Cross Section of 145th St at I-5
Cross Section of 145th St at I-5

With Sound Transit about to break ground on a station at 145th St as part of ST2 and planning for BRT from SR 522 to 145th as part of ST3, the City of Shoreline has taken the lead on an extensive re-design of the 145th Street corridor, with an eye to improving bus, bicycle and pedestrian access. As noted in a recent news roundup, the redesign has arrived at a final design concept. It adds BAT lanes and widens sidewalks, while moving bicycle access to parallel streets.

Today, 145th is a relatively narrow 4-lane right of way, with narrow (or nonexistent) sidewalks and no bus or bicycle lanes. It carries 31,000 cars per day in its busiest sections. With that traffic level, a road diet was rejected, so the plan is to widen the road to accommodate more ped/bus/bike access.

At Lake City Way
At Lake City Way

The approved design assumes BAT lanes with queue jumps between SR 522 and I-5, consistent with the length of the ST BRT corridor. West of I-5, buses would move in mixed traffic. A new pedestrian bridge across I-5 would provide access to and from the train station.  Bikes would have exclusive lanes only on the Western end of the road, with parallel infrastructure in other places.

For riders coming in from the Lake City side, the bus lanes are a clear win.  If you’re connecting to Link from the West, however, your bus might have a harder time slogging through traffic (Metro sees 145th as a frequent corridor in their 2040 vision).   Thanks to advocates in North Seattle, you’ll also have the option of connecting to Link on the less-congested NE 130th as well.

88 Replies to “Shoreline Moves 145th Street to Final Design”

  1. So, sidewalks *can* be built along both sides of 145th. But will the pedestrian bridge be the only way for pedestrians to cross I-5, or will there also still be sidewalks on each side of the overpass?

    1. From the section graphic, it looks like there will be a small sidewalk on the south side, at least 5′ based off the widths provided (6 lanes at 11′-13′ wide totaling 69′, with the overall ROW at 74′). Hopefully it will be wider than that.

    2. Where is the pedestrian bridge? Is that the orange rectangle on the map that looks like a sidewalk? Where will its entrances be, will it have much vertical climbing, and will it be the shortest possible walking distance to the station? If somebody is at the southwest corner of 5th & 145th, will there be a bridge entrance on their side? Will there be a crosswalk to the north side of the street (which is not in the map)? Or will they have to cross three intersections east-north-west to reach the bridge and the station?

  2. The current sidewalks on 145th West of I-5 are truly atrocious. At times they are 4′ wide with utility poles in the middle of the sidewalk completely blocking wheelchair access (assuming that there were even ramps at intersections) and making riding a bike challanging.

    1. Yep, the documents show that there are *300* such utility poles in the sidewalk on 145th.

  3. Is there really room to add two more lanes and decent sidewalks without significant property impacts??

    1. I think there will be significant property impacts (that is why this project will be relatively expensive).

      1. That isn’t the only cost savings that can come from using BRT. One is the ability to run on steep hills. Another is to simply avoid the cost of laying track (the First Hill street car would be a lot cheaper if it was the First Hill BRT).

        But yeah, either way, if the BRT or light rail simply “takes a lane”, then it is a lot cheaper. I don’t think this was the case with light rail down Rainier Valley (I think they expanded the roadway). In this case, it would save a lot of money, but wouldn’t solve some of the other problems (very narrow sidewalks) and probably result in a very congested street. This might end pushing traffic to other streets, that ultimately could be bad for everyone (buses included). There are plenty of times when taking a lane is the right thing to do — I’m just not sure that was the case this time.

      2. There are some streets where you can trivially take a lane, and other streets that may have strong factors against it. In this case:

        – 145th is a highway.
        – It’s a connector between two major highways.
        – It’s the main freeway entrance in its area. (130th is secondary, and 175th is far away.)
        – Most of the cars are going to I-5, not to the P&R or through to the opposite end.
        – It’s already congested rush hour I hear, so going down to two GP lanes would lead to long halts.
        – The surrounding ped/bus uses are not legion, unlike Denny Way where we must speed up the buses and make the walk more pleasant because it affects tons of people.
        – WSDOT owns the highway and is highly concerned about freeway entrances, and can veto reducing the GP lanes. Maybe it did.

        It may be worthwhile to convert two GP lanes here, but it’s not a trivial slam-dunk case like Denny Way or Aurora.

      3. I’ve been involved with this for so long that I am generally amused when the minutiae of performance and cost are debated ad infinitum, when the core problem is the Cult of LOS.

  4. I wish they had included the BAT lanes and queue jumps all the way to Aurora, instead of ending at 145th Station. Terminating the 522 BRT line at Aurora would have been very useful from a transit network standpoint.

