The infamous Route 7
For years, I rode Metro’s Route 7 at least twice, and sometimes more, every day, at every hour of the day. Sometimes I’d ride it at 7 in the morning; other times, right before the line shut down at 2:00 am. I think I know the 7 as well as any other Metro rider, and better than most.
Which is why I feel uniquely qualified to say that this morning’s front-page Seattle Times love letter to the route—from the weird racial euphemisms ("colorful," a "mobile patchwork") to the condescending premise (people choose to ride the 7 because they like the "experience")—is made of Wrong.
Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? (Note: Yes, I am editorializing here. Wouldn’t you?)
When the No. 7 bus makes one of its 116 stops, boarding passengers become part of a mobile patchwork where English mixes with Spanish, Vietnamese and Tagalog.
This is a true fact! There are many languages being spoken on the Number 7. Kind of like on the 194, the 174, the , the 5, the 358… And, oh, every bus where poor people are predominant (which is to say, nearly every bus route in Seattle). Note to Seattle Times : The population (ahem, "patchwork") of bus riders in Seattle is poorer, more diverse, less English-speaking, and less Wonder Bread middle-class than the population as a whole. This is also true of bus systems in every American city.
Moving on!
Many Rainier Valley residents say that even after the much-anticipated opening of Sound Transit’s Link light-rail system, "The Seven" is still their preferred mass-transit option on Rainier Avenue South. For the most part, riders don’t seem too impressed that new trains coast along Martin Luther King Jr. Way South, a few blocks to the west.
For some, it’s because light rail won’t get them where they need to go, but others are just attached to the bus route that has served Rainier Valley since Metro began service in 1973.
Giving Times writer Phillip Lucas the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume he did a relatively thorough survey of people who ride the 7. And that they, "for the most part," confirmed that they "prefer" riding the bus to light rail. Now let’s consider all the reasons—apart from irrational "attachment"—that they might do so:
1) Perhaps they have to walk a long way to get to the bus already, and don’t think it’s worth it to add another 5, 7, or 9 blocks to that trip. Maybe they have stuff to carry. Maybe they’re old or disabled. Or maybe that’s just a long way to walk when you’re in a hurry first thing in the morning.
Because there are no stops at all between Othello and Edmunds, there’s a huge swath of MLK that simply isn’t served by light rail—to say nothing of the many 7 riders who live in Columbia and Hillman Cities, a mile or more east of the light-rail line. Ridership falls off dramatically starting about a quarter-mile from any transit station; ask people to walk a mile or more, and they’re likely to take the closer, more convenient option.
2) Perhaps they don’t want to pay the extra quarter it costs to ride light rail each way. Numerous real-life examples show that fare increases depress transit ridership. Assuming someone commutes into the city and back every weekday (to say nothing of buying groceries, going to the doctor, taking the kids to school, etc.), that 25-cent fare increase works out to a fare hike of about $130 per person every year—not a lot for wealthier commuters, but potentially significant for someone who’s just scraping by.
3) Or perhaps Sound Transit’s education and outreach campaign didn’t reach as many people as it might have. Although the light-rail agency did send postcards to thousands of Rainier Valley residents, a lot of their outreach has been in the form of online ads, which reach a wealthier, whiter audience.
Maybe all those hypotheses are wrong. Maybe people are just "attached" to riding the 7. But if they are, it isn’t for reasons like this:
"The Seven is definitely a colorful experience, where you don’t really know what you’re gonna see, hear, smell, you know?" said Alex Higgins, a morning passenger whose trips nearly always ensure he’ll have a story to tell later.
"Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s not," he said.
Let me translate what he’s talking about. Ride the 7 long enough—morning, noon, or night—and pretty soon you’re bound to see or experience one or more of the following:
- Open drug deals.
- Really open drug and alcohol consumption.
- Open sexual harassment.
- Drivers who do little or nothing to address the above.
- Physical fights so intense the driver has to stop the bus and call the cops.
- People so drunk/high they piss their pants and/or shit themselves on the seat.
- People so drunk/high they’re already passed out cold across the back seats during the crowded morning commute.
- People brandishing knives or guns just for the hell of it.
Need I go on?
This isn’t "colorful." It isn’t the wonderful "patchwork" of life in the big city. It’s a bus route that’s virtually unpoliced, which veteran drivers avoid, where almost anything can happen and often does. Perhaps it makes some riders feel worldly and urban to watch a group of guys harass a female rider and then follow her off the bus into the darkness. I think it’s intolerable. And now that I have the luxury (the money, the time, the bike so that I don’t have to walk to the station) to ride light rail instead of the 7, I avoid the 7 like the plague.
Ultimately, what frustrates me about articles like this, which exoticize aspects of city life that are everyday annoyances to the people who have no choice but to use them, is the position of privilege that makes their perspective possible. I hated riding the 7 every day, but I always knew that if the bus just didn’t show up, or if the driver walked off her job because she got too upset (true story), or if it was too smelly/hot/slow, I could get off and take a cab the rest of the way. It’s easy to stand in that position and say, "What a quirky route full of colorful, interesting characters!" But when it’s your life, not a choice, that’s a different story.
There is one thing that the article’s author and I agree on: The 7 is indispensible, in the sense that it would be impossible or prohibitively difficult for many of its riders to get to work/the doctor/social services/school without it. But we shouldn’t mistake necessity for "attachment," or dependence for love.
Tweet
I think that when the next Metro fare increase goes into effect, light rail may be the same price (or even cheaper during peak times, I’m not sure).
Worst publicola post ever. Please go back to reporting something, no one wants to read your fly off the handle rants.
Thank you Erica, for writing a response to that infuriating article before I did. Metro actually cut east west service that would enable folks in my neighborhood (Seward Park) to get to the station. I use a wheelchair: it’s a mile uphill through an objectively dangerous neighborhood from my house to catch the train.
