Each time a new Link or BRT line opens, there is often a restructure in the area that it serves. I think something similar will happen when East Link opens. I also think there are too many routes serving Downtown Seattle, so some of these routes can be removed when East Link opens.
Eastside
Route 550 will be discontinued, having been replaced by Link.
Route 542 will be extended to Bear Creek P&R, following the routing of Route 545. It will also have a minor deviation to serve South Kirkland P&R. It will also be boosted to 10-minute frequency during midday, and 15-minute frequency on weekends. Route 545 will be reduced to peak-only.
Route 255 will no longer serve SR 520 or Downtown, but instead terminate at Bellevue TC. Between South Kirkland and Bellevue it will take 112th Ave.
A new frequent Sound Transit route will start in Downtown Seattle, use SR 520 and I-405 to get to Kirkland TC (with a quick stop at South Kirkland), then continue on I-405, stopping at Totem Lake, Brickyard, and Bothell before reaching Woodinville.
Judkins Park/South Seattle
Route 4 will be reduced to peak-only, only going between Downtown and Judkins Park. Route 3 will be boosted to the same level of service as the combined 3/4.
Instead of running via Jackson, Route 106 will run via Boren and Fairview to South Lake Union.
Route 60 will run via 12th Ave instead of serving the hospital campus.
A combined 49/36 will run via 12th between Jackson and Yesler, on 14th between Yesler and Madison, and on 15th between Madison and John.
Route 8 will run straight on MLK instead of diverting to 23rd between Yesler and Jackson.
Are these actual change for 6 years from now. It seams a bit early to be planning the restructuring. Who knows what ridership patterns could emerge between now and then. If charter bus pilot program is successful. The 520 rebuild should be complete and the I-405 widening will be close to done along with the extension of 167 to I-5. Also with tech company having campus on both sides of the lake and a majority of construction complete ( for there major campuses) it seem pointless to theorize what a restructuring would look like.
I think we will end up with more short routes acting as feeder to the BRT and Link stations.
These are not the actual planned changes. These are just some of my suggestions. My whole plan was to change routes into feeders for the BRT and Link lines. That is why I decided to truncate Route 255 at Bellevue TC so that it can connect to Link.
We’re not committing Metro; we’re reflecting on possible alternatives and what their consequences would be, and whether one alternative is significantly better than all others. This will be good information to have on hand when Metro does propose a restructure a year ahead of Link opening
For the new Seattle-520-Kirkland-Bothell route, why have it originate in downtown Seattle vs. UW? The Montlake lid will open around the same time as East Link, at which point truncating at UW seems preferable.
I was thinking that it would be good to keep the one-seat ride between Kirkland and Downtown. I’m pretty sure many people transfer to the 255 at Kirkland TC, but since I plan to truncate that route, I do not want to force people to make two transfers.
Merely having the route go downtown means the entire rest of the route will be no more reliable than the downtown streets. It’s tolerable today because the 255 is in the tunnel. But that won’t last.
Also, remember, that the Montlake Freeway Station is going to be closed permanantly in the next few years, so any bus that takes 520/I-5 into downtown will either have to bypass Montlake completely, or exit the freeway and re-enter it again, which, adds yet more opportunities to get stuck in traffic.
Just keep the 255 doing what it’s doing in Kirkland, so it’s a one-seat ride to the U-district, and a two-seat ride to not just downtown, but everywhere that Link goes. I don’t see what is being accomplished by forcing everybody to transfer at one of Kirkland’s transit centers in order to get anywhere. That just drives people into their cars, at best, clogging up the P&R spaces unnecessarily, at worst, giving up on transit altogether.
When Aleks made her South King County proposal, she ran every route through the Kent and Renton transit centers to a Link station (Rainier Beach). So instead of the 180 and 164 going from Auburn to Kent and then transferring to another route to Link, they were one-seat rides to Link. Each one was every 20 minutes, so they combined for 10-minute frequency between between Kent Station and Rainier Beach Station, and between Renton TC to Rainier Beach station. That worked pretty well, so it’s worth considering for the Eastside. So all north-south routes in Kirkland would end at UW Station or Bellevue TC.
What Mike said. If there was a Montlake Station (where 520 crosses Link) then you could send the buses to someplace that Link doesn’t serve (e. g. South Lake Union or Belltown) or maybe just turn around by Roanoke. But that isn’t the case, which is why buses that cross 520 heading west should end at the UW. It is pretty silly to think that we are OK with truncating the very popular 71/72/73 buses (that used to be very frequent) but can’t do the same for the east side.