    1. Yeah extending to Aurora seems like a big win. Even without extending BRT, surely there will be other Metro routes running along 145th?
      I wonder if that was significantly more expensive than widening the road east of I5?

      1. Probably not more expensive per mile, but most of this is pretty expensive, and the biggest push came from the 522 corridor (not Bitter Lake or Metro).

    2. Or extending the Swift corridor south a bit.

      Swift snd RapidRide are both busy through there, but they both taper off pretty bad around 200th as there is no overlap.

      Just one Swift to Link and north King County would be nice.

      1. Here’s an insane idea – careful, this is crazy.

        How about we don’t stop the bus at the county line and run Swift/Rapidride from Everett in Seattle?

        I know, insane ideas, riders would hate it, right?

      2. Donde,

        Yep, you’re right: it is insane. It’s much too long a route for driver comfort and would destroy the high-reliability of Swift in Snohomish County.

      3. Again, in some areas joining routes is compelling, in others it causes tradeoffs.

        – The Snohomish County street is wider and has a higher speed limit, full BAT lanes, and less congestion. Swift is speedy and reliable.
        – The King County street has lower speed limits and more congestion.
        – Swift and RapidRide are different levels of service. Swift is a limited-stop express. RapidRide is a semi-stop-dieted local. Joining the two would lead to a different level of service on each half of the route. The King County half would drag down the Snohomish County half and make it less reliable.
        – Swift is 45-51 minutes end to end over twelve-ish miles. RapidRide is 45 minutes over ten miles. Each route is already a long time, and joining them would create a 1.5 hour route.
        – People are already complaining that RapidRide takes too long; e.g., for downtown-UVillage trips or 85th-EdmondsCC trips. Joining the routes would eliminate the transfer but it still wouldn’t address the fact that RapidRide is excessively slow.
        – Part of the reason RapidRide is slow is the lack of full BAT lanes between 73rd and 145th. Snohomish County gave Swift a good lane and zoned TOD around stations. Shoreline gave Swift a good lane and zoned TOD around stations. Seattle bowed to the Aurora car-and-parking-and-low-density cabal and wouldn’t convert parking lanes to BAT except in a few short segments.

      4. One advantage of Swift going to 185th Station is that if it goes south on Aurora with one station at 185th-192nd, then turns on 185th with the next station at Link, and RapidRide keeps its current routing, then somebody continuing north or south can transfer at the 185th-192nd station without walking to another stop or detouring into Aurora Village.

        Of course, CT might implement it by extending the current route from Aurora Village to the station via Meridian, but I think that’s less likely, both because it requires more turning, AV is not that significant to Snohomish County, and 185th will gradually add more destinations as Shoreline’s urban plan is built up that Snohomish riders will want to go to.

    3. Is the detour into a P&R to get to the train stop still on? Or can the bus just stop on 145th and there’s a bridge entrance right there to get to the station? What about the other side of the street going the other direction? Is there any forward-compatibility for a bus coming from LCW to stop on 145th at the station and continue on to Aurora and Shoreline CC without detouring into a P&R like the F does at TIB?

      1. Mike, only the BRT is set to operate within the station footprint. All other buses are planned to stop along the arterial streets. It’s not yet decided if the BRT will layover or live loop from the station. There is also a planned pedestrian underpass for eastbound 145th at 5th that connects directly at the station.

      2. Last documents I’ve seen on the ST site still have the horrible station placement, two full blocks north of 145th (because parking garage for a few hundred people). That planned pedestrian underpass is even longer, and requires one to walk down underneath the street (of course), then back up to surface, then up another two levels to the train. It’s a piss poor design for intermodal connections – 145th was designed for cars, and for suburban buses to terminate. We need to ensure that 130th will not make the same mistakes, particularly as it will more directly serve two urban villages, one of which is already fairly dense.

  5. Wow, from 2 lanes on a ‘road diet’ to 7 lanes to feed Link. That’s quite the turnaround.

      1. It already has. Shoreline has become NIMBYtown, USA since the city did a bait and switch on the neighborhoods with upzones that are too extreme and cover an area that goes way beyond the half mile walk sheds of the future stations.

      2. They probably won’t get much sympathy on 145th since it is a highway and a freeway entrance, and Shoreline doesn’t have to care about homeowners on the south side.

      3. @Jakub Easy, just extend bus routes to cover more of the densier areas and make them much more frequent. Cheaper housing without traffic worries and close by retail since you have mass transit- what’s not to like?

      4. Actually, some Shoreliners are fighting to keep renters away from Highway 99. But this is nothing new. Shoreline fought hard against having light rail along Highway 99, preferiring Denver-style freeway rail. We must mot impact casino row.

      5. @ Brent, I don’t recall there being a fight from Shoreliners re: the rail along 99. I thought that was a ST decision with pressure from Lakeside School and surrounding neighborhoods in Seattle along Roosevelt on the west of I-5.