I agreed with the policy of discouraging car use by not creating parking near the stations. But the corollary requirement to that policy is increasing transit feeder lines that serve light rail. It’s half-assed and disgraceful that they’ve cut them instead.
Publicola post of the week.
I happen to know the author of that story. Unlike certain transplants, he grew up in the south end and attended Franklin High. So perhaps he has a bit more credibility than someone from Texas.
I have a random light rail question. Do the digital signs at the stations display the time the next train will be arriving?
I was down in Portland recently and all their stations have signs that show when the next 2 trains will arrive and it’s very useful.
I would like to see more transit posts…but that’s just me.
BraaaaaVO!
Thanks ECB! The Times article bugged me all morning. And you were very generous in giving Lucas the benefit of the doubt for surveying the riders in their bus vs light rail preference. Great article!!
Thank you Erica for pointing out the classicism and racism of the article. I would like to see the socio-economic trends in public transportation in Seattle, particuarly the split between light rail and bus or fancy-to-the-suburb buses versus buses like the 7, 3/4, 27, etc, explored further. Excellent post.
“Worst publicola post ever. Please go back to reporting something, no one wants to read your fly off the handle rants.”
What is Max’s problem, anyways.
Does he subscribe to the “it sucks bigtime…but I ride it anyways” school? (or the Times version, where none of their editiorial staff would ever ride it: but they like to report on ohters riding the 7)
This is a very useful set of observations and match my experience almost entirely.
Two weeks ago I got curious as to why people hate the 7 (well, i know that as I rode it for a good part of a year and avoid it like the plague now) but supposedly “love” the 42 and also refer to it as a lifeline. I took light rail to the rainier beach station and rode the 42 end-to-end both north and southbound. It’s no 7 but also not exactly what I would refer to as a dignified or wonderful way of getting around. Probably the main difference between the 7 and the 42 is that it’s comprised of diesel coaches operating primarily on turnback routing S->N. It runs a lot less than the 7 but is a bit more reliable on MLK than rainier ave.
Some weird observations (I haven’t had time to write up my thoughts on the 42 but really need to):
-In some cases (e.g. columbia city, othello) there are two stops per light rail station – one for the north end and one for the south end of the station. This seems ridiculous.
-Boardings/alightings are highest between light rail stations but an oddly large number of people still choose to take the 42 downtown (getting on at the same stop as a light rail station and riding downtown) – a 45 minute journey – rather than take/transfer to light rail.
-The 42 bus switched drivers both times I rode it on Dearborn near airport way (by the immigration building). This was a 5 minute delay in each direction with a packed bus. People put up with this every day.
In the case of the 7, that is a dreadful route that, unfortunately, is still largely necessary because it serves a corridor just far enough from light rail to collect significant ridership. Few people ride that route by choice. In the case of the 42, I’m mystified. The route largely runs directly alongside light rail (where it could be viewed as a parallel local circulator – but why in god’s name would anyone take it all the way downtown?) but it’s also slow, full of the usual characters (with and without functioning excretory control), and really not all that pleasant of a way to get pretty much anywhere. By the end, I was convinced that all of the activism to “save the 42″ was well-intentioned but it would be tragic for Metro to keep things as-is with the 42 (I could see maybe having an all-day twice-hourly circulator from Mount Baker down to the current southern turnback of the line), but even that is pushing it given funding.
Bottom line, though, is it definitely is suspicious that both the 7 and 42 are being held up as “lifelines” and much-loved parts of the community. Everyone I knew hated the 7 and I now believe most 42 riders also hate that route. Stories like the Seattle Times piece seem to be puff pieces written by people who are not plugged into the reality of transit life and culture, who are either trying to push some sort of alternate agenda, or at a bare minimum are unsuccessfully “humanizing” public transit to others who have never set foot on a metro bus. I’m glad you contributed a little “patch” of reality to that piece – the real story there is how bad many of these routes are, and how real riders need a loud, organized voice in fighting for change, equity, and improvements in their transit service.
The 7: better or worse than the 358? The list of things you mentioned sounded all too familiar, except the brandishing of guns, but then again, I am not quite as seasoned of a rider. But seriously, can’t they get some transit cops up in these buses?
I’m glad that I’m not the only one that noticed how jovial the times is about assaults, drugs, alcohol, etc. They make it sound like too much fun to watch people tweaking out on the bus or pissing their pants. Its an added bonus when they are sitting right next to you. Lets call it an urban safari. Yeah! That sounds like fun!
recently i took the light rail to Mt. Baker station from the ID station. In the end, with the wait and travel time, it would have been faster to take the 7. Granted, not as nice and probably not always faster, but at 4pm on a Tuesday, the 7 would have been faster to Mt. Baker.
Hallelujah. Thank you. Well said.
You did forgot to offer the *lovely* pee-filled smell that accompanies many rides. It’s part of the decor.
The fastest 7 is the Night Owl, but then again, with no traffic ahead, it can cover Genessee St to Downtown in less than 10 minutes. Sometimes the commuters on it are Metro Drivers getting to work, and the 2nd of the 2 Owl trips, you can see the first buses heading South of the day. It and the 174 for now are the only 24 hour routes. The other OWLS are composite routes to give some coverage to multiple areas(81-85).
Restoring the 50 was originally on the table for the upcoming service change, but it would have come at the expense of Downtown service on the 39. The 50 was cut in 2000. It served roughly Columbia City to West Seattle Junction, but Suburban Councilmembers did tweak around with it in the final years and have it go to White Center instead of the Junction).
Thanks, that article annoyed me this morning as well.
@5: “I happen to know the author of that story. Unlike certain transplants, he grew up in the south end and attended Franklin High. So perhaps he has a bit more credibility than someone from Texas.”
Let me assist you in decoding that:
Erica, you are not a ‘real seattlite’ because you were not born here. Your *actual experience* riding the 7 for the last several years is unimportant, since you are not from here.
Provincialism fail.
