RapidRide B - Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond via Microsoft
Metro is asking for community members to help plan future bus service in Redmond and Bellevue as part of the introduction of the RapidRide B line. Here is the press release.
King County Metro Transit is considering changes to Eastside bus routes that currently serve parts of Bellevue and Redmond to prepare for the arrival of the RapidRide B Line in 2011.
The B Line is part of Metro’s new Bus Rapid Transit system. It will run between the transit centers in downtown Bellevue and Redmond via Crossroads and Overlake. As part of the planning for the B Line, Metro is forming a community sounding board that will provide advice about public outreach and what changes to bus service would be best for the local communities.
In order to maximize bus routes and avoid duplicating service, Metro will consider routing changes, schedule adjustments, or consolidation of approximately 20 existing routes, including: 221, 222, 225, 229, 230, 233, 240, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 261, 265, 266, 271, 272, and 926.
More after the jump.
Metro is looking for sounding board members who:
- Ride the bus frequently;
- Live or work in an area that will be served by one of the bus routes listed;
- Represent a set of special-interest bus riders – such as students, night-shift workers, and people who are elderly or have disabilities; and
- Enjoy participating in a diverse group, with many points of view, to develop recommendations.
The sounding board will meet once or twice a month on Wednesdays from September through next March.
The deadline to submit an application to serve on the sounding board is Monday, Aug. 23. You can apply online at: www.kingcounty.gov/soundingboardapp. Or, to request a written application, contact:
Ashley DeForest, Community Relations Planner
King County Department of Transportation
201 S. Jackson St., KSC-TR-0824, Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Phone: (206) 684-1154 (TTY Relay 711)
Email: ashley.deforest@kingcounty.gov
If you meet the requirements consider applying. This is a great way to get involved.
On a side note Metro has a new Rapidride Blog. It has some new info and I certainly hope Metro keeps it well updated. Remember brand image is a key aspect of BRT. It would also be great if Metro did a data dump of planning and engineering document to the project page, which doesn’t really have any more information than it did 4 years ago when Transit Now passed. I know Metro has the documents and there is no reason not to share them. Just look at what SDOT has done with the First Hill Streetcar.
Looking at the map for RapidRide B, is the jog off of 156th Ave NE to serve the Overlake P&R really worthwhile? It certainly won’t be rapid, since it adds about 6 turns to the route, and that area of NE 24th & Bel-Red is generally congested. RapidRide B is not likely to have many people who drive a car to a P&R to access it – it is much more a route to serve stores, apartments & offices along its route – and it also serves the Overlake Transit Center and Redmond P&R’s. The primary reason to serve it is that King County built housing over the P&R, but couldn’t there be an entrance or walkway to 156th, and serve the residents that way, while shaving 5 minutes off the rout by eliminating the diversion?
Yeah that really jumped out at me as well. I know Metro took a while to determine whether or not to do this.
I would be interested in hearing from people that were involved why Metro chose to make the jog in the route. Metro just put the Overlake P&R in a bad location and now they are stuck routeing all of their buses into it. I would like to see if they studied something like this.
This is what happens when you have bus “TOD”. Buses are flexible, so they go where the land is, not where they really should go, i.e. land with high property values.
Metro took comments on a routing option similar to what you have proposed. I’m guessing they went with the current routing to continue service to the Overlake Park & Ride (which, IMHO, needs to be renamed). There is also the possibility to place the 31st St stop in a location that serves the new 31st St/36th St overpass as well as the east campus. It’s quite a walk but with frequent service like RapidRide, who knows?
Signal priority would help quite a bit – especially on the left turn from 156th onto 24th – I drove the 261 frequently last summer and had to sit at that light through many cycles.
A lot of people hate bringing corporate branding into things, but what if Microsoft paid some money towards the construction of the station and they called it Microsoft Station? It’s not like that thing in Chicago where a corporation sponsored a random station, because calling it Microsoft Station would actually make sense and help people out.
Looking at this map, next to the Eastlink map, I see that East Link also will hit both the Overlake Station and the Overlake P&R. My guess is that once link is inplace this little detour will disapear from RR B at the next route update, leaving RR B on 156th all the way from Overlake Transit Center (Microsoft Station?) to Overlake Mall
You’re looking at an old East Link map. ST finally came to their senses and went along with Redmonds request to remain on the 520 alignment and site the station close to where the new 32nd/36th overpass is going in. Overlake Village was a bad idea since day one. The P&R sees minimal use.
