Talk:RapidRide

BRT or Express Bus?

This article currently describes RapidRide as a bus rapid transit system. It appears that RapidRide more closely matches what is described in the express bus service article. It does not include any bus-exclusive right-of-way on any route. RapidRide is differentiated from other commuter buses in its region only in that it features signal priority, off-bus fare collection, and unique branding. While signal priority and OBFC are major features of BRT, I argue that they're not enough for this particular service to be categorized as anything more than an improved express bus. It certainly doesn't compare to the systems discussed in the BRT article, which operate on dedicated busways. See Rapid Ride (an Albuquerque service) for a very similar bus that is described a little more accurately in the article lead. What's the opinion of the community? I'd like to see some spirited discussion on the subject. I've also started a related section at the BRT talk page. Ibadibam (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In lieu of any discussion, I'm going to go ahead and change the lead to parallel that of the Rapid Ride article. Ibadibam (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The Wikipedia article on express bus service describes it as a bus service that is intended to run faster than normal bus services between the same two commuter points. This is more like the service provided on Sound Transit Express routes (buses make local stops in one city, travel via a highway making very limited stops and arrive in another city where it makes local stops. I would say that RapidRide is more like a limited-stop bus.

But I would go once step further and say that RapidRide is a limited-stop bus that has most of the features of BRT:

• Dedicated lanes Somewhat On some lines (E Line) there are peak-hour Business Access and Transit lanes and 3rd Ave in Downtown Seattle is bus only during peak hours.
• Busway alignment No
• Off-board fare collection Somewhat Most major stops have ORCA card readers.
• Intersection treatment Somewhat To my knowledge each of the RapidRide corridors have systems to give buses priority at signals.
• Platform-level boarding Yes The new buses purchased for RapidRide are all low floor and kneel for level boarding. (It's also important to note that passengers are almost guaranteed to get one of these buses, unlike other routes.)
• High-frequency all-day service Yes 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off peak, 7 days a week plus late night service on all lines except the B line.
• High capacity vehicles Yes The new buses purchased for RapidRide are all articulated. (Again, almost guaranteed.)
• Quality stations Somewhat While they aren't as nice as other stations, they are a big improvement over standard bus stops.
• Prominent brand or identity Yes Buses have a different livery and there are separate maps for the RapidRide system.

The problem is that RapidRide is such a half-assed try at BRT (it was essentially an excuse to get the federal government to give money to King County Metro to purchase new buses and improve bus stops on some busy routes.) it's not a "full" BRT system like the Metro Orange Line in Los Angeles... it's not even up to the same standard as the Swift the E Line connects to. It's a "light" implementation of BRT... but I think it's BRT nevertheless. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a good assessment of RapidRide, and covers the criteria from the BRT article quite thoroughly. If we look at a better codified standard, like the BRT scorecard, there's a few more details to consider. Let's just look at the "BRT Basics" requirements:

Criterion RapidRide's implementation score possible Busway alignment* Some distribution of: Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but aligned to the curb (score 4) Busways that operate through virtual lanes produced by a series of bus queue-jump lanes at intersections (score 1) Curb-aligned busway that is adjacent to the curb (score 0) c.1–3 7 Dedicated right-of-way* Delineators only or colorized pavement only without other enforcement measures applied to over 40% of the busway corridor length 2 7 Off-board fare collection < 15% of trunk stations have barrier-controlled, off-vehicle fare collection 0 7 Intersection treatments No turns prohibited across the busway but signal priority at most or all intersections 2 7 Platform-level boarding 100% of buses are platform level with no other measures for reducing the gap in place 4 7 Total c.9–11 35

*Must score at least 4 on each of these criteria

RapidRide fails to meet the minimum "Basic BRT" score of 18, and in fact is categorically disqualified because it fails to score 4/7 on the first two criteria. There is a spectrum of features available to bus systems to enhance and modernize service. Good BRT systems implement at least some of those. RapidRide has also implemented some of those (but not the most important ones). Many of those improvements are just modernizations that are becoming common in all bus systems, like low floors, readerboards at stops, and signal priority. BRT is a rapid transit system that uses buses instead of trains. It has a minimum requirement of continuous dedicated busways at least 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) in length, which isn't satisfied by the HOV and peak-only bus lanes that RapidRide runs in. I think we both recognize that "BRT" is inappropriate for this system.

