Model of the latest design for the Montlake Triangle

The new design for the Montlake Triangle project was publicly presented at an open house hosted by Sound Transit and its project partners (UW, WSDOT, SDOT) on Wednesday. The project improves access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the University of Washington Link Station from the main UW campus, UW Medical Center, Burke-Gilman Trail, and area bus stops. It also improves the aesthetics of the area to create an inviting gateway to the university and enhance the Rainier Vista view corridor.

The new design essentially combines Sound Transit’s original plan with UW’s Rainier Vista Landbridge plan with modifications and additions. There will be a 30-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Montlake Boulevard from the station house to the center of the Montlake Triangle, instead of a new signalized crosswalk. A landbridge connecting the Rainier Vista path to the Triangle will be created by lowering Pacific Place and the Burke-Gilman Trail, reducing traffic conflicts. A new plaza will be created inside the Triangle, framed by trees that will mostly obscure the busy intersection and street, while drawing eyes up towards the mountain. Another path leads from the plaza to a new crosswalk and bus stop on NE Pacific St opposite the Medical Center. The entire Triangle will be universally accessible with ramps and handrails.

Materials from the open house should be posted on Sound Transit’s UW Station project page by the weekend. You can find plenty of design documents from UW Capital Projects Office’s project page. Also, see more photos of the design model shown at the open house.

More details after the jump.

Bridges

The 30-foot wide bridge splits into two narrower bridges on both sides. There is a 14-foot wide bridge connected directly to the station house’s upper floor with stairs and escalators to the ground level and elevators to the station platform. Bicycles can use a separate outdoor stairway designed with an 8% grade, landings and runnels (tracks that allow a bike to be pushed up a stair). A 16-foot wide bridge ramps down south, passing the station house, to join with the regional trail from the Montlake Bridge and SR 520. On the Triangle side, the wide bridge splits in two to break up the appearance of a very wide path and channel users toward their destinations. It is also less dominating over the major Rainier Vista axis.

There is a technical reason why the landbridge narrows to 34 feet across Pacific Place. The maximum depth Pacific Place can be lowered is dictated by underground structures and utilities, and clearances for the trail and trolley wire.

Someone asked whether an underpass was considered instead of a bridge. Yes, it was considered, ST officials said safety, cost (and the need to close it after hours), and bicycle accessibility (grade difference getting to the Burke-Gilman Trail) were main concerns. Also, a few vocal people opposed an underpass.

Bicycles

UW Station will have parking space for 130 bicycles. All of the racks will be  underneath the overpass beside the station. There will be no lockers, though a survey for bicyclists at the open house asked whether they prefer racks, lockers (annual or on-demand), or cages (annual or on-demand) at UW Station.

The Burke-Gilman Trail will pass under the landbridge like Pacific Place but the trail will be separate from the street and sidewalks, and will be higher than the street. Trail users can access the landbridge by two gentle sloped paths, one on each side of the landbridge.

Bus Stops and Crosswalks

The location of bus stops and service was the first question raised after the presentation. Sound Transit’s Tracy Reed said that the public process of determining bus route and service changes will occur about 18 months before U-Link opens.

There will be a new bus stop for Route 44 to Ballard directly under the overpass on the westside of Montlake Blvd. It is accessible by stairs and an elevator to the overpass above, or by existing crosswalks. The layover area for buses on Pacific Place will remain and serve as a drop off point for buses. There are currently no plans for a bus stop on the eastside of Montlake Blvd in front of the station. However, there is space for future widening of Montlake Blvd or bus stop pullouts so placing a stop there later should not require major work.

The sidewalk in front of the Medical Center will be widened to create more space for waiting bus riders. Eastbound buses will stop in the HOV lane instead of pulling out of and trying to merge back in to traffic. The westbound bus stop on the small island will be moved about 200 feet closer to the station. As mentioned earlier, both stops will be connected to UW Station by a new crosswalk and path to the bridge. The existing crosswalk at Montlake and Pacific will be wider and more perpendicular to the street, reducing crossing time.

Conclusion

Overall, I like the new design. Reaction to the new design at the open house was positive. Adam’s route directness calculations show this plan is more direct than the other proposals. The regional bicycle trail network is better connected. I am excited at the opportunities from a new public plaza in the middle of the currently underused Triangle. The landbridge creates a cohesive corridor from the central campus at Red Square all the way to Husky Stadium. The new design does many things right in terms of pedestrian and bicycle access, with room for future improvement.