I ride the 7, and EVERYONE was disappointed that the light rail went in on MLK instead of Rainier. The article acts like we are emotionally attached to the 7 and refuse to use the new light rail. Everyone hates the 7, but we have no choice. I walk 3 blocks to catch the 7, but I would have to walk 1.2 miles to get the light rail. And it’s not like I could bike to the station either, only a fool would lock their bike in that neighborhood.
I feel like Seattlites built the light rail for poor people, with no intention of actually using it themselves. Now, they are pissed off that their “gift” isn’t as appreciated as they had hoped. (…Hence the condescending article.)
I think some kind of survey that shows how far people ride the 7 would prove interesting. I suspect a lot of riders are getting on and getting off the bus along Rainier.
Say Ben, when the fares on LR are less than on Metro will all the lowlifes, that ECB hates so much on the 7, start riding LR?
ECB – what will you do when the poor people start riding LR? Move back to the 7?
Just imagine the $1.5 billion spent on LR by Seattle taxpayers was in a fund for bus operating costs and we could add about $75 million of service on Metro in Seattle.
But if they stop writing articles like this, what will they put in their newspaper? News? Let’s be practical here.
20,
Sometimes, I have taken the 7 to get to the store, and even a few times, to get to Mt. Baker Station, when I missed the 39 and did not feel like walking uphill to the Columbia City Station.
very good tirade against a really patronizing Times article.
@5 again: I don’t care where the author attended high school, or whether you know him. Any writer’s credibility is contained in what he/she writes, not whether they happened to live in a certain area for a while — or even if they grew up in and still live in that area. Those employed by/writing for the Times no doubt must hew to certain, shall we say, criteria, but that doesn’t excuse the article. Patronizing your neighbors is no better than patronizing from a safe 5-mile distance.
“I happen to know the author of that story. Unlike certain transplants, he grew up in the south end and attended Franklin High. So perhaps he has a bit more credibility than someone from Texas.”
Oh sure. He’s from here and he went to Franklin, so he’s superior? WTF is that all about?
The poster is probably one of those dumbasses who have a “Washington Native” license plate. I swear that is a private club for people of sub-normal intelligence who happen to have born here.
Anyway, I was born at Cabrini and went to Beacon/Mercer/Franklin/UW route, and am thankful for the transplants.
I wrote this article knowing people would race to be
the first one offended, so I figured I’d meet people where they are to discuss it.
Firstly, the article isn’t meant to condescend, especially since it was my route for seven years before leaving for college.
“Ultimately, what frustrates me about articles like this, which exoticize aspects of city life that are everyday annoyances to the people who have no choice but to use them, is the position of privilege that makes their perspective possible.”
My perspective was shaped by growing up in the Rainier Valley, catching that bus to Aki Kurose and Franklin H.S., and seeing how essential this route still is even though newer, faster service is available nearby.
I’ve experienced the same unpleasant things many people have on the bus (including being robbed and seeing/smelling more things than anyone ever should one the way home). But at the end of the day, for better or worse, the seven gets the job done, doesn’t it?
That is what the article is about. It’s simple.
But, of course, it’s Seattle and I expected people to complain and ask questions that have already been answered in previous articles or don’t have anything to do with this one-because complaining is one thing we Seattleites are best at.
“Thank you Erica for pointing out the classicism and racism of the article.”
Actually, I’m an African-American male who grew up in one of the poorest areas of Seattle. Please tell me where elitism and racism came from. Apparently you know me and my intentions, so surely you’ll be able to explain that.
If a story annoys you or doesn’t seem important, there is a simple solution-don’t read it and move on with your day. And if the story is not important to you, as some have said, why read it and spend time commenting on how unimportant it is?
“But when it’s your life, not a choice, that’s a different story.”
This WAS my life-just like it is yours. That’s why it was worth a story in the first place.
If you read through the article, you see that people don’t LOVE this bus and aren’t emotionally attached to it. The final quote (if you read to the end) demonstrates exactly that point.
For such a “progressive and tolerant” city, Seattleites are some of the most hateful, elitist people I’ve ever dealt with (as long as they can be that anonymously or on a message board.)
I’m so glad I left.
Phillip Lucas
#5 Southender: Seriously, your criticism of this article is “She ain’t from ’round these parts.”
Really?
Please be patient with them, Erica.
#6 Justin: Yes. The signs are supposed to be up and running. If they aren’t, they will soon. They will announce the next train.
This is just part of the Time’s war on transit, and rail/Sound Transit in particular.
Thank you for calling them on their BS, Erica. Can’t wait till that rag of a newspaper goes out of business.
To poster 21, I think you have the wrong idea saying that Erica hates poor people and is avoiding interacting with them during her commute. I believe what she is avoiding is the the people who specifically sell/use drugs, start fights, piss themselves, etc. on the bus. I once saw a woman light up a crack pipe on the bus just before she got off. If I have the option of avoiding things like that, I’ll take them in a heartbeat.
“In the case of the 42, I’m mystified. The route largely runs directly alongside light rail (where it could be viewed as a parallel local circulator – but why in god’s name would anyone take it all the way downtown?) but it’s also slow, full of the usual characters (with and without functioning excretory control), and really not all that pleasant of a way to get pretty much anywhere.”
Perhaps the buses are kept running to keep the people you describe off light rail. Those people may not feel they belong on the new modern rail system and will stay away as long as they have an option.
Right on Erica!
Route 7 improvements: in the short run, close about one-half the stops for improved flow; in the mid term, in about 2014, replace the high floor buses with low floor buses for shorter dwell times and easier boarding and alighting.
Maybe after the airport extension opens, we can get a memoriam to taking the 174 home from the airport after 10pm…
“Local color” doesn’t justify discourteous and downright threatening behavior, and I fully expect new light rail cars will elicit more respectful conduct than your typical dingy, dark and crowded bus. This is a huge boon to ridership not measured in back of the envelope cost per passenger-mile counts.