Just like adding this diversion to Overlake Village on RR B is a bad idea – increase operating costs and travel time and service little demand.
Shouldn’t the Rapid Ride be rapid and thus use Bellevue-Redmond Road?
That depends on what markets and functions it is to serve. The density of potential riders along NE 8th and 156th NE is far, far greater than along Bel-Red. This Rapid Ride route is meant to provide frequent, reliable service along dense corridors, and is not optimized for end point to end point trips.
Also, the Bel-Red corridor will eventually be served by East Link with dramatic increases in density. The area along Rapid Ride B is already served by the 253 and 230, routes that would be replaced with Rapid Ride. I’m assuming there is some potential for up zoning along RR B, but I don’t think it’s substantial.
I admit I don’t know the area very well, but from what I’ve seen on the Google Maps satellite view of the area, a more direct route could well be faster and more productive: Bellevue TC to 106th Ave. to 8th St. to 124th Ave. to Bel-Red Rd. to 152nd Ave. via Overlake P/R to 31st St. to 156th Ave. via Overlake TC to 40th St. to WA 520 to 154th Ave. to Redmond Way to 161st Ave. to Redmond TC. Not only is it shorter, but it seems to hit more commercial areas. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
There are a lot of apartments along NE 8th and 156th NE, as well as demand for the Crossroads shopping center.
There’s not much on 124th NE nor Bel-Red. Plus eventually Link will provide that service.
NE 8th Street has been the main transit street in Bellevue for decades, and apartments have been built, people have moved near there, and chosen jobs accordingly. RapidRide is intended to improve the best existing routes, not to move transit service from one place to another (which then means people would have to move to make the most of it).
Based off the map, would the RapidRide stop at stations and stops?
Yes, stations are considered “major” stops where there is likely off-board fare payment (which I think should be at any stop anyways) and all-door boarding. My guess is that coaches may not stop at stops unless requested or there are passengers waiting, like normal buses.
Not sure if anyone else noticed this from all the Rapid Ride maps, but I think they did a great job of positioning the routes and getting riders prepared for (eventual) rail:
RR A – basically follows the ST2 line down to Federal Way
RR B – follows the ST2 light rail line to Redmond
RR C – the old Monorail footprint and possible West Seattle service someday
RR D – likewise above, the old Monorail to Ballard, possible service in the future
RR E – great idea, connection to Swift at Aurora Village
RR F – another great connection hooking up Link and Sounds and possible ST3 extension
I will be anxiously waiting to see the ridership numbers on these routes once they start. I see the Rapid Ride lines as a compliment to both Link and Sounder, but also to Express and local bus service as well. These lines will be a nice addition to our transit landscape.
What I’d really like to see them achieve is something I’ve been trying to drill into everyone here and that is the fact that transferring between modes is essential and riders will have to get used to not having a “one seat” ride all the time. While someone may not live near the SeaTac light rail station, they may live in an Pac Hwy apartment or condo along the RR A route, hop aboard the bus to SeaTac station and then transfer to Link for downtown. These routes are a huge first step to achieve this.
Completely agree!
RR-B does not follow the envisioned Link route because DT to Crossroads and Crossroads to Overlake is a vital component of the line. If Link connected DT Bellevue to Overlake then I’d hope to see RR reconfigured to stay on 156th and connect Crossroads to Bellevue College. And if Link ever goes as far as Redmond then RR could turn west on Old Redmond road and terminate in Kirkland.
What I might question is the decision to follow the 148th extension rather than taking NE 85th down the hill into Redmond. I know traffic can be heavy but it’s a little shorter. The main reason for this though is that it would then put a stop at the edge of Redmond Town Center and serve all the new office and condo construction built there. Coming in the “back way” is lower density interspersed with light manufacturing. The other problem with using NE 85th is Redmond’s layout of one way streets through town would mean the stops westbound would be a block north of those eastbound. Although I heard a rumor Redmond wanted to go back to two way streets which I think will just lead to total gridlock. I’m not sure where the new road the recently pushed through goes and if that could be utilized to actually loop though Redmond Town Center?