63 Replies to “Montlake Triangle Update”

  1. I like the concept.

    It would be nice to have more trees.

    Lowering the Burke Gilman is counter to my hatred of bike routes that aren’t perfectly flat….but I’ll get over it!

    1. Can you say concrete?

      I wish they would soften it up a bit…maybe some gardens, or big areas of bark around the [few] trees…

      On the other hand, I just took mass transit (168, 180) from Kent E. Hill to Seatac and found the Seatac bus-LINK-airport interchange quite pleasant, if techno. I love the multi-story effect and all the angles and surfaces. I wouldn’t want to live there…but it made getting from a bus to a airport terminal…interesting.

      Thanks, Metro, for increasing the frequency of the 168 to every 30 minutes…the buses are still full, but not jam packed like they used to be.

  2. I think the overall plan is good, but I still think there should be a transit center right above the platform with bus bays surrounding the station building to enable faster transfer between light rail and buses. It seems that Metro is thinking of the station area as a starting point for #44, but there is an opportunity for so many other local bus routes (#31, 43, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75) to use it as a starting point too. This should encourage more residents in the surrouding neighborhoods (e.g. Sand Point, Wedgewood) to take advantage of light rail, particularly because light rail won’t get to Northgate til 2021.

      1. I agree too, but the U-District (Brooklyn) Station is to open in 2021. Since the UW station area is very spatious and the station hasn’t been built, the additional costs of having bus bays should be very minimal. That’s why I came to this suggestion. The 5-year gap is a lot of time, in my opinion.

      2. I’d like to see a TC or better bus connections. It took them a year to get from the previous plan to the new plan. The current plan is at 30% design level so there’s still time to make changes. The placement of transit center by the station is going to be tricky in terms of bus street access and making it fit in with the pedestrian environment.

      3. I’m still not sure how a transit center at Brooklyn station would even work, given the street configuration there and the heavy use of 45th St – where’s the layover space? Do you use the existing 12th Ave NE space? Would that be enough for the number of routes that would be using it, and how would it work for the 70-series?

        It also seems to me that the 31, 65, 68, 75, and 372 would probably need to still go through campus or otherwise use UW station (though maybe the 65, 68, 75, and 372 could do a straight shot down Montlake). I’m guessing the 30 and 31 would be rerouted to stay on Pacific St between 6th Ave NE and at least University Way, since Campus Parkway will likely be de-emphasized.

        The 67 is odd. It could conceivably stay on its current route and serve UW station via Stevens Way, or turn down 45th to serve Brooklyn Station, skipping the UWMC Roosevelt building in the process. One factor in the decision: it’ll basically serve as North Link’s equivalent to the 8, since it also serves the locations of Roosevelt and Northgate stations (and the Maple Leaf neighborhood that should be getting a station but isn’t, but I’ve beat that dead horse enough), and my guess is that the 66 will be folded and the 67’s frequency increased, which combined with a possible 65 reroute could mean the end of the through-route with the 65. And all this assumes Metro budget cuts won’t result in it getting merged with the 70-series in a megaroute.

        If Campus Parkway dies, what happens to the 25 and 49? The 25 probably just turns straight up 15th Ave NE, and the 49, as I’ve said in the past, is about to become a lot less important if not dead entirely, but if it stays on wires it and the 70 have to keep their current routes down Campus Parkway and up 15th. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 49 de-wires to connect directly with Brooklyn Station, but I think the 70 stays on wires.

      4. I disagree with terminating north Seattle routes at Brooklyn Station. Most of the riders will want to continue on to get closer to where they are going on campus.

        Similarly, in case it isn’t clear, I’m not advocating terminating the 520 routes at UW Station. I want to see those routes continue on through campus. However, I can live with the plan Oran described of having off-peak 520-downtown routes serve the Montlake Lid. I still think it is a waste of taxpayer money, but the $38 million being blown on Rainier Vista and the $100 million being blown on renovating Husky Stadium puts into perspective how there are more important ways to protect taxpayers than to grate every nanometer of fat out of bus routes. (Though the continuation of paper transfers certainly makes it look like Metro isn’t even trying, when they really are, but politics gets in the way.)

        We’ll be kicking ourselves if, on Opening Day at UW Station, riders get out and have to ask the question, “Where’s the buses?”

      5. I’d say if they make transit reliability improvements just run buses through the stations. Like the 72 turning into a 65 at UW Station. That eliminates the need for layover space at the stations.