You want to design it so that you have two seat rides to most places and one seat rides to the UW. A set of fairly frequent overlapping express buses can do that. For example, have the 236 no longer end at Kirkland, but at the UW. If there are redundancies (and there are) then make some of them express buses. So the 236 would serve Totem Lake, then go straight to the UW. This means someone trying to get from Woodinville to Kirkland makes a transfer at Totem Lake. But it also means that someone along that route has a fast two seat ride to anywhere Link goes (including downtown). Right now, they don’t have that — or at least not very often. If you are trying to get from Totem Lake to Seattle, you either have to slog through Kirkland or transfer in Bellevue. There is the 252, but it runs only during peak, and only in peak direction. That should change, and one way to change it — one way to get enough service hours to make it affordable — is to truncate a lot of the routes.
I someone who passes through South Kirkland P&R every day commuting to/from work, I emphatically say say “no, no no” to your proposal. A deviation to South Kirkland P&R adds about 3 minutes to the 255, but would be closer to 10 minutes for the 542, due to the additional lights to wait for to get on and off the freeway. There are way too many people traveling between the U-district and Redmond to subject them all to these kinds of delays, and they’re not going to ride Link all the way around through downtown because that would be even slower.
And, all this simply to serve the same people who already have frequent service on the 255 today, without any restructuring, who would now be subjected to additional delay from an additional transfer. Many people who live along the 255 route would respond by driving to South Kirkland P&R to avoid the transfer, which is already at capacity, and would cause more to just abandon transit and drive their cars all the way.
On top of this, with the same bus bay shared by numerous routes traveling both directions, South Kirkland P&R is already near capacity in terms of the number of buses per hour it is able to handle. Your change would increase significantly the number of buses per hour passing through the P&R, which would result in even more delays, as buses get stuck behind other buses.
While your proposal does save service hours which could theoretically be re-invested in higher frequency, frequency is already good enough along the corridor without a forced transfer at South Kirkland P&R, especially if the truncation of the 255/545 at UW Station happens. Any additional frequency gains your proposal brings would not be enough to compensate for the increased delays.
If we were forced to make massive service cuts, I could see a proposal like this as a way to minimize pain (e.g. if the only other alternative were to reduce all routes to every 30-60 minutes). But, in a world where the money exists to maintain service at its current level, and a world where we need to compete with private cars, not just produce a bus route that is slightly faster than riding Link all the way around, I strongly advise against it.
Replacing the all-day 545 with the 542 is fine, but please, do not divert Redmond riders to South Kirkland P&R, or add a forced transfer (on top of the one at Husky Stadium) for Kirkland->Seattle riders.
I guess the other point I would like to mention is that I feel your proposed new I-405/SR-520 express route spends too much time getting on and off the freeway, in and out of P&R’s and transit centers, for it to really function as a viable express. For instance, once you’re already going into South Kirkland P&R, the pathway of today’s route 255 along 108th is pretty fast, and most of the bus stops, the bus ends up not actually needing to stop. Getting back on the freeway would save only a minute or two at best, and could potentially subject the bus to long traffic delays, at worst. In fact, really, about the only way to make Kirkland TC->Seattle any faster than it is today would be to skip South Kirkland P&R. Woodinville->Seattle, I’m not convinced this route would be any faster than simply taking the 522 to Link (assuming the 522 is an express, stopping only at transfer points, with the 372 acting as the local shadow, and that the gaps in the bus lanes are filled in).
I’d say, keep the idea, as a less frequent route, skip Kirkland, and partner with CT to not merely stop at Woodinville, but keep it going to Snohomish. There is currently no direct route from Snohomish to Seattle (the current 424 takes the long way), so this route would fill a big gap in Snohomish County service.
>> I guess the other point I would like to mention is that I feel your proposed new I-405/SR-520 express route spends too much time getting on and off the freeway, in and out of P&R’s and transit centers, for it to really function as a viable express.
Good point. Express routes really shouldn’t do that. The 41, for example, is one of the most popular bus routes, and it avoids this. It cuts through the neighborhoods in a relatively straightforward fashion, picking up plenty of people before it gets to the transit center. Then it gets on the freeway and runs straight to downtown. The 255 and 540 are very similar buses and make sense for the same reason.