  6. It looks like the NB bike improvements are “Hey, go a different way. It will take you twice as long and but that’s your problem’s.

    1. There is only so much room, can’t fit all the modes on one street. They tried that on Broadway and it just doesn’t work.

      1. The difference between 145th and Broadway is with Broadway, there are potential alternate routes just a few blocks away. 145th on the other hand is the only crossing of I-5 for at least a half mile, and the only moderately direct east-west route through that sector of north Seattle.

      2. It looks like they are planning to buy quite a bit of right of way to fit what they have planned. Mostly just pointing out that there are not actual bike facilities. Thats a value judgment, but don’t pretend that you accommodating a mode if your not.

      3. As I understand the concepts they are planning basic accommodations for bike transportation to the light-rail station and across I-5, which is really the important part. 145th is not a destination street and isn’t planned to be one; decent sidewalks on a low-destination, low-pedestrian street are fine for scooting along for a couple blocks. Using other routes for longer-distance trips is probably OK.

        Of course, vehicle capacity expansions are disappointing on their own, as near the I-5 interchange, to the detriment of station-area walkability. That’s hard to avoid when you site transit stations on top of major freeway interchanges, and have legacy zoning largely based on the backwards notion that all development should be piled up next to freeways and interchanges.

      4. It depends on where the bike lanes are. Did they say? How much out of they way are they for common trips?

      5. 155th is a half-mile away (with a non-interchange crossing of I-5 which will be preferable to anything that could possibly be built on 145th if distance is equal). There’s some possibility of greenway routes within a few blocks on each side, though it’s hard to make any route that goes straight for very long.

        The question is how many common trips actually go straight east-west along 145th. It’s not like 45th where it’s common to run a whole day of errands in a straight line. Longer trips straight down the corridor might be best accomplished by diverting all the way to 155th and back, while short trips would require less diversion to a greenway that works for a short distance, or scooting down lightly-used sidewalks for a few blocks on one end of the trip or another. There’s a major disadvantage to these routes, that they’re not at all obvious when you’re out on the street — they’d only really work for people that make the same trip repeatedly.

    2. If you look at page 38 of the doc, it doesn’t look too bad. But then again, a lot of this is what might happen (“potential” this or that) not necessarily what gets built. If they did build the “Potential future bicycle pedestrian bridge”, then that would help immensely. They have a couple different ways to get there. Based on the topo maps, I would say the southern route looks pretty good. It would involve going on 143rd, then cutting through the corner of Jackson Park. From what I can tell, it looks quite level (more level than 145th, if done right). West of there looks a bit hillier, but as well as you can do. The northern route (via 155th ultimately) doesn’t look too bad either.

      I would assume that the Seattle Bike Blog will cover all of this (if they haven’t already) but personally, I am with AJ. If push comes to shove, I think bikes *should* take a different way. Pedestrians, bikes, cars; that is my order. To me transit infrastructure is for the benefit of pedestrians, so they trump bike lanes. There are other considerations, of course (no sense favoring transit for something that obviously won’t work well anyway).

      In the case of Broadway, I think they made the right choice. They ran a stupid streetcar line that will forever be a mess, and the bike traffic has nothing to do with it (the double reverse button hook around 14th does). Might as well salvage a pretty good set of bike lanes in the process. But Thank God they didn’t screw up the Madison BRT by adding bike lanes. That is a very steep street, and would never be used by that many bike riders anyway. Good call (I think everyone is happy with that one). Where it gets really tricky (and contentious) is Roosevelt BRT. Both the bus riders and the bike riders want the same, sweet stretch of land. This is where I have to come down on the side of the bus riders, just because the potential for truly outstanding bus service trumps outstanding bike service in my judgement. I sure hope they can accommodate both on the same street, but if they can’t, they should make very good bike lanes that require a bit of a detour.

      1. This biker agrees with you. I will go several blocks out of my way to find the safest or flattest route and I don’t mind doing that if it makes sense for the overall design for peds, buses and bikes. Eastgate is another corridor that is wanted by bikes and buses and it might be difficult to find alternative bike routes that make sense…

      2. IIRC (from running it) the corner of Jackson Park you’d cut through is not flat at all; Shoreline’s map, in that area, has some note like, “Major re-grading needed,” which corroborates.

      3. The PDF is vague (and there is no topographic overlay) but looking at a topographic map of that corner shows potential: https://mappingsupport.com/p/gmap4.php?ll=47.733346,-122.318649&z=16&t=t4&hillshade=0. The devil is in the details. If you stay too close to the outside (as I would imagine the trail does now) then you end up going up and down quite a bit. Ideally you stay close to that 80 foot contour line.