      6. Yes, the Brooklyn Station area doesn’t have space for layover, so it will be a major stop right before the beginning/end of bus lines, presumably in campus parkway area. This area has more space, and by letting bus lines run up and down a little bit more on University Way (70 series and 60 series) and 15th Ave (40 series, Eastside lines, CT lines) south of 45th, these buses can bring students closer to south campus.

        #30, 31, 75, 65, 68 can continue to use UW Station as the starting point in the long run. I think this is my idea as a long-term solution, and that’s why I am suggeting bus bays right above the platform of UW station.

    1. A transit center would also be useful if routes like the 255 or 545 were to serve or terminate the UW station off-peak

      1. I had a conversation with the WSDOT folks at the open house who set up a 520 table. I told them my story on how I’d be affected without a freeway station at night. They said the roadway geometry of the Montlake lid intersection would permit buses to continue across the lid back onto 520. And that Metro thought about having off-peak routes stop on the lid instead of bypassing Montlake. That, if implemented, would be a sufficient replacement of the freeway station for my personal uses of the freeway stop.

      2. That would certainly be a huge improvement. But if it’s possible (which by all acounts I remember the “story” was it couldn’t be done) then why not just do it and plan for an improved flyer stop on the lid with connections to north/south bus routes?

      3. There are hundreds of bus trips across the bridge during peak. I think they don’t want to add more traffic to an already congested intersection. Therefore the off-peak suggestion. What they suggest is an operational change that doesn’t require construction or additional ROW.

        All the peak period bus routes would be using the express lanes so a west direct access ramp would be needed. Off-peak service doesn’t need to use the express lanes or traffic is light enough to permit merging across two lanes of traffic from the side to the center HOV lanes. A similar thing is already being done with ST 511 serving 45th St and 145th St when not using the express lanes.

      4. From a WSDOT folio dated December 2010:

        Downtown Seattle to Eastside: During peak hours, buses will not stop at the Montlake lid, providing more direct service. During off-peak hours, transit agencies could operate buses on top of the Montlake lid, providing service similar to today.

      5. As long as they’re consistent about making sure that buses like the 540/542 are always running at the times when the 255/545 bypass Montlake, I have no problem with that. That would ensure that Montlake always has service, even if it’s a different route number at different times of day.

      6. As an anecdote, I took the 271 from Campus Pkwy and transferred to the 535 at Bellevue TC around 8 pm. The connections work well for people in Totem Lake and Kingsgate and was 10 minutes faster than taking a bus down to Montlake and catching the 255.

    2. Did they indicate any willingness to route the 68 and 75 to UW station, or is there too much pressure to have them keep going through campus? And will it be possible to put buses on Montlake Boulevard, given that earlier they took all the buses off that street saying it was too congested.

      \me is hoping I can transfer from UW station to the 75 before Brooklyn station opens.

      1. They [ST] said it’s too early to discuss bus route changes and no one from Metro was at the open house. A citizen did raise the issue of having good signage pointing people to bus transfers on Stevens Way through campus. They are just starting to work on wayfinding between campus and the station. I just walked to campus from Montlake. It’s about a 5 minute walk from the on-campus bus stops to the SE corner of Montlake/Pacific intersection.

      2. I disagree somewhat. It is too early to talk about specific route changes but I don’t think it is too early to scope out network level changes and operationally what would work or not work.

      3. One person at the forum pointed out to me that transit priority lanes on Montlake (north of Pacific) were once in the Seattle Transit Plan, but were taken out about a year ago.

        If we are to have a bus stop by the rail station, getting transit priority in the northbound lane next to the station is essential. Metro and ST are shying away from bus routes on that street, in part, because that congested stretch of Montlake kills reliability.

        The only route mentioned as being planned to serve the bus stop under the pedestrian bridge on the west side of Montlake was the 44.

        We can’t wait until 18 months before U-Link opens to get the streets engineered so as to allow buses to serve UW Station. The decision to allow bus-stop space to be built next to the station has to be made now, before Rainier Vista gets rebuilt, and the $38 million blown on it becomes a barrier to fixing the streets around it.

      4. I walked from U Village to Montlake on the Burke Gilman on Tuesday evening and thought about an HOV lane. The backup extends almost to 45th. For congestion relief in addition to transit priority there should be HOV lanes in both directions up to 45th.

      5. that congested stretch of Montlake kills reliability.

        Which is one reason why we should not stand for a second Montlake bridge (the other being destruction of the Montlake neighborhood). More vehicle access to the triangle is NOT going to help anything. Not SOV access, not transit, not the quality of Montlake or the UW and certainly not traffic flow on 520.