Mike made an excellent point in saying that just about all the buses in the area should go either to downtown Bellevue or the UW. This moves the transfer point from where it is now (often at an East Side park and ride) to either of those two spots. Carried to an absurd level, this would mean lots of different express buses running along the same path (520) yet without the ability to make a transfer west of the UW. That would be silly, and won’t happen. The key is that the bus should make a very quick stop, not a long deviation. Fortunately, there are freeway stations that do that now (Clyde Hill and Evergreen Point station). This would mean very little additional backtracking versus South Kirkland park and ride, especially given the relatively small number of riders who would even make this transfer. It is way better than transferring in downtown Bellevue.
Your point about going around the north end of the lake makes some sense, but it is hard to imagine an express on 522 being as fast as an express on I-405 and I-520. Either way, there will be buses from a bit farther south on 405. Along that corridor, I believe the best transfer point is the Totem Lake freeway station. This means that I could see a number of buses traveling along the local streets, getting on the freeway, but stopping at this stop (and one or two on 520) and that’s it until the UW. That could provide very fast, frequent, all day service from that part of town to Seattle, which is missing right now.
On a related topic, should the East Link stations (probably Judkins Park and Mercer Island) be designed better for a bus bridge on days when light rail isn’t allowed on the floating bridge (winds of 40-50 mph)?
How common is that?
Do we actually know the conditions when trains won’t be allowed on the I-90 floating bridge? I had already assumed that the Blue Angels would close the bridge, but wasn’t aware of high wind speeds.
The wind issue is fairly rare. It mostly arises with high sustained winds from the north. Even when it does get windy around here, it’s usually out of the south.
It’s a fair question though even considering the occasional operational outages that Link suffers today. And these kinds of service disruptions are much more common than sustained winds capable of shutting down East Link.
The Times says, “Train service would be halted in a sustained north wind of 40 mph or higher, which happens once a decade, or a south wind of 50 mph.” But you have to keep in mind that if it gets much worse than that the bridge would close for buses and cars too. A 50 mph wind is like a car on the freeway hitting you sideways.
Anything to say about the I90 corridor, or buses coming from south of 90 that head into Seattle or Bellevue?
I assume all the I90 buses will simply be truncated a South Bellevue, with hopefully those service hours reinvested with a boost in number of trips Otherwise I’m not expecting anything new or innovation along that corridor. Once Northgate Link opens (in addition to East Link), I think the the 555 can go away.
And any thoughts on how to serve all the local stops previously covered by the 550 in Bellevue? Particularly along Bellevue Way, I think it’s important to maintain frequent service along those stop so riders can quickly get to Bellevue TC and/or South Bellevue. Do people think so can be adequately served by other routes (such as the 555) winding through Bellevue, or should there be a local-only route to supplement service along Bellevue Way?
Same for 112th, though I think the 560 provides adequate frequency between Bellevue TC and South Bellevue. But if ST moves the 560 off of the local streets and has it go directly onto 405, something will need to backfill that.
Lower Bellevue Way is dense enough it should get a frequent route. Metro’s LRP gives it a 30-minute coverage route. That seems inadequate to me.
It isn’t clear to me where buses will be truncated. Either South Bellevue or Mercer Island (or both). Work could be done — should be done, in my opinion — to make one of the routes traffic free, but it isn’t clear whether it will be. Lacking that, I think it may be faster for the buses from the I-90 corridor (Eastlake and Issaquah) to use Mercer Island, and buses on the sound end of I-405 (Renton) to use South Bellevue.
As far as the 555/556 is concerned, I think your guess is right, although it is hard to tell what will happen. The bus performs fairly well, actually. It doesn’t get many riders, but it doesn’t run that often, either. It is in the top quartile of ST buses. The most productive piece is Northgate to downtown Bellevue. I could easily an express from the UW to Bellevue continue, just because it would be a shortcut, and thus fairly popular. Interestingly enough, the train might make the bus more popular. For round trips you could try and catch the bus, but if that didn’t work, you always have the train as a backup. There are plenty of trips that work that way in big cities (Queens to Manhattan).
As with the connection to South Bellevue or Mercer Island, the key is how quickly you can get off the freeway and connect to a Link station. If they manage to speed up the Husky Stadium to 520 connection, then it does mean the north end of the route would simply be truncated there. South (and east of Bellevue) it gets complicated. Ridership is very low, and it isn’t clear if there is much value to one stop rides to Eastgate (the next biggest destination). If you are headed there (or to Issaquah) then you are probably better off taking (or staying on) Link and transferring at Mercer Island or South Bellevue.