Rather than slamming the 7, let’s engage in some constructive criticism. This approach is needed because Rainier Ave. is likely always going to be the center of activity in the Valley, and in the absence of a really solid east/west feeder network, the 7 will remain the route of choice for many people.
Main complaints and the road to addressing those:
- It’s too slow
The route has 100-odd stops, spaced at roughly 8 per mile per direction in many places. This spacing needs to be increased to something bordering on reasonable, i.e. 4 per mile like we see on a few other routes – people complain about the 358 but not so much about its speed: largely because half the stops were eliminated several years ago and now it stops every 1/4 mile. Metro is working to fix this – support them.
- The City of Seattle and Metro need to cooperate to do more improvements to speed up buses. They are working on this by eliminating the need for buses to pull in and out of traffic, but should do more and do it sooner.
Metro trolley bus drivers also need better training so that they can drive at consistent speeds (we all know that some drivers are ALWAYS late), and the pay-as-you-leave fare collection needs to be put out to pasture. Metro should figure out a way to let riders board and deboard through all doors like on light rail.
Last, Metro needs to replace the the 1991 buses with new ones that have ramps instead of lifts for wheelchairs and people who can’t or won’t walk up the stairs to the bus.
- The bus carries undesirable people who smell, etc.
This will never be “solved,” but pay-as-you-leave invites fare evasion and ridership by people with no intention of paying.
Metro needs to train and empower drivers to kick people off who don’t pay or are unsanitary, and refer those individuals to resources that can offer bus fare, showers, and/or mental health assistance. The fact that those resources are woefully inadequate indicates much larger societal problems – perhaps identifying those needs and needy individuals through their abuse/misuse of transit is a good starting place.
How ’bout it? Route 7 will probably always carry more Valley riders than light rail because there is more going on along Rainier than MLK and probably always will be.
What exactly would you like drivers to do about problems in the bus?
Seriously – we aren’t permitted to carry weapons, we’re not permitted to keep people off the bus who refuse to pay, we’re discouraged from leaving our seat or confronting passengers about anything because Metro doesn’t want to provide on-board security.
So what exactly is an unarmed driver at risk of losing their job (or frankly their life) for saying ‘boo’ to a misbehaving passenger – all while operating a 60 foot bendable bus through rush-hour traffic filled with crappy driving arseholes supposed to do? You want them to stop what they’re doing, pull the bus over and go all Ninja on a dude, or what?
How about this: GROW A PAIR AND DEAL WITH IT YOURSELF. YOU are allowed to carry a gun (or even pepper spray), I am not. YOU are allowed to use your cell phone to call the police to report a problem in progress – I am not. YOU are not occupied keeping 40+ people travelling 25-55 miles per hour within a few feet of other moving vehicles safe.
Bill,
Metro trolley bus drivers also need better training so that they can drive at consistent speeds (we all know that some drivers are ALWAYS late
What a load of CRAP. Some ROUTES run late – not because of drivers not “going the right speed”, but because of TRAFFIC and POOR SCHEDULING, neither of which is the fault or responsibility of the driver or something that they can correct.
The ignorance in your statement is astounding.
i’ll agree with two things phillip said about
seattleites love, love, love to bitch and moan, while smiling of course.
and, disguised behind the tolerant seattle is one of elites who don’t really know the very people they claim to always be trying to help.
Is there a take-a-away or just a rant?
The County is keeping the 7 but downsizing (equalizing in County terms) the 7 and most other southeast Seattle buses. Light rail is here and more is coming.
Always nice to read about the big daily visiting us in the Rainier Valley. Nice to hear from folks who have moved on to other neighborhoods, but are still “uniquely qualified” to comment.
thanks erica, whether it was intentional or not, that article read reprehensibly and could have used thorough and critical editing before landing above the fold on the front page. it deserved this thorough lashing.
I just hope any low-floors permanetly on the 7 are trolleybuses. Seattle Transit made a big mistake cutting them in 1963, one of the routes dieselized that year, was the Ranier Ave route, the 7. Metro re-electrified it in the early 1980s. The last of the original trolleybuses were retired in 1978 after 38 years of service. One of the reasons I like electric buses and streetcars is the operators seem to be able to get more years out of them than diesels. They also have better acceleration, although with the 7′s current stop spacing, that does not seem to be a plus right now. I have said before, Metro missed out on an opportunity for a joint order with Translink, might have been able to piggyback on them. The Breda Buses have something Metro’s Diesels don’t have, except for the RapidRide prototype that is sitting at Metro South, 3 doors, not too. If Metro had bought the same type of trackless trolleys Translink purchased, they probably would not be needing to keep a few of the Bredas at Metro South to provide spare parts for the 4200 series buses.
What I meant by them was the trolleybuses, low-floors, diesels or otherwise, were not around in 1963. One bus retired in 1963 had an interesting retirement, and continues to enjoy it today. PCF-Brill 798 was one of 99 Brill Trolleybuses assembled by Pacific Car and Foundry(Paccar) in 1940 for Seattle Transit. It was retired in 1963, and ended up in a pasture near Centralia. During the Oil Shock, the new transit operator in Seattle, Metro, was looking for extra trolleybuses, and dug this one up, cleaned it up, fixed it up, and when it re-entered service in 1975, it ran until they closed the old network for rehab in 1978, and continues with the Metro Employees Historic Vehicle Association, nearly 70 years after it was built. The 1979 AM General Trolleybuses were in service for about 25 years. Most Diesels last 12 years, but Metro has got more out of them in the past.
I don’t understand all this stuff about the light rail being too far from Rainier. At Othello and Rainier Beach, Rainier is just over a half mile from MLK. That’s about an eight minute walk. Really not a big deal. At Columbia City it’s .3 miles, less than a five minute walk, so it doesn’t make any sense for people to take the 7 from there. Youth might not ride the light rail because it costs twice as much as the bus for us.
