students and seniors in their equity score. Also, they included no representation for Green Lake or Wallingford neighborhoods in their 15-member Mobility Board that weighed heavily in this decision; 13 members of the Mobility Board were from the far north in King County. The other fault lies with the City of Seattle for not paying their fair share for bus service. In 2019, the City paid KC Metro for 350,000 bus service hours; in 2020, during the pandemic, the City reduced its payment to Metro to 140,000 bus service hours. So now, in 2024, as bus ridership is recovering from the pandemic, Seattle is still only paying for 140,000 bus service hours. We need to appeal to King County Executive Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell to work together to prevent elimination of this north-south bus service west of I-5, which will severely harm students and schools, low-wage workers dependent on bus commuting, seniors and people with disabilities.
Per the map the northern portion of route 20 remains as part of the new 61 from Greenwood via 85th and 92nd to Northgate thence Lake City
Yes. Basically the 61 will replace the 20. It will serve Greenwood instead of TangleTown.
"Instead of TangleTown." And Wallingford. And the U District. So basically half the route. That is not a "replacement," it's a new route.
Right. They replaced the southern half with something else (but kept the northern half the same).
What's the "something else" it will be replaced with?
I'm not sure why you are confused. The 20 was slated for removal from the very first proposal, back in January. The proposals changed a lot since then, but they never resurrected the 20. There was plenty of notification on buses, bus stops and the Metro website. It was covered in The Urbanist as well as the Seattle Transit Blog (which is how I know about the timing). Metro made it very clear, at every point, that the 20 was going to be replaced with the 61.
The reason for this is complicated, but comes down to ridership per hour of service. In short, the new 61 will have a lot more riders per service hour. There are almost always trade-offs when it comes to routing. You can't have everything. There is a ridership/coverage trade-off. If you run buses to every nook and cranny of the city, you end up with buses that are very infrequent. Compromises have to be made and this is actually one of the least controversial aspects of the restructure. No one outside the community has made a strong case for it because it would require some other community to lose service. In contrast, there are various ideas that would provide more universal benefit.
One such idea is moving the 62 to run on part of Latona. This is something Metro proposed a long time ago , but SDOT had concerns about the pavement. This would be one of those rare "win-win" situations. The 62 would be faster, while also covering more of TangleTown. This means that it would actually save Metro money! Instead of calling for resurrecting the 20 (and thus hurting some other neighborhood) folks should push for this change to the 62, which is long overdue.
We put up posters with a QR code at bus stops on the south half of the Bus 20 route. We now have names of >1200 bus 20 users who want to save their bus service. The most cited reason is from students (high school,, college, graduate) trying to get to/from school (n > 230). Other common reasons are workers using bus 20 to commute to/from work (n > 190), people accessing light rail (n > 130), and seniors / disabled people unable to walk long, hilly distances to a bus stop. Most are shocked to hear that their bus service is being terminated in 2 months. That represents inadequate community engagement with the community by KC Metro and a flawed process by KC Metro that did not consider students and seniors in their equity score. North Seattle College students who live in South Green Lake or East Wallingford and UW students in Licton Springs or East Wallingford will now have unreasonably long and unsafe commutes, asking students (especially young women) to walk long distances at night in the dark. Metro is replacing the north half of bus 20 route with a new #61 bus. We're asking that they also replace the south half of the bus 20 route with a new bus route. We've heard from 8 schools on the south half of the bus 20 route about their concerns for loss of bus service (North Seattle College, UW, Robert Eagle Middle School, The Childrens School (TCS), La Esquelita, Little Explorers School, Bishop Blanchet High School, McDonald Elementary School). Did KC Metro reach out to these schools and listen to their concerns? You suggest that preserving bus service to the south half of bus 20 route will mean that other communities will lose service. WHY? We do not need to function in an austerity mode. We need to be expanding bus service, not terminating it.
>> North Seattle College students who live in South Green Lake or East Wallingford and UW students in Licton Springs or East Wallingford will now have unreasonably long and unsafe commutes
No they won't. They will simply transfer, like so many other students.
>> You suggest that preserving bus service to the south half of bus 20 route will mean that other communities will lose service. WHY?
Because that is how it works! You only have so many drivers. If you provide service on one route, you have to take it from another.
There are exceptions. There are efficiencies that can be gained by avoiding overlap or asking riders to walk farther. Often these involves transfers ( https://humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html , https://humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html ).