        This being a golf course makes everything a lot more challenging. If it was just a regular park you could wind your way however you feel like it. But you can’t, unless you take away some of the golf course, or build a habit trail type enclosure for bikes.

        I would love to see the city just change the golf course to a regular park, but that is a completely different discussion.

      4. The thing with Jackson Park being a golf course is… if there’s any place where a big impermeable golf course disrupts the urban fabric least it’s right next to the big impermeable freeway. There are lots of parks and park facilities that cater to fairly small groups of people with space needs for recreation, and Jackson Park was one of them. A few areas around the periphery closest to where people live include public park facilities (the rather new perimeter trail, the bit along Thornton Creek at the south end). Then ST got this crazy idea to run light rail down the impermeable freeway and put stops right next to the biggest interchanges they could find because they’re “crossroads” (!?!), and now we’re all trying to figure out how to transplant urbanism to interchange areas…

      5. Yeah, I guess that is one way to look at it. As someone who lives in the north end, I view it this way: I wouldn’t mind so much if Woodland Park had a golf course (it has a zoo, which is similar in a lot of ways). The neighborhood has Green Lake. A little east of there you have Ravenna. You can live with a little less general purpose park land in that area. But Northeast Seattle is probably the most park deprived area in the city. From Northgate or Lake City (some of the more urban places in Seattle) you have to go a very long ways to get to a great park. Meadowbrook is about it (which is a very nice park, just relatively small). Everything else is a small neighborhood park (a few of which resemble parking lots and serve mainly as a place for homeless to hang out). Looking at a map, your first thought is that chunk of green to the west, across the freeway from Northgate. But that is a cemetery. What you really want to check out is that huge swatch of green, next to the freeway, just up the road from both Northgate and Lake City. But that is a golf course — a park that only shines for the general public on snow days.

        I’m sure it was added when very few people lived there. That is the funny part about all of this. When the park was added, density in the area was very low. Because there were very few houses, folks didn’t mind if you put up apartments. Next thing you know, it has way more density than average for Seattle. But it still lacks a great park anywhere nearby. It would have one, if they just told the golfers that they have to live with a much smaller course (like they do next to Green Lake).

  7. I think that we will need drop off and pick up zones on 145th. Without them, people are going to hop in and out of cars in 145th because the station loading configuration is a hassle!

    While the improved pedestrian paths are nice, the drop-off and pick-up activity will be more common and those occur more organically so they can’t be easily forced to change. Thus, the better pedestrian paths will simply more the organic loading points further from the platform and more onto 145th on either side of U-5.

    I predict many pedestrian injuries and accidents once this opens unless this is rethought.

    1. Improved sidewalks helps, as you can drop someone off a block or two away rather than right at the station. But there may simply be not enough room for a Kiss & Ride. 135th station might be better suited for that?

      Surely there are good examples of Kiss & Rides with freeway stations in other systems?

      1. 145th has a P&R, right? The kiss and ride should be built into the park and ride. You don’t want to encourage people to drop off passengers directly on 145th (as convenient as that is) – people need to pull out of traffic, interface with the station, and then drive back on to 145th.

      2. The design has a big one-way loop for buses, kiss-ride and par-ride garage access on 5th Ave NE. It will require every vehicle to go through more signals.

        I would add that these BAT lane buses are going to be in this loop mess with all the other vehicles when they get to the station.

      3. Yeah, I agree. That is how it will work. Put signs along 145th (no stopping) and people will get the message. You could have pull outs, but that would add to (what I assume to be) a fairly expensive project.

      4. I was agreeing with AJ.

        As for the bus loop, would many buses use that? I would assume that most of the buses would just keep going (east-west). I guess if they build a BRT from 522 to the station, then you have to turn around, but man, what a lost opportunity, if that is what they do. It’s not like there is nothing west of there (holy cow, there is Aurora). Yeah, I know, the old “where to end the BRT line debate”, but unlike Madison Park, if you keep going, you actually have *increasing* density along with *increasing* connectivity. It seems silly to truncate a line there. Maybe for a line like the 373 (it has to end somewhere) but not for a major east-west line.

      5. Most systems are smart enough to keep station traffic out of the middle of full interchanges. They do things like put station entrances at least a block away. Denver is probably the place to see new designs but I’m not sure how well those work in practice.

        In this case, the 130th or 155th site would have been much better for safe circulation but that option is gone. So is the option of a total interchange reconfiguration.

        One option for drop off at this point would be to add something off of NE 1st north of 145th for users on the Westside (perhaps with a pedestrian bridge directly to the light rail platform) and creating a pull-off connection and separate pedestrian connection on 145th east of 5th Ave NE (like raising some Jackson Park surface land and putting an entrance underneath). Of course, these fixes are costly.