Hello I am a night trolly operator. I drive the 7. It is hard work. Crack heads are mean. Drunks are mean. Late people are mean. But I would rather drive the drunks then have them drive and I try very hard to run on time but traffic happens… And…well okay, I hate the crack heads just a bit more than I hate the slow drivers….. OMG SO very very SLOW…. but this piece of shit runs all day and night. Everyone rides it. You ride it. I ride it. So what can we do to make it better? Call metro and ask the customer service office for actual police on the bus for starters. Ask the bus driver for help. You know… as in with words.. As an operator, I have to do just that, operate the coach. Which really means I am driving and not paying attention to your thoughts that aren’t spoken… Most of the times if there are communication issues on the bus they resolve themselves (fastest) but if I have to become involved (slowest) it really must be brought to my attention… by the passengers.. Like I wasn’t born with eyes in the back of my head gurls…. C’mon.
And really if the bus is full of people and late, don’t you think it cuz the bus is full of people and it’s late?
Shit… If more people would just have the fare ready to go we could do just that. Or if metro would just ENFORCE the fare policy we wouldn’t have that issue at all. I mean, don’t even think of not paying your fare in Tacoma cuz they will stop that coach and wait for the police to arrive and take you to jail. Took about 6 months to train the rider-ship but it got done.
But really is it that bad?
I mean.. Don’t the drug dealers need a place to deal?
And if we as a people aren’t going to build homes for the homeless, then shouldn’t we expect to see them using public transportation as their personal bedrooms and toilets?
Really, wouldn’t it all be okay if you just asked nicely, “Will it bother you if I open the window, Miss?”
or, “Hello, excuse me please? I’d like to sit here.”
or, “Please don’t curse in front of my child.”
Just take the time to see the situation and think about how your actions could make it better, or worse. Then act.
Evergreen Railfan,
I just hope any low-floors permanetly on the 7 are trolleybuses.
There are no plans to replace the current lot of trolley buses, much less with low floor coaches. Most 7′s are actually the Breda articulateds – converted after those buses were purchased for tunnel use and found to be too big and unwieldy for tunnel use.
There is currently talk of eliminating the trolley fleet altogether and replacing them with hybrids – which would usher in some low-floor coaches, but elminiate our electric bus system.
ECB is correct. Riding the #7 is a horrible experience. It’s too bad the management of Metro and the Sound Transit people cannot get together to integrate the bus system with the light rail.
Why not have the same fares for easy transfers? Instead of having the long drawn out #7 route, why not have smaller feeder routes that go from station to station, via Rainer and points east (Mt. Baker, Genessee, Seward Park, Rainer Beach, etc.) I suspect the people who come up with the Metro routes and scheduling do not actually use Metro.
To those who are concerned about light rail becoming just like the 7. I seriously doubt that will happen. Between the private security guards, fare inspectors, and Sound Transit Police there is a heavy security presence on the trains. Anyone who doesn’t get the hint and misbehaves will be dealt with quickly.
If Metro had the level of security on it’s “problem child” routes that Sound Transit has on Link, fare evasion and the activities that make the 7 so “colorful” would be much less common.
Also bus service on MLK isn’t being eliminated. However rather than the 42 or the 48 service will be provided by the 8. Some are upset because they will loose their single-seat ride to downtown, 23rd, or the U-District however riders can still transfer to Link or other buses. Riders will gain a single-seat ride to MLK through the CD, Madison Valley, Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, and Seattle Center.
@43
Given that diesel prices are almost sure to increase in the coming years replacing the trolleys with hybrids would be a mistake. Not to mention that ETB’s last twice as long as any coach with a diesel engine.
Author @ 26,
I think the frustration from ECB and others is that the Times editorial board (who largely live on the Eastside), and some of its writers, have been hostile to transit generally and specifically to light rail. That’s why any article that _could_ be read to romanticize city buses the way they are _is_ read that way, as another battle in the Times’ “war on transit” as another poster put it.
What city buses need is more money for more security; the Times’ position would be, “why, when riding the bus is so colorful?”
@ Rob – “It’s too bad the management of Metro and the Sound Transit people cannot get together to integrate the bus system with the light rail.”
Metro’s local bus service within City of Seattle is hardly an issue that Sound Transit can resolve. Metro is a separate government dominated by electeds representing suburban and rural King County communities.
City of Seattle (not Sound Transit) decided not to allow any park-and-rides at Link stations within Seattle. I fully support that decision. But King County Metro won’t provide bus connections to Seattle’s Link stations in part because King County’s priorities are mixed up (see eddiew’s comment #10 at http://publicola.net/?p=11708#comments about the obvious priority of connecting “walkable” Enumclaw to the rest of civilization).
@34 and @42- you guys are great. Seriously, bus drivers have to deal with all kinds of crap. All the stuff I deal with for the 15 minutes I ride the bus, you guys have to deal with for 8+ hours a day. Thank you for your service.
Nice rebuttal to that stupid, condescending Times article.
Maybe next the Times can write about the colorful and smelly 358. I’d love to see the author try to put a good spin on that route.
Columbia City is only six blocks from the Link station, not a mile, so it’s a fairly quick walk or bike trip (like ECB makes) to reach the train to downtown. I’ve seen several Link riders trying that to avoid the #7.
Jen’s post was fun. I commuted to high school on the #358 (then the #406) in the 1970s, and it stunk way back then. We described a stressful but odor-free #358 trip last year, in a story about crowded buses.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008163633_busybuses07.html
Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times transportation writer
Rob,
I suspect the people who come up with the Metro routes and scheduling do not actually use Metro.
Funny how so many ‘suspicions’ turn out to be complete crap once you bother to obtain actual information.
@50: That assumes you’re starting at downtown Columbia City. Most of the houses in CC are up the hill (to the east), and many are south of Edmunds. I’m not saying it’s prohibitive, but it isn’t quick—my walk, for example, takes me about 15-20 minutes, and I walk quickly.
uikl,
That’s why any article that _could_ be read to romanticize city buses the way they are _is_ read that way, as another battle in the Times’ “war on transit” as another poster put it.