As for whether RapidRide is an express bus, I concede that it's an imperfect designation. I'd love to find something more precise. Even at King County Metro, "express" doesn't have one meaning. The 48X offers a faster alternative to the 48 local, using most of the same route. The 9X has no local counterpart, but is an express in that it skips some stops of other routes that overlap it. SoundTransit routes and some KCM routes (like the 255) are express in that they run on the freeway, but aren't actually providing an alternative, as their destinations are otherwise unserved. None of these express buses are analogous to the service RapidRide provides. I think I originally used "express" because it seems to cover the grey area between local and BRT, but after reading your observations and thinking about it a little more, it seems like RapidRide is actually more like a local bus in terms of its routes.

I've seen the phrase "BRT light" before, but it seems imprecise. It's like "dairy-free cheese". No cheese is dairy free—the full phrase would be something like "dairy-free cheese imitation". BRT light imitates BRT, but isn't BRT. In that way it's somewhat misleading. The phrase "Bus with a high level of service" (BHLS), also has some traction (example), but is used only a little more frequently than "BRT light". Metro itself doesn't use any descriptor for RapidRide—"BRT" disappeared from their materials after the project left the planning phase. Perhaps this article should follow suit, and just call it a "bus system" without further qualification. It's not very detailed, but it's at least less controversial. Ibadibam (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I remember why I used "express": that's the way it's phrased for Rapid Ride, the similarly named, similarly painted and similarly operated route in Albuquerque. Ibadibam (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with using the ITDP's BRT standard is that while they have great examples of best practices worldwide... they don't really reflect the state of BRT in the US (I wish it did!). Consider that LA Metro's Orange Line (arguably the gold standard of BRT in the US) only qualifies as a bronze level system under the ITDP's scale. This is a bus that really truly does act like rapid transit, traveling in an exclusive right of way, stopping at real stations that are spaced far apart, no on-board fare collection. Heck, the Orange Line travels faster than some of LA's light rail lines... yet it only qualifies as bronze. As a matter of fact... as of January 2013 only 5 lines in the US scored high enough to qualify as "true BRT". Even Community Transit's "Swift Bus Rapid Transit" doesn't count as "true BRT" on that scale. The question becomes if it's not BRT... what do we call a system like Swift... let alone RapidRide??

One of BRT's weaknesses as a transportation technology is there is a lot ways to cut corners (to cut costs)... and most cities choose BRT because they don't have the money or political power to build a rail-based rapid transit system. Like I said before RapidRide was at best half-assed try at BRT (and really an excuse to get some federal funding for King County Metro.)

Part of my problem is there is some grey area between a "limited-stop" and an "express" bus. In most cities a "limited-stop" bus runs parallel to an all-stops local bus, whereas an "express" bus makes local stops in one area, has a section with no or very few stops (usually on a faster road) and than makes local stops in another area. The problem is that the words "limited-stop", "express" and "rapid" are used interchangeably and can mean different things in different cities.

As a compromise... I propose we call RapidRide a "system of bus lines with some Bus Rapid Transit features" or a "system of limited-stop bus lines with some Bus Rapid Transit features". RickyCourtney (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I favor your first suggestion. This is a new type of bus service that really doesn't have a good definition yet...let's just keep it generic until some term becomes more commonplace in reliable sources. Like you said, different agencies in different cities use different terminology—they can market however they choose because there's no well-defined standard. The Federal Transit Administration may have done a bad job defining BRT when they developed requirements for obtaining grants for it, and now agencies have implemented systems to match those requirements, instead of the international standard based on the Latin American model. Does U.S. dilution of the model mean that we should water down the global definition of BRT? That's a difficult question that hits at the heart of Wikipedia's deepest flaw. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Time for Category:RapidRide?

Shall we create Category:RapidRide as a subcategory of Category:Transportation in Seattle? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

More or less description?