        Another cheaper option would be for this new ped bridge to be higher and longer, stretching like a skywalk from 1st Ave NE to 6th Ave NE (reducing the ravine effect of the topography over I-5) and then add two elevators from it directly onto the light rail platform where the skywalk crosses the platform (with no stops at 145th street level).

        This current option builds pedestrian crossings but it drops them at interchange ramp intersections. That both creates busy intersections for pedestrians to cross leaving the new bridge as well as makes it easier for people to hop out of cars.

      6. “I would assume that most of the buses would just keep going (east-west).”

        Then why do calls for straightening out the F at TIB fall on deaf ears?

      7. @Al — Good point. I could easily see people jumping out of cars. But I see them getting two tickets in the process. First, the right lane is a BAT lane. If they keep going straight (after dropping someone off) they are breaking the law; if they planned on turning right anyway, then they would drop off the passenger after turning. The other law they would break is the “No Stopping” law, which should be pretty clear cut, as it is in a BAT lane. Hard to argue against either one of these tickets. I’m not saying it is great planning if you rely on the stick instead of the carrot, but it should be a pretty big stick. Unfortunately, having the cop pull over the scofflaws will screw up bus traffic a bit until people learn their lesson.

      8. The drop off will likely also occur on the overpass above I-5. Another possibility is the Balboa Park phenomenon where drivers pull off the freeway at an off-ramp, let someone out, then quickly get back on the freeway. 145th will be a good place for that. In many cases, congestion will make it easier for people to hop in and out of cars at a red light – especially if they have to wait through 2 or 3 red lights.

        The larger point is that no attention is being given to these kiss-ride issues – and with text messaging and Uber, this will be the most popular way to reach this station, and that kiss-ride is much more organic in behavior so signage won’t solve the problem.

      9. A good example of kiss-ride behavior is at SeaTac loading areas on any evening. People often bend or ignore the rules and signs, and there is little enforcement with ticketing. The same kind of crazy behavior will happen here.

      10. Yeah, maybe. I agree, they should have done something. My guess is making the street even wider than it is now (by having official pull off areas) would have added even more to the expense.

        I will say that it isn’t 100% analogous to the SeaTac situation. At SeaTac, people often stretch the rules, but the rules are easy to stretch. You aren’t supposed to wait, but it is very hard to tell if someone is waiting, or actively picking up someone. This would be different, in that there would be a clear BAT lane violation and “no stopping” is pretty clear as well. The whole point of the BAT lanes is that there won’t be congestion in that lane. At least that is the plan (I’m more concerned with people turning screwing up the buses, rather than people hopping in and out of cars). Both problems could be solved by having the buses run in the center, with a nice stop in the middle. That way cars could screw up the right lane all they want (by hopping in an out) but it wouldn’t effect the buses at all. My guess is that could be retrofitted later if necessary.

      11. The mixed-mode loop inside the station is analogous to SeaTac Airport except there will be 2 lanes and not 4. It will likely back up so badly that no one will want to use it. It will be quickly avoided by most kiss-ride people. They will look for alternatives.

        They may get in the BAT lane, saying that they are making a right turn at 5th (or even at 6th or 8th), let a passenger out, and continue on their merry way. They may turn onto a side street, drop someone out, and make a U-turn back to 145th. They won’t however try to get into that clogged loop within the station though.

        That clogged loop is also probably going to back up traffic onto 145th as there is not much storage room between the loop entrance and the intersection at 5th. The waiting right turn vehicles on WB 145th will simply let people out in the BAT lane that allows right turns rather than try to use this interior loop and take an extra 5 or 10 minutes to go that last block.

  8. What’s the walkshed for the station? Build accessible sidewalks that are buffered from traffic along that length.

    What’s the bikeshed for the station? Build comfortable bike lanes separated from traffic along this length.

  9. The walk-shed’s dominated by I-5, a golf course and single family homes. Also a few school campuses. Lake City’s well within the bike-shed, but no bike lanes are planned in that direction. They’ll have to do better with access on 125th and 130th to the other station. Or cut a bike trail through the golf course. Wear a helmet!

    1. The main doc (page 38) does have a path that skirts the golf course. My guess is they will put the fence on the other side of it and shrink the course a bit (making a par 4 a par 3).

      1. WooHoo, that should get some votes from the golfing community. Could we take a couple of strokes off my game?

  10. So, the buses will be in the right lane, using BAT lanes. Last time I checked, this is a very expensive project. Why didn’t they go with center running? At every intersection, but especially the last one, there will be plenty of people turning right. In the case of the last one, if I have it right, there will be people turning right on 5th, to go northbound to I-5 (as they do today) as well as to get to the park and ride. That seems like a lot of people — enough to back up onto 145th. In general it doesn’t seem much better (for buses) than what exists today. I’ve driven that stretch of road in the morning (heading towards Everett) and even though there is plenty of congestion, people are generally civil, and avoid the right lane unless they are heading right. Maybe on some of the other streets we will see a big improvement (much of 522 is a mess, that’s for sure) but this seems like a lot of money for something that won’t improve bus traffic that much. General traffic gets a huge upgrade (right turning vehicles and buses get out of the way, an extra turn lane) but buses receive only a marginal upgrade. I guess once you made the decision to send the buses to the park and ride, instead of just having them continue on 145th, this was inevitable, but disappointing.