I find this comment and the very suggestion that an article “romanticizing” (read: ‘positive’) a bus route is somehow anti-transit.
Aren’t buses ‘transit’?
Sheesh.
dente,
King County Metro won’t provide bus connections to Seattle’s Link stations
The claim that Metro won’t provide bus connections to link stations is blatantly false. Wrong. Incorrect. A lie.
Metro has done a LOT to link bus to rail, including (but not limited to) changes to numerous routes, and the stringing of several miles of new trolley bus wire to extend the 14 and 36 buses to Link.
I DARE you to get actual information before expressing opinions based on falsehoods.
43, eliminating them altogether is not the answer. This is not Edmonton(which just dumped their fleet instead of replacing them). I heard somewhere following the debate online over Edmonton, that some in Toronto regret abandoning theirs.
55, I’m all for keeping the trolleys. Just started driving the darned things and I think I’m in love.
I don’t know if any councilmembers take Metro, let alone the planners. At least the Sound Transit CEO has been known to take it from time to time. In San Francisco, I believe there is a law that mandates some Supervisors to take MUNI a few times a week or month, at least. There was one San Francisco Supervisor in his brief time in City Government who took MUNI to City Hall every day, but that was a 31 years ago. The MUNI at the time was not in good shape, the new Boeing LRVs were delayed, the PCCs were soldiering on(not on the F-Line, that was not brought back for 20 years, but on the remaining streetcar routes, the J,K,L,M, and N lines), they had just bought some used ones from Toronto, and the iconic Cable Cars were also falling apart, in fact a few years later, one cable was so worn out, it snapped. If ever there was a time for somebody in city government to be an advocate for the oldest publicly owned public transit system, it was then, and Milk was that advocate(in addition to his other causes). I don’t know if the then-president of the Board of Supervisors ever took it to work(later Mayor and now Senator Fienstein), but she was not shy to take the controls of streetcars and cable cars for a politician’s photo op.(Including MUNI No.1, which is as old as MUNI itself, both came into being in 1912. No.1′s renovation contract is almost as much as the bond measure to begin starting MUNI was in in 1912).
http://blog.streetcar.org/2008/10/streetcar-to-be-dedicated-to-harvey-milk.html
The part I mentioned about San Francisco Supervisors being required to take transit at least twice a week, was passed by the voters. Prop AA in 1993, problem is it was non-binding, and turns out, not enforced. 6 years after it was passed, nobody was following it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/23/MNY83434.DTL
@ Jeff Welch:
Even though you didn’t DOUBLE DOG dare me, here’s some analysis suggesting that – even if Metro did “a lot” – bus changes in response to Link starting actually represent a degredation in overall Metro’s transit in the Rainier Valley.
Dick Burkhart (SE Seattle transit advocate) analyzed the cancelled bus service and the new service. An exerpt follows of his public comments at King County Council:
“[R]esidents of Rainier Valley were told that the bus service hours in Rainier Valley that were cancelled would be redeployed in Rainier Valley. However if, for example, we examine the weekday service hours for Option B on p. 5 (new route 109), Option B on p. 7 (route 39 instead of 50), and Option A on p. 8 (route 109 and revised 107), we get approximately 160 hours cancelled and 60 hours added, leaving a deficit of around 100 hours.** Also the 60 added hours are not new service but replacement for cancelled service, including the 42 south of Henderson and the 48 south of McClellan.”
The final decision by KC Council is actually yet worse than Mr. Burkhart’s analysis suggested because KC cancelled the 50 and cut 39 headways.
dente,
actually represent a degredation in overall Metro’s transit in the Rainier Valley.
No fair trying to change the subject. Is cutting and re-routing buses (some even to accomodate the bus connections to Link stations you claim don’t exist) a “degradation in overall. . service in the Rainier Valley”? Yup. No argument here.
But that’s not what you said.
What you *did* say was “King County Metro won’t provide bus connections to Seattle’s Link stations”
Are you acknowledging that your statement was a falsehood now?
If you want to talk “degradation in service in the Rainier Valley” I’m fine with that. I certainly agree. But that wasn’t what you originally stated, nor was it what I was responding to – it was your blatantly false comment that “King County Metro won’t provide bus connections to Seattle’s Link stations”.
The key phrase is “romanticize city buses the way they are.” Why do Metro riders put up with pee and assaults, including assaults on drivers? Because they have to, because of political choices driven by people such as the Times editorial board that doesn’t and doesn’t have to ride the bus.
Metro needs more resources to make the 7 as nice a ride as Link is. But if our only regional newspaper, with a weak record on transit, is writing about how people still ride the 7 instead of Link because of all of the colorful characters, we’re not getting anywhere.
Example: could Metro cut some service hours in the suburbs to fund security on in-city routes? Of course. Are they barred by politics from doing that? Yes. Who pays the price? City riders.
Well, both the Times piece and this are extreme. What else is new. I live in S. Seattle, no car, with 5 year old. I’ve taken the 7 at least twice a day for the past 4 years. I’ve taken it late at night many times, usually at least twice a week.
Yes, it sucks. It is slow. When I worked downtown, by cheery, fleece-ridden Ballard colleagues had no idea what a real “car-less” commute took.
I have spent ridiculous amounts of money I can’t spare taking cabs when the 7 was excessively late.
But Erica Barnett, please! It’s not full of shit-in-your-pants crackheads. No one is shooting up on the bus. I’ve never ever seen a drug deal. Never a knife. Never a fight. In 4 years.
Although I do talk to Salvation Army guys sometimes about how they are struggling to get clean. The other day, I talked to a guy at the Othello stop about how he got shot at that stop – over 10 years ago now.
So when exactly did you witness this insane list of deviance? Maybe 10 years ago? That’s the only excuse I can muster for this nonsense.
Yesterday, the 7 was lots of old people. And poor people. And teenagers.
A few weeks ago, between Edmunds and McClellan, I talked to Cambodian housekeepers at a celebrated First Hill hospital about how they want to organize a union, but nobody cares. (SEIU, HERE: make note!)