I have recently added the following information to the page:

RapidRide operates on eight[16] corridors across the Seattle metropolitan area, with four more planned for construction. C[17], D[18], E[19] and H[20] lines run in a north-to-south pattern, meeting in the downtown, while G Line operates in perpendicular to them[21], linking the area to Madison Valley.[22][23] All five run close to the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and its four[24] Link stations.[25] Two more lines run to the south of Seattle with the Tukwila International Boulevard as an intermodal hub[26][27]: A Line starts there and follows Link's 1 Line to the Federal Way Downtown[28], while F Line connects to the station as it runs between Renton and Burien.[29] Finally, B Line is the system's only separate line, partially following Link's Line 2 between the termini at Bellevue Transit Center and Downtown Redmond.[30] Much like the light rail route prior to the opening of the Crosslake Connection[31], B Line exclusively serves the Eastside.[32]

As you can see, it is extensive and based on a hefty amount of links to both the transit authority and independent pieces. My edit was reverted by SounderBruce, who has reached out to me to claim that [...] the summary list is already sufficient at describing the network. I believe it is not, as the information I added describes a poorly-documented system; there is no single description of routes and their patterns apart from a licensed King County's government website. I believe that the information above is necessary and I invite editors to reach a consensus. For now, I would also invite SounderBruce to keep my work as it is as not to engage in edit warring. 17:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC) MapperGuy87 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@MapperGuy87: The addition is of poor quality and absolutely needs to be removed until secondary sources are added (of which plenty are available, especially from The Seattle Times). Citations 17 through 21 were merely the schedule links from the Metro website; one cannot interpret them to mean the lines "run in a north-to-south pattern, meeting in the downtown, while G Line operates in perpendicular to them". This is a clear case of WP:OR, as determined by the giant maps RfC from a few years ago, and a warning to that end was already posted. As it stands, the salvageable sections of the addition are entirely redundant to the existing summary list. SounderBruce 05:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the sources are not enough, just tag those you believe are incorrect: I will do my best to fix them. It is not right to delete an entire section because you feel there are too little links. Then, the point abt lines that 'run in a north-to-south pattern' can be easily interpreted from a SEA26 soccer map I have *also* linked: it clearly depicts the service patterns. Saying this is original research is as much as saying that simple calculations cannot be performed when writing an article. Finally, I appreciate your input, but it's your opinion against mine. Once again, I will do my best to add sources; while no other opinions exist, I will work to improve the article and I hope on us coooperating.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s not that the information is incorrect, but it may be interpretive or a synthesis of primary sources. The policy is that Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I have linked 22 sources to this sole part of article: roughly one half is to King County's government data, which I believe is a primary source. The technical article you have linked says that such sources should only be used to make statements of fact: that is exactly what I use them for. Any reasonable person can look at the map and understand that such and such lines runs from north to south. The heavily-disputed part about patterns of a larger system - '[...] in a north-to-south pattern, meeting in the downtown, while G Line operates in perpendicular to them' - is also backed by a primary source, which is exactly what these sources should be used: making statements of fact. Looking at a map that shows routes running in a certain way and writing a paragraph on that is no different from looking at a map of a park and reasoning it is rectangular. Either way, thank you for commenting :)

MapperGuy87 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The Seattle Transit Blog, Metro Route Atlas, and arguably The Urbanist all do not meet the standards of a reliable source. The remaining sources are interpreting existing sources in ways that constitute WP:OR. It would be useful to have a summary style description of the network as a whole, but the level of detail in the current version belongs in the individual line articles and needs much better sourcing (which exists, as mentioned earlier). There's also the prose itself, which needs major cleanup. SounderBruce 05:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I believe they are, but so far, it's just your opinion vs mine again. As we cannot reach a consensus, I propose leaving the section as it is.

07:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC) MapperGuy87 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve also weighed as a third opinion, and I agree with SounderBruce. So, no, it’s not just your opinion against his.

As we cannot reach a consensus, I propose leaving the section as it is.

Might I suggest you brush up on how to reach consensus. This reads like an attempt to game the system. If we can’t find a compromise, the solution would be to maintain the status quo, reverting to the prior stable state content.

That would not be ideal. A summary style description of the network as a whole would be helpful, and I think that’s what you were trying to achieve here, we just need to edit it down to something that everyone can get behind. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure, you are welcome, go ahead.

17:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC) MapperGuy87 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry for gaming the system, my bad.

MapperGuy87 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)