  11. Ah, I missed the bike route on 143rd (p38 – thanks RossB) and that there is a route cut through the golf course. Properly done, that could work well for access from Lake City. 145th doesn’t have many storefront destinations that bikes would need to be right on it.

    1. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m suspicious about the ability to make that a quality trail route, and about the short trips that could originate in that area being willing to go out of they way to take a more hilly route.

  12. I live about a third of a mile west of 145th street station in a single family home around 147th and Meridian. (I’m one of the few among my neighbors who actually supports the proposed upzone, but I digress.)

    I’m really curious about what they’re going to do for station access from the West side of I-5. I’ve heard there’s a plan to potentially build a pedestrian bridge across from 147th to the station, but Shoreline doesn’t have the money for that and it’s not going to be easy to get. If the main pedestrian access is 145th, I hope they rebuild the bridge to have much wider sidewalks on both the North and South sides. Right now it’s not particularly safe.

  13. The idea that adding more traffic lanes to this corridor is going to reduce the number of accidents is absurd. Is Lake City Way that much safer with it’s widened corridor and dedicated bus lanes? Going Northward on 523 from 145th is one of the most dangerous stretches of road in our area. It’s only going to increase speeding and proportionally, there will more wrecks if not more.

    The people of Shoreline were supportive of a road diet with a dedicated BRT lane and one less lane for cars, an off corridor bike route, with a less extreme road widening option. The amount of property acquisition that going to have to occur to go from 4 lanes with narrow sidewalks to DOUBLE the width is going to be close to 100 parcels.

    Who’s going to pay for all of the property acquisition when home prices are at an all time high? Just because Kenmore, Bothell and cities beyond have been densifying and sprawling without new or more frequent means of transit and minimal park n ride capacity, this is now Shoreline’s responsibility to ‘get of the way’ for people who refuse to commute by means other than car? What happens if ST3 doesn’t pass? Where will the funding come for this project? An even bigger tax-hike paid for by the people of Shoreline? I don’t think so. This city is being run by a mob of haphazard fools.

  14. First the article is a little wrong there aren’t BAT Lanes from 522 to I5, there are queue jumps and increased number of lanes near traffic lights. They miss the KCHS at 20th for a bus stop because 25th has more open space.

    I’m hoping the intersection/bridge isn’t quite cooked at this point. ST2 has a corner near 145th that blocks operator vision of the stop if the station moves across 145th. The bus loop inside the facility will handle about 4 buses per hour with timed stops to return to 522 as a new route.

    Moving the rail corridor maybe 20 feet for 4 pylons, gives us a straight shot from 130th to north of 145th and the station can sit right on top of 145th. Buses stop under the station east and west and continuing from 522 to Greenwood or up to the 192nd Park&Ride on Aurora become possibilities. 145th as a connection from BRT/Light Rail on 522 to CT Swift and Metro Rapid Ride with ST light rail in the middle is a powerful win, not mirrored on 130th.

    Moving the pedestrian bridge to the south side of the interchange is cleaner and saves pedestrian crossing 145th so many times. The current station forces a right turn on 5th Westbound moving a pump station and forces a left turn for access to the north on ramp (designed as a right hand button hook Eastbound) forcing pedestrians to cross a busier intersection. Move the station and the north onramp goes back on the north side and the southern pedestrian crossing is saved. The bus loop through the current station becomes a kiss and ride, metro access drop off and becomes non-bus related, if the station moves.

    The original design for this station and ST3 stopped at 145th because the bridge has earthquake issues and can’t be modified without replacement. Using technology to simulate the benefits of 6 lanes in 4 lanes with traffic controls means the full width of 145th is back in play. Building the current plans means a local traffic congestion point. Dumping more traffic from the upzone on 5th Ave than is currently on 145th is really a different question as is adding TOD within 500 feet of an on-ramp.

    Dave

    1. >> 145th as a connection from BRT/Light Rail on 522 to CT Swift and Metro Rapid Ride with ST light rail in the middle is a powerful win, not mirrored on 130th.

      It sounds mirrored to me. Assume that BRT runs along 522, from Bothell to Greenwood Avenue. Very nice.

      Now imagine a bus route that starts at 145th and Lake City Way, then heads southbound to Lake City, turns on 125th, goes over the freeway and ends on Greenwood Avenue.