Three days ago, I talked to a spry 87-year-old man about his view of Seattle’s parade of mayors. (He won’t take the train.)
The extremes you list make for a nice package of lede/headline and subsequent click-thru stats, but it’s not true. And it feels a tad white.
An aside: re: light rail. Why didn’t Sound Transit build it up Rainier? Where all the services for Rainier Valley are? I’m still taking the 7 to Safeway and the bank. Why do urban planners often make such clueless errors?
Why aren’t the damn trains faster? It takes me exactly the same amount of time to get downtown from Seward Park on bus and train. I walk over to the train for the sake of novelty. My daughter thinks trains are cool.
Maybe I’ll see you on the 7 sometime.
I remember a little bit of a debate going on in the neighborhood about 10 years ago. Some wanted it to come down Ranier, but then it would have had to get over towards MLK Jr. Way anyway, and might have been more expensive, required some extra tunnels, as the surface of Ranier Ave is narrow at places, while MLK Jr. Way was wide to begin with, even though it still had to be widened to maintain it as a 4-lane roadway, which is also known as SR900(Ranier is also known as SR167 by the way).
Seems some think MLK Jr Way was pre-determined to be a rail line before many of us were born, back when it was called Empire Way.
http://crosscut.com/2009/07/08/history/19074/
There was one other controversial routing at the time LINK was being planned, Tukwilla wanted it to serve Southcenter, partly to serve the city’s major attraction, the other, because they wanted it to run down Interurban Ave. The name makes it a fitting route for Light Rail someday, because, it once had been a Light Rail right of way, Up until 1928, it was the route of an Interurban Streetcar from Seattle to Tacoma. Ran on Overhead wires on the city systems in Tacoma and Seattle, but in the valleys, it ran on a Third Rail.
#62 Kristin,
Thanks for the reality check.
@62: Nope, not ten years ago–over the course of several years riding that route, up to and including this year (I still ride the 7 if I have a lot of groceries or don’t feel like walking the whole way home in the dark). In fairness, most of the really sketchy stuff I’ve seen (guys following a woman off the bus after harassing her, drug deals, guns, etc.) has been on weekend nights, usually after 11 or 12. The earlier buses (I assume you ride during commuting hours?) definitely have less weird shit going on.
But the thing is, if the response to complaints about this kind of stuff is “just don’t ride the bus,” or “just ride earlier,” or “gee, you sound awfully white, you should learn to deal,” that’s not helpful. People who have other options aren’t going to ride the bus if we keep telling them that the way it’s always been is the way it’s always going to be.
@52:
Several transit riders I’ve interviewed in the valley, as well as Councilman Bruce Harrell, have suggested jitneys to help more people get to the train stations, when they are beyond walking distance.
62, Ranier Ave also has some drawbacks to prevent tunneling in the constrained parts, like the Genessee Business District. There used to be a waterway from what is now Stan Sayres Park, running roughly through what is now Genesse Park and Rainier Playfield, up to Alaska Street, called Wetmore Slough. Starting in the 30s, a fill was built where it met Lake Washington and it gradually drained even more as what the city called “sanitary filling” was done, creating this multi-use system of parks.
http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/imlsrvhs&CISOPTR=198&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
Something interesting about the old Seattle and Ranier Valley Interurban, it had a branch line at Genessee Street that went up to about the Lakewood Playfield. Roughly part of the 39 today.
No, I thankfully no longer do the commute downtown. As I don’t have a car, I take the 7 for everything else, esp at night after the 39 shuts down, sometimes 5times a week after 9pm. But after scanning all these comments, I guess I’ve been lucky. I was once verbally harassed on the downtown 7. And a few times been yelled at for being a white girl for no apparent reason. Light rail isn’t alleviating my transit Hell. I sometimes scan the Craigslist ads of $2000 Subarus wistfully, like the Sears Christmas catalog. I have 10 minutes before I head to the 7 again – I hope it is merciful and the seat is dry.
In keeping with an earlier post, the #7 isn’t fancy, but it gets the job done, like most Metro buses, before sound transit bus or rail came along. Most people I heard clamoring for light rail DID/DO NOT RIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, but insisted that with monorail or light rail went to some of the same places, they would! Where are they now? Still in their SUV’s that’s where, so enamored with the idea that they skipped most of the important details like versatility, effectiveness, cost and necessary lifestyle change.
This is all classism in disguise. Everybody defending light rail wanted a special better faster mode that they “deserved,” versus hanging out with the rest of us. The Times came up with a euphemistic story on why the “patchwork” folks aren’t doing as expected. Erica “exposes” the Times’ article as so very classist that the valid points it might’ve made also disappear (and her fellow riders are denigrated in the process). What she does do, which the Times apparently didn’t, is make good points about perceptions of “those people” who ride the bus, as well as the current impracticality/ incongruity between the dream and the reality of public transport. Look, It’s a pain in the ass to switch authorities and fares, and sometimes the dang thing just doesn’t go where and when you need it to. As we’ve seen, timewise the SeaTac link has also been a zero sum game–still taking longer than the #194 to get to the airport.
-cw
I am one of the people who has been clamoring for light rail ever since I moved to the south end. I’ve been riding the bus daily since 1997, and now I ride light rail as much as I can. I liked my commute on the 14. The 14 is not nearly as rough as the 7 (another bus I rode frequently) but it is not without its smelly, scary, high, or drunk passengers. In my experience riding throughout the south end, drivers are almost always courteous and apologetic when the bus is behind schedule (except on the 48, which is never on schedule). In my experience, drivers almost always intervene when a situation comes us if a passenger doesn’t take care of it first. I didn’t switch to light rail because I was disgusted with the buses. I switched becuase it is significantly faster. Even with the 7-10 minute longer walk, the light rail is faster, sometimes as much as 15 minutes faster if I catch a train right away. I struggle to comprehend riders who say it isn’t faster. That isn’t my experience at all.