Funny, I am seeing some of the same people who made excuses for Link for meandering all over the place, saying it had to zig-zag in order to serve various neighborhoods, are now criticizing RR for meandering, and even throwing-in that idiotic question “What’s so rapid about Rapid Ride.”
The inconsistency in this comment section is just amazing, and the sad part is, you don’t even realize you’re being inconsistent.
Link can meander and still keep the speed of an express bus. One Link route can serve several destinations simultaneously, that it would take multiple bus routes to serve. The several bus routes would probably not serve all the source-destination pairs the rail route would.
Link makes exactly one zig, through Rainier Valley. This adds two or three minutes minutes (the time from SODO to Mt Baker, and from MLK to 99), to serve five neighborhoods. The detour on the B is four blocks, with stoplights and congestion at every turn. It’s similar to the VA detour, which adds several minutes for one stop.
CT used to have several notorious examples of zigzagging routes. I used to attend a church at 176th in Lynnwood. Going from Aurora Village, the 99 route was almost twice as fast as the one that zigzagged through Edmonds and took a full hour, even though the latter route took me right to the corner and the 99 route required a 10-15 minute walk. Likewise, I knew a woman in Mountlake Terrace who could walk her dog to Edmonds Community College in the time it took the MT-Edmonds bus to zigzag its way there. Link’s few detours are nothing compared to that.
Sad but true. The first and only comment on RapidRide’s blog was a complaint about waiting for a demo bus that never showed up, due to a ‘communications problem’.
That sums up the whole RapidRide fallacy. It’s touted as BRT (see the original County Ordinance) then gets dumbed down to the same old bus routes, with fancier than normal bus shelters, a time clock, some lights and a few ORCA readers.
The RapidRide B line mentions nothing about time savings, or frequency of buses. Nothing about reserved ROW lanes, bus queues, signal pre-emption, in-lane loading/unloading, connections to E-Link stations and integration into the spine HCT network, or anything else that makes RapidRide/BRT any different than a normal bus line with fancier buses painted orange and a few shelters.
It doesn’t mention any of the things that make BRT attractive because I suspect most of those amenities are not going to happen.
Metro has been good about not calling it BRT recently, and they also aren’t comparing it to Swift anymore. I think they’ve realized that people would beat them up if they did, and it would also sour people’s minds toward real BRT in the future. Metro understands frequency, they just don’t have enough money to do it.
Hey, I was near a Target store the other day, and saw this guy collecting shopping carts with this machine called the Quick Kart, but what’s so quick about it? It goes so slow! Am I right, or what? I mean like, they should rename it, right? I mean, doesn’t it go really slow? So why is there quick in the name?
http://www.danetechnologies.com/products/quickart-m3.html
Why not just continue northward on 156th? I agree, the Overlake P&R – which is an odd facility IMHO, maybe because it has the feel of a Macy’s parking garage more than a park & ride – should have a different name. The BRT doesn’t have to serve every facility that’s in the neighborhood. It also looks like the two stations near 40th & 148th could be consolidated into one.
Regarding the two stations at 148th NE and NE 40th, I expect that the one on 148th is for west/northbound and the one on 40th is for south/eastbound
I’m wondering if it might be better to cross over to 148th at 51st instead of 40th. I seems like there is an undue cluster of stops/stations near Overlake TC. A single stop/station on 51st near the on/off ramps would be a natural transfer point and be closer to Nintendo. The station on 148th at NE 51st is sort of no man’s land. The northeast corner is a big empty lot (for now, I’ve seen notice of development for a couple of years). There’s a church and golf course northwest of 148th. I think 156th north of 40th is less conjested than 148th and NE 51st is less conjested than 40th making the route a tiny bit more rapid.
I’m wondering if it might be better to cross over to 148th at 51st instead of 40th. I seems like there is an undue cluster of stops/stations near Overlake TC. A single stop/station on 51st near the on/off ramps would be a natural transfer point and be closer to Nintendo. The station on 148th at NE 51st is sort of no man’s land. The northeast corner is a big empty lot (for now, I’ve seen notice of development for a couple of years). There’s a church and golf course northwest of 148th. I think 156th north of 40th is less congested than 148th and NE 51st is less congested than 40th making the route a tiny bit more rapid.