      Both would connect to Aurora and Greenwood. If Swift is pushed south all the way to 145th (well into King County) it would be trivial to keep it going a bit farther and end at 130th. As far as jurisdictions and investments go, the second route is completely within Seattle city limits. That means it could be another RapidRide+ corridor (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/), which means that center running (if appropriate) is not out of the question (we are already ordering a fleet, starting with Madison BRT).

      The 130th line would have way more density per mile (http://arcg.is/1UaOSvZ). Right now, as bus service is concerned, there is a huge gap in the north end of Seattle (http://seattletransitmap.com/app/). . There is nothing between 92nd and 145th. Lake City is also where buses converge. This means that the bus would serve as a major connector from areas to the east (35th and Sand Point Way) so a trip from say, Nathan Hale to the north end of Greenwood would no doubt involve this bus. It will simply be faster to go up and over, rather than down and around (via Northgate, then 92nd). All of that means that it would likely run a lot more frequently (way more riders per service hour) which means it would better serve as a connector.

      The best part is that these two BRT lines would complement each other. It might mean a two seat ride from Lake City to Bothell (when it is one seat now), but the first part (to 145th) would be very frequent. I doubt the second one would (outside of rush hour) but it is a lot easier to time one bus instead of two.

  15. Did Shoreline take over all of 145th from Seattle? How much does this plan require Seattle to play nice? How about the state as this is a state highway (523).

    I suspect Seattle won’t be happy

    1. Seattle basically let Shoreline take the lead. It’s more significant to Shoreline because it’s closer to its city center and all parts of Shoreline, and Shoreline doesn’t have that many other streets. In contrast, from Seattle’s perspective it’s a long way from city hall, and it’s on far other side of the last significant population centers (Northgate, Bitter Lake, Lake City) and not close to them. So I don’t think Seattle cares much about the houses just south of 145th. Shoreline has also offered to buy the highway and the south side of the street. So I think Seattle will let Shoreline take the lead on designing both sides of the street, and then just rubber-stamp it, and only intervene if it particularly dislikes something.

  16. So how do folks think the 145th corridor will compare to the 125th/130th corridor long term, considering they will both have Link stations and similar neighborhood connections on either end. There are many similarities but we can expect some key differences, and this design seems like a key part of it.

    1. Trying to keep the political issues off the table.
      522 advocates picked 145th for a straight shot to the freeway via 523/145th.
      Lake City promotes its downtown, which are the blocks that slow everything down.
      From LCW to I5 125th goes through some twists and turns, currently in the 3 lane wonder mode.
      Once 125th crosses the freeway its a straighter shot, but still very residential.
      ST has tilted the table considerably by stopping ST3 at the freeway and having to turn up a residential road to get into the station with as much as 4 traffic signal cycles to get back on 145th the other direction. I have seen designs where the buses cross opposing traffic on 5th Ave with no signal, and Shoreline is slated to send a whole TOD without businesses down on the station/corridor. Mixing buses and cars on the bus loop and the possibility of commuters coming out of the buses on the wrong side of the street make this value engineering at its finest.

      Dave

      1. Improving the Bothell-Lake City-125th-130th route is no more challenging than improving the Bothell-145th route. You either spend a bunch of money, or live with less than ideal bus/general purpose traffic flow. This project (on only one section of 145th) is obviously very expensive (four lanes to seven plus wider sidewalks means a substantial amount of money spent on property and construction). Making the rest of 522 as fast as this section will be fairly cheap in places, and expensive in others.

        The same is true for the other corridor. Starting from 145th, there are some narrow sections on Lake City as well as some very wide parking areas. So unlike this project, you could save some money by taking the parking (145th has no parking to take). Things slow down at 125th, but if the bus runs in its own lane all the way to 127th, it would only have to slog through one section. I could see the bus lane going even farther south, to right before where the crosswalk is, next to Toyoda Sushi and Elliot Bay (https://goo.gl/maps/nPSyTfs6QaC2). From there, it is a short distance before turning onto 125th.

        Traffic on 125th is really not bad most of the way. If you wanted to create bus lanes, it would be a bit of a challenge (like 145th, there are no parking lanes to take). If you moved the bike lanes*, you could take one lane, but that is about it. I could see doing that in places, as the traffic generally backs up only in one direction. So, for example, you could have a BAT lane eastbound as you approach Lake City. There already is a small BAT lane eastbound, right before 15th. If you removed the bike lane, the BAT lane could be extended all the way to 10th (where 125th becomes Roosevelt)

        From 10th to the freeway (on Roosevelt) it gets tricky. That is probably the most challenging section. Westbound is generally no problem, as it widens from one lane to two. Eastbound is the opposite. This is where most of the congestion occurs on this road. You could take one of the lanes, which would just move the traffic jam west. Buying up the land to expand the road would be very problematic, from what I can tell, as there are a fair number of apartment buildings fairly close to the road. You could split the difference, of course. Widen the road and add a bus only lane (westbound) from the freeway to a little past 8th. That area is also where the merge occurs. That would give a westbound bus a BAT lane all the way past 15th, and move the westbound traffic jam a bit east, but not that far east. That avoids having the traffic back up onto the freeway, which is a bad thing, and probably the reason the road diet didn’t extend that far.