I’m not sure how persuasive it is to use the “testimony” of riders on the 7 as evidence that light rail is unpopular. What about getting on the train and asking those riders which buses they gave up? On more than one evening commute there has been standing room only on the trains, so someone is riding it, and I’m guessing a lot of those people are former bus riders.
I’m also a little surprised at how quickly the commenters on this thread are willing to blame Metro for not changing their service to complement light rail. Jeez, give them a little time to collect some data on how people are changing their transit trips in response to the new transit mode. Bus service will change in September, and again in February, and probably again after that. It takes time for riders to figure out what works for them, and what doesn’t, and then it takes time for Metro to process all that new info. Show a little patience, please!
While I originally read the article in the Times and thought that it was indeed condescending and romantic I know appreciate the authors attempt. I appreciate the article now because of Erica Bartnett’s self-righteous and ugly rant against it.
At least Mr. Lucas tried to get a balance look at it, the grit and the nice moments. Bartnett would have us think that riders of the 7 are constantly getting urinated on, watching drug deals, fleeing a fight, or reeling in their own poverty and injustice.
Lighten up Bartnett, you’re missing everything. You’re so busy pointing out the ugliness that you can see nothing else.
Sorry you left Seattle Mr. Lucas, we need more idealistic folks like you around who are brave enough to romanticize something, ANYTHING, in our lives. The more I have to listen to the cheap rants of yuppies like Bartnett, the more I wished I knew where you moved to.
@ Jeff Welch: It appears we can agree to agree. KCM has degraded transit service in Rainier Valley under the guise of improving it. KCM has provided some limited new connections to Link, but these new connections are lame.
The new connections (e.g., #107 shorty bus extended 6 blocks on 1/2-hour headways to Henderson station, #14 empty bus extended on 1/2-hour headways to Mt Baker station) are weak-Mary connections, but yes new ones. But because overall bus hours decreased substantially – even before we get zapped with the budget woes cuts – the net effect is a double whammy: fewer one-seat bus options and terrible east/west connections to Link stations.
Since post/article is about the #7, take that as an example. Folks will continue riding the #7 because KCM did not provide good connections to Link for folks living east of Rainier. If you’re forced onto the #7 from say Seward Park/Lakewood/Hillman City/Columbia City areas, first connection to Link that makes any durn sense is at Mt. Baker station. But you’ll have to get off the bus about 2 miles south of downtown, walk two blocks to the Link station, cross Rainier on ped skybridge, climb the stairs to Link station, and wait for the train. Or you can just keep your seat and continue on the #7. Negligible time difference either way.
The piece was welcome, ECB. The resulting comment thread was not a huge surprise.
To further sum up my response to both, to fix the problems on the 7, you’ve got to fix the problems in the neighborhoods that produce its ridership. Putting a cop on the bus or something is a band aid on a stab wound. And yeah, there’s not much drivers themselves can do about it either: a latticework of strict Metro driver regulations ties their hands in these situations. All they can do is call the cops if things get real.
As for the 34762384637284 stops, unless they’re going to string a 7X express route through there during the day, I’m not sure how much else they can do to help people bypass that moving train wreck.
Really, I just wouldn’t live out there for any price. “Colorful” or “spirited” are quaint cop-out labels for rough neighborhoods by better-off people who don’t really have to live in such places (or if they did once, not anymore). The original article is hard-sell nostalgia trash for a shady bus route in a shady part of town.
Thanks ECB for telling it like it is! What a refreshing change from the typical mush found in the mainstream press.
Young middle-class white girl with no car who uses the 7 for basically all of my transportation needs here. I’m 3 blocks from a major 7 stop and 1.2 miles from the Columbia City stop… if I walk along Rainier the whole way, which is deeply unpleasant. Rainier’s not a very walkable street, and the layout of streets around it means that if I try to cut through more pleasant areas it ups the distance to at least a mile and a half. The 7 comes about as frequently as light rail and with the time added walking is just as fast or faster. So, I take the light rail when it’s a nice day and I don’t have anywhere particularly to be and I’m not carrying anything too heavy or wearing uncomfortable shoes and it’s during peak time, because I’m unemployed and a quarter makes a difference. Needless to say, I’m happy Light Rail’s around but it hasn’t made a huge difference in my transit habits.
I feel ambivalent about both articles. I think people overlook some of the good points of the 7, like the fact that it’s the most frequently running bus that I know of and comes regularly the entire day (not that taking it at 2 AM is a good idea, but it’s an option). It’s slow, but service is so frequent that it’s reliable in its way. I’d much rather be serviced by the 7 with all its stinky “character” than some swanky suburban line that has air conditioning but only comes every half hour and stops service at 10 PM.
I do think that a lot of the discomfort people have with the 7 is wussy. Like, oh noes, poor people who aren’t white and don’t smell like freshly cut roses or converse in respectfully hushed tones, I am traumatized! But at times the route genuinely is dangerous, especially late at night. I’ve rarely felt truly threatened on the 7, but even rarely is too often. And while I roll my eyes at the perfectly manicured buses that go up to the north end, there are also times when I feel like I’m going to scream if I spend another 40 minutes immersed in the stench of stale urine.
I guess what I’m saying is, there are real reasons to like the 7 besides irrational sentimentalism, but the fact that Metro seems perfectly content to ghettoize the route is by no means charming… I mean, if I remember correctly, the 7 is one of the few Metro routes that pays for itself. Its ridership deserves far more respect than they get.
Thank you Erica, for writing a response to that infuriating article before I did. Metro actually cut east west service that would enable folks in my neighborhood (Seward Park) to get to the station. I use a wheelchair: it's a mile uphill through an objectively dangerous neighborhood from my house to catch the train.
I agreed with the policy of discouraging car use by not creating parking near the stations. But the corollary requirement to that policy is increasing transit feeder lines that serve light rail. It's half-assed and disgraceful that they've cut them instead.