As it turns out, replacing the 20 with the 61 is one of those cases! Basically there is less overlap. Right now the 61 overlaps the 45 (between Wallingford and Greenwood). This is fairly short, and an improvement overall (Greenwood has more density and more connections to other routes). While the overlap of the 61 is not ideal, the 20 has a lot more. Between 85th and 65th the 20 overlaps the 45. It doesn't follow the exact route, but it is very close. Likewise, the 62 overlaps much of the 20 between 65th and 45th*. And of course, the 20 overlaps the 44 along 45th.
* There is unique coverage area in TangleTown, so it doesn't really overlap. But that is because the route of the 62 is flawed. If they moved the 62 (like they wanted to years ago) then they could cover more of TangleTown and make the 62 faster — a rare "win-win".
>> They [North Seattle College students on Latona] will simply transfer …"
The "simply transfer" alternative (walk, 62, light rail, walk John Lewis bridge] is 40 minutes versus 15 minutes via bus 20. So to/from NSC is 80 minutes daily versus 30 minutes daily. You're imposing a 50 minute daily transit cost on NSC students and staff that live along Latona or in Green Lake. And you're making the trip less safe by requiring them to walk long distances at night in the dark.
>> "Because that's how it works!"
The future is to get people out of their cars and onto public transit. That requires that we use progressive revenue to expand public transit, not terminate it. It requires that we make public transit convenient and safe for students, workers without cars, seniors and disabled people. Convenient and safe public transit will reduce traffic congestion, reduce air and climate pollution and improve road safety. Cutting bus service west of I-5 from Northgate to UW through Licton Springs, Green Lake and East Wallingford is taking us backwards and ignores the great need for this service, as revealed by our community outreach.
Calling the 61 a "replacement" for the 20 is disingenuous. They're entirely different routes.
The proposal to move the 62 to Latona also features a new 23 bus running from Roosevelt Station to UW Station along the 20 route. I'd be fine if that was a reality, but do you think there's money for that?
And if you want to talk about "ridership per hour of service," maybe check the stats on the old 26. If that's really the metric that it "comes down to," then it never would've been killed in the first place!
The 26 was very popular because it was the main way for people to get to the college. It basically got replaced by Link.
So which buses would you cut or eliminate so that you can resurrect the 61? Why should TangleTown — a relatively low-density area — have two bus routes?
Are you aware that the 26 served areas south of Tangletown? It ran through Wallingford, SLU and downtown. It most certainly was not "replaced by Link," even "basically."
Frankly I don't know why you're so focused on Tangletown. Yes, both the 20 and 62 run through that neighborhood, but the two routes also serve Northgate, Ravenna, Roosevelt, Green Lake, Wallingford, Stone Way, Fremont, the U District, SLU, downtown, and more. Tangletown is a blip in the middle.
>> Calling the 61 a "replacement" for the 20 is disingenuous. They're entirely different routes.
They aren't entirely different. In fact, they are exactly the same from Lake City to 85th. Basically they are just replacing the southern half of the 20 with something different (a connection to Greenwood) and then renaming it.
>> The proposal to move the 62 to Latona also features a new 23 bus running from Roosevelt Station to UW Station along the 20 route. I'd be fine if that was a reality, but do you think there's money for that?
No, I don't. Unfortunately, I don't think we can justify two frequent routes in Tangletown. There isn't enough density. The unique trip pairs aren't enough to get a lot of riders. At best you would end up with a very infrequent secondary route — like a bus that runs every half hour, or maybe only during peak. Once they do that, the bus is basically doomed. Imagine they resurrect the 20, but have it only do the southern part (Northgate to the UW). As I've pointed out, a lot of trip combinations just don't make sense. But some would. For example TangleTown to the U-District. But what if the 62 appears while you are waiting? Most people would take it. Then they are at 45th, and if the 44 appears first, they take that. Next thing you know, the 20 gets very few riders. It can't compete.
I'm saying that rather than run two buses on the east side of Green Lake we just improve the 62. Moving the 62 covers more of TangleTown, while also making the bus significantly faster. By running faster, the buses can run more often (maybe not here, but somewhere in Seattle). Yes, it is unfortunate that some riders have to transfer (to get to the U-District, North Seattle College, etc.) but at least riders wouldn't have to walk so far to catch the 62. Overall you end up with a better network.
“But what if the 62 appears while you are waiting?”
Waiting where? Do you know how many bus stops are shared by the 20 and 62? Exactly one. The notion that these routes are somehow redundant is so ignorant. They serve different neighborhoods, and happen to intersect in Greenlake.