      6. I don’t think the Montlake bridge should be tolled. the housing built in that neighborhood should legitimately expect to use those roads for free. What it doesn’t need is a ton of spill over traffic from 520. If you want tolls (which I’m not opposed to) then toll the off ramps from 520. Really I think it should be HOV + transit only access during peak hours. Truth is that most of the day it’s not an issue and there is plenty of capacity with the existing system.

      7. @Bernie

        This second bridge equals more traffic meme is only a half true. Yes it does increase volumes slightly but what is does it gets buses out of congestion. That is the only reason it is on the table and is exactly what needs to be done more, not less.

  3. Re: Bicycles

    I would be nice if there was room for a future “Bike Station” with a bike shop, and storage for commuters. 130 bikes sounds like not enough space, and too much. One of the advantages of bicycle commuting is riding both ends of the trip. I would think that students and facility would prefer to park next to their building. So that leaves people riding from the UW to say Downtown or the Eastside and walking the final leg. (Other than the obvious game day riders needing parking.)

    Trouble is that the UW is full of bicycle thieves. A maned bike station would work well to fix that. And repair shop would fit with most students not knowing how to repair their machines. It could even be run by students.

    1. Well not only is the UW full of bicycle thieves, the racks on campus become dumping grounds for bikes no longer wanted…

    2. I’ve seen temporary extra bike racks placed on game days.

      There’s already a student run bike shop on campus, a branch would be nice.

      As for train capacity, they said they’ll be running 4-car trains once U-Link opens, so officially space for 16 bikes per train.

      “sounds like not enough space, and too much” I’m confused.

      1. “sounds like not enough space, and too much” I’m confused.

        Not enough on game days and too much the rest of the time because students and faculty won’t be using those racks, instead preferring the racks next to their building.

    3. Wouldn’t the top of the Triangle Garage be a good place to locate some bike lockers if this plan is put in place?

  4. This may come-off as trolling, or just an incredibly trivial or petty question/complaint, but why can’t they add some color to the model to make it look more realistic? It’s monochrome. Why? It doesn’t have to be. And add some tiny cars and buses so we can better visualize it. They could go to a model train store to get some of the supplies they need.

    1. I had the same thought. A monochromatic model might work fine in person, but when photographed (which is how most people will end up seeing it), the whole thing just blends together on account of the lack of color. I assume they made color drawings, though.

    2. I had similar thoughts … while it might have made sense in person … it is kind of hard to see what’s what from photographs without any additional context

  5. I’m liking the new pedestrian bridge and triangle a lot. But it’s still a disastrous plan without a bus transfer station directly adjacent to the Link station.

  6. I’m curious about the bus shelters located to the east of the Link station, basically in the parking area for Husky Stadium.
    Are they planning any bus routes that ‘layover’ next to the station, or has that option been removed in the latest drawings?

    1. I didn’t recall seeing any drawings depicting what’s on the east side of the station, as the focus was on the triangle. If by “they” you mean Metro, well, no one from Metro was at the open house. And the whole question of bus routes was deflected to a future meeting.

      1. OK, I looked at photos of the model and it appears that the station is surrounded by a pedestrian plaza. But the model itself doesn’t really show bus stops, nor does it show some existing features that won’t change.

        ST’s original drawings don’t show any bus stop by the station. It’s surrounded by Husky Stadium parking and a road from the north end of the triangle to a gatehouse to the south end parking. The new design completely removes that road and a chunk of parking.

  7. ” The layover area for buses on Pacific Place will remain and serve as a drop off point for buses. There are currently no plans for a bus stop on the eastside of Montlake Blvd in front of the station. However, there is space for future widening of Montlake Blvd or bus stop pullouts so placing a stop there later should not require major work.”

    do other space constraints prevent all the bus routes from meeting in one space (existing car traffic, etc)?? i dont see a disaster…what is the maximum distance that one would have to walk to a Link from the bus stops as they are in the plan??

  8. Looks like there’s a path from Montlake all the way to campus and the Burke-Gilman without using stairs. This is great for bikes connecting to the 520 trail or anywhere south of the ship canal!

    But, yeah, the bus transfer problem is still totally unresolved. And there’s nothing particularly aesthetic about the design.

    1. Stairs were something that I was worried about. The Current bike route from the Burke Gilman to Montlake is stair/curb free and I would be upset if they changed that.

      1. The current bridge outside Hec Ed is HELL with a bike. Plus merging onto the Burke is a nightmare. The new proposal seems to really address all parties interests.