        Speaking of the freeway, the good news is that the whole section will be redone anyway. At least that is my understanding. With or without a station, the train requires a new bridge. This should be an opportunity to completely redo that area. I would make a very wide bridge, even if it seems like overkill initially. It should have room for bus lanes, bikes, pedestrians, the works. Unlike a lot of I-5 (e. g. Northgate) this is a pretty short bridge, and it shouldn’t be that expensive to do things right. This is also an opportunity to clean up some things in the area (the interchange is really sloppy, and I don’t think you should be able to make a left turn onto 5th without a turn signal).

        There is some congestion close to Aurora and Greenwood, but nothing insurmountable. Just making parts of the right lanes BAT lanes would do the job, in my estimation.

        In general this whole route is one of those places where making it perfect (completely free of all other traffic) would be very expensive, but making if very good (only minor congestion in a handful of areas) wouldn’t cost that much.

        * Moving the bike lanes would be controversial of course, but no great loss. The bike lanes go up and down 125th, a very steep street. The parts that are good are the parts outside of that (on the bottom and top of the hill). Close to Lake City, you just shift the bike lanes to 127th, which already is a bike way that turns (https://goo.gl/maps/xKhhawCfzpP2). Just keep going on 127th, and add sidewalks (which are long overdue for that section). On top of the hill (up by Roosevelt) you just shift to one of the other streets (e. g. 123rd). Between the two, there are better ways to climb that hill, and you just make one of them official. Like a lot of bike riders, I would rather ride a bike lane that is on a quiet street, rather than a major arterial.

      2. “turn up a residential road to get into the station with as much as 4 traffic signal cycles to get back on 145th the other direction”

        Riders will experience only two of those, right? Because nobody will take the bus west into the station and back out eastbound; they’ll get off at a stop before the station instead.

      3. So, your solution is to have the “bike route” zig-zag between 127th and 123rd, with a 3+ minute wait to cross 125th at each zig and zag. Sorry, but that is not a solution. While the quieter streets are good enough for just going partway between Lake City and I-5, we need bike lanes on 125th, itself for the direct route all the way.

      4. Mike Orr, the excess presence of buses in the station area doesn’t impact the individual rider but it does affect the operation of the station (and the neighborhood around it). 4 traffic signals and the number of minutes to traverse the station area and having passengers exit on the far side of the bus loop, means fewer buses per hour. If the 522 buses are 4 or 6 buses/hour (on 8 to 12 routes, with an endpoint at the station), it fills up the available slots. A bus every 6 minutes (10/hour) probably backs up onto 145th. Any other buses have to stop on 145th or 5th (in the life of the rail corridor there should be more bus routes for the station). Assuming the Northshore/tricities eventually get lightrail via Lake City also means this is the route least likely to survive. PS the stop before the station is back at 15th, just about a half mile away.

  17. Frankly, it’s hard to get too concerned about the details of a station with such a poor placement. Limited TOD, next to a freeway, no commerce… basically a bike/bus/park and ride.

    1. I originally thought 145th would be the least-used station in the system. Now with 522 BRT its prospects are better than they were, but still not something to write home about. If there remains little within walking distance, then it won’t matter to many people how the bridge goes or where the entrances are.

    2. Brad, I have to disagree. You have listed all the negatives which are true. Shoreline’s TOD has hooked one possible investor for commerce around the station. I’m hearing a possible hotel as the first business here. It proves that TOD and freeway ramps are a bad mix, since I don’t think the hotel is focused on light rail. We have choked 145th with enough cars to make it ugly for Metro currently, I see the same thing happening to 5th Ave in the future.

      A few positives for this station, it sits on the connector highway/523 between LCW/522 and Aurora/99. The options for 1 seat and connector buses between BAT and lightrail on major spokes for the northend needs to be respected. There will be a lot of population a bus ride away from the stations on 523 (LCW, I5, 99).

      Its a shame to dump pedestrians on both sides of 145th and leave the station north of 145th. Leaving the station north of 145th pushes most of the onramp traffic south of 145th into the bus lane which also pushes the good pedestrian walkway from south to north.

      I understand the desire for the additional stop at 130th, I would hate to see excess funds be used completely for it without fixing the original stop at 145th and the strange kink in the rail corridor.

Comments are closed.