      2. Don’t go that way — cross at Montlake + Pacific, ride the sidewalk on the west side on Montlake, up the little hill, cross Pacific Pl.

  9. For buses making the left turn from Montlake to Pacific Street, I would prefer to see a stop on the SE corner of the Montlake/Pacific intersection, and a queue jump to allow buses stopping on the right side of the street to turn left onto Pacific without having to merge across four lanes.

  10. The Montlake Triangle was desperately calling out for an integrated design solution. The plan we’ve finally arrived at still doesn’t provide the optimal bus-rail transfer, but it’s certainly the best among all the plans that have been drawn. It’s better than the original bridge, and better than the at-grade crossing, and better than a ped/bike tunnel could have been, given all the constraints.

    Here are some facts I learned at the meeting: The project is at about 30% design and currently estimated at $38 million total. Construction for the bridge over Montlake Blvd will begin in 2012, vs. 2014 for the Rainier Vista extension over Pacific Place. Presumably these would then be usable long before the UW rail station opens in late 2016.

    Grades and distances: The maximum grade on the ramp alongside the station house heading up to the bridge (the bicycle connection from the east side of Montlake Blvd. to the triangle) is as high as 8% in order for the ramp to meet the NE corner of the Montlake Blvd. / Pacific St. intersection. This ramp thus levels out periodically as required by ADA. The grade on the Burke-Gilman and all other ped/bike ramps in the system does not exceed 5%. The Burke-Gilman would not need to dip as low as Pacific Place, which goes down about 17 feet. There are some hard utility limits in that area that drive the maximum reasonable size of the Rainier Vista extension.

    The Montlake/Pacific intersection will remain in its current configuration, but the crossing distances will be tightened up. The major bus stops on Pacific St. in front of the hospital would be slid down a bit so they are less of a walk from the rail station, approximately 200 feet, I was told. A connection between the rail station and a south/east bound bus on Pacific would still require a street crossing, which is not ideal. An additional at-grade crosswalk will be provided in the vicinity of the bus stops for that purpose.

    This plan provides a continuously accessible route from the Montlake Bridge to the heart of the campus and the Burke-Gilman trail without any at-grade street crossings. It’s worlds better than the prior at-grade crossing which would have maximized the conflicts between modes. It activates the Montlake Triangle, presently a no-man’s land that only looks good from a seaplane.

    The lowered 3-lane Pacific Place, which has to have over 18 feet of clearance under the Rainier Vista extension for trolley buses, includes sidewalks on both sides of the street, though the one on the south would probably be seldom used as it is today. The Rainier Vista extension has some curvy trails down to meet the Burke-Gilman in each direction.

    Once the UW rail station opens, it would sure be useful to have a limited-stop bus shuttle with the following stops: UW light rail station (literally adjacent) – University Village (Montlake Blvd. @ 25th Ave.), Five Corners, and Children’s Hospital, back and forth, as frequent service connecting to the rail station, whereupon it’s a 6 minute ride to Westlake, etc. University Village is a major employer as well as a major destination, and they are constantly growing, and soon to add hundreds of apartments, and they are stuck now with paying the big bucks for structured parking. Meanwhile, Children’s is also a major employer and about doubling in size. Maybe those organizations could even help sponsor some connector service. It would also be super useful to have a southbound HOV lane from 25th Ave. to the Montlake Triangle, for reliable transit, vanpool and emergency vehicle access, as that corridor has big problems with or without any second drawbridge, but that probably requires widening Montlake Blvd. NE.

    There may yet be some clever way to route buses around that triangle that actually provides stops directly adjacent to the rail station without violating any of the constraints of the problem. Perhaps someone will solve that puzzle one day.

    Now is a good time to point out that the agency process that produced this best-yet plan was itself the culmination of years of effort of citizens and advocacy organizations to bring attention to the need to smoothly integrate buses and light rail and pedestrians and bicycles at this location, while simultaneously meeting the UW’s requirements. There was much effort to inspire local and state government to get ST, UW, WSDOT, Metro and the City of Seattle to work together to solve this very problem. At the start of this process, years ago, none of these political entities thought it was in their scope, and none of them had any money anyway. It’s quite a saga, involving City Resolutions 30777, 30931, 30974 and 31109, and state legislation ESSB 6099, ESHB 3096, ESSB 6392 and a decade of committees, charrettes, hearings, consultants, etc. and it’s great to see all that has made some difference.

    1. Here’s a cheap and easy idea: For this UW Station — U Village — Children’s frequent shuttle bus service concept, run it on the local road around back of Husky Stadium for the southbound direction, to bypass all the congestion on Montlake Blvd. and provide a stop immediately in front of the light rail station at grade for people getting on as well as off. Then there’s no need to circle around the triangle. This might require some tweaking of an intersection or two around U Village with a bus priority signal to provide a stop in a convenient location there, but nothing as major as the southbound HOV lane on Montlake Blvd.

      There are indeed some routes on Stevens Way to those destinations, but those are a third of a mile away from the rail station, a long walk uphill on a dark, windy rainy January night, and they are not so frequent.

      1. For this to be a reasonable transfer to the link, you simply have to, HAVE TO, bring the 75 right to the station, or with in a few hundred yards. The 75 goes right be all these things. Nobody is going to do 2 transfers.

        There has to be an HOV lane on Montlake. I would guess it will always be a traffic jam, though 520 tolling should help some, and perhaps the extra bridge will somehow magically open up something. Dunno. There is space there for another lane, if you can steal some UW ROW, except the ped bridge at HEC Ed is a problem. You might have to demolish.

        Going around the back-end isn’t a terrible solution, but you will certainly get some push back running buses through a wetlands on UW property.

  11. Nice work! Thanks for the photos!

    I’m still confused about what my bike commute through here will look like from Lake City to downtown, however. I get off the Burke, cross over Montlake Blvd, then cross back under Montlake Blvd to get to the path under 520 and Montlake Playground? Cross Montlake Blvd twice? If that’s the plan, I (and any other commuter, I would guess) is on the road playing nice with the cars.

    I’m also confused why you think the triangle will be “energized”, once you get beyond the entrance to the LINK bridge. Is there a reason anyone would use the triangle any more than it is currently (not) used? What’s going to be there that would make anyone want to linger?

    1. I don’t know about the bike path at Montlake but the way it’s setup sure will work well for people coming from the eastside or Lake Wash Blvd.

      As to why I think the area will be more energized as you put it, the current triangle isn’t a very appealing or usable space due to the landscaping and background traffic. The new design with the plaza and framing trees creates an outdoor room. The improved connection with the rest of campus makes it more likely that people will go there. And the traffic generated by the station would have a lot more people going through it than today.

      1. Agreed, it sounds like it will work well for those folks. I was just hoping for some clarity for my situation.

        Hopefully the new triangle will provide more attraction for folks. I would really like something to draw them there, however. A cafe, a bike station – anything that will differentiate it from the current unused space.

      2. Those would be cool. Or a bike rental stand. You can get many places on a bike in under 10 minutes from that spot. Quicker (and safer) than a car, in most circumstances!

  12. Bus route speculations.

    Pacific Street is too full for any more buses. That means the west side of campus will have to be served by the existing routes or some consolidation. I’d like to see a frequent route (preferably trolley or streetcar) from UW stn to Roosevelt stn, replacing the middle part of the 48 and perhaps 43 and 44. That would make all those routes more reliable. (Although I’ve also suggested eliminating the 43 in a Capitol Hill reorg.)

    Then a 48/71(/30) Loyal Heights – Roosevelt – Wedgewood – (Magnuson Park?)

    Extend the 73 Brooklyn – Mountlake Terrace TC.

    The 72 is pretty lame, perhaps combine with 68 for UW – 25th – 30th (Lake City). 65 (68) UW – 35th – Lake City (- Northgate?). I’m not sure if we need both 25th and 35th. These should meet the 73 in Lake City for trips further north, unless a good east-west route exists to 15th and Northgate. If one of the routes continues to Northgate, that would take care of that.

    The 30 and 75 overlap a lot, and the 75 covers more regional trips. I would send the 75 to UW and skip campus. The 30 is really two routes, Sand Point-Brooklyn and Brooklyn-Seattle Center. I suspect the new Fremont route was attached to the Sand Point route to keep the latter route viable with its low evening ridership. 55th is close to 65th, and the 65th bus could serve Magnuson Park to give it an eastern destination. So the 30 east part could be eliminated, although I expect that’s impossible and there’s enough ridership for at least a daytime route.

    The 30 UW-Fremont should be a frequent route because it gets full like the 44, and late-night because of the Fremont bars and the hill to 46th. The Fremont-Seattle Center segment duplicates N-S routes and the 8, but I expect it can’t be eliminated until the grid improves.

    Campus Parkway makes a good layover space, we might as well keep it for the Brooklyn routes.

Comments are closed.