So that basically leaves the southern end of Bellevue.There may be decent destinations there (I’m not sure). Running the 555 to South Bellevue might make the most sense. You could, in turn, get rid of (or truncate, or otherwise alter) the 249, since it becomes a bit redundant. Or maybe keep the 249 as is, but just run a bus from Bellevue to the UW.
If the 555’s core market is Bellevue to Northgate, I’d have to imagine most of the ridership will shift to Link once Link Northgate opens. Even having to go through downtown, a 6-minute frequency , 1-seat rail service seems like it will trump bus service, even if the bus is a bit faster, no?
249 looks like a local coverage route, so it should continue to exist in some form, even if at low frequency.
A lot depends on whether ST (or Metro) wants to keep a handful of express routes. As I said, there are plenty in New York, but new York is several magnitudes above us when it comes to population, and population density.
I think the 555 will go away though. It just doesn’t have very high ridership overall, and a direct connection to Northgate is really of dubious value once Link gets there. In the evening the slog from Northgate to 520 is terrible, and kills a lot of what would otherwise make that a faster run.
I do think the 271 (or something similar might be kept, as it has potential). Basically, a bus that goes somewhere on the east side, then to downtown Bellevue, then express to Husky Stadium, then a few stops before the U-District (and maybe even up to Roosevelt). This does several things:
1) Serves as an express between two of the more popular destinations on Link. Not only does it eliminate the stops, but it also cuts the distance almost in half. The time savings are substantial, assuming you can get from the UW station to 520 in a timely fashion. With no traffic the trip takes 15 minutes, which means even with some delays, you could shave ten minutes off of a trip.
2) Provides one stop service to fairly popular places a bit too far from Link. This includes the southeast end of the U-District (Campus Parkway/Pacific) as well as the area between 45th and 65th. This means that there are plenty of people who would prefer taking a bus to Link versus a long walk. Since these folks have to take a bus anyway, if the bus happened to be going where they wanted to go (Bellevue) then staying on the bus would make sense. Likewise in Bellevue, someone half a mile from the station headed to the UW (whether that is their final destination or a bus transfer point) could save a substantial amount of time taking a bus like the 271.
Of course there are disadvantages, the biggest being that Metro (and Sound Transit) would want to stretch itself too thin. We’ve already seen how Metro is willing to make dramatic truncations which undoubtedly have cost a lot of people a lot of time (by forcing them to transfer at Husky Stadium instead of taking an express to downtown) but the result has been better overall headways within the system. It is hard to see Metro continuing a run like the 271, when there are bigger fish to fry. Service to Kirkland right now is not at all adequate, and it would benefit much more from these type of express routes. Simply serving the 520 corridor (and the area between 520 and 522) would save way more time for the riders, and be a lot easier to justify.
South Bellevue Way has lots of apartments.
Fair enough. I’m not sure if they are destinations, though, the way that Factoria or Eastgate are. I suppose you have the other dynamic – folks headed from those apartments to the UW — but when I think of a connection between the north end of Link (Roosevelt, Northgate, etc.) to Bellevue I think of folks headed from the north end of Seattle to work on the East Side.
No matter how you slice it, though, it should work out OK. The 249 or 555/556 could cover that area.
Right – I’m just trying to get those apartments to have frequent service to Bellevue TC and/or South Bellevue station. Whether those buses continue to Northgate, Eastgate, etc. or are simply tiny local routes doesn’t matter as much.
Yes, I’m saying a frequent route on south Bellevue Way to Bellevue Station and South Bellevue Station will take care of that, and it can be part of longer route if Metro wishes. But in Metro’s LRP it’s a Local (infrequent) route. I’m saying there’s a reasonable argument for making it more frequent than that.
Looking at Metro’s LRP map, the only frequent bus service on Bellevue Way is a Factoria-Bellevue-Kirkland route that runs exclusively on local streets but connects to all the relevant TCs & Link stations. It stays on Bellevue Way except to jog over to the Bellevue TC.
Assuming that’s a low speed but high frequency route, that seems like a solid solution to me.
OK, it’s a little different than I remembered. 2025 has a Local route from Factoria to both parts of Bellevue Way and Lk Wash Blvd to Kirkland. And something called a Local “111” which is different than the current 111 and may be a mistake. 2040 has a Frequent route to Factoria and Kirkland Rose Hill. So there’s a gap in 2023-2040 where Bellevue Way service may be half-hourly.
There’s also a 2040 Local route taking on South Bellevue, Enatai (104th), Medina, and the U-District, so that seems to be the future for the 271’s Media part. That covers part of south Bellevue Way but only part of it.
I like the 520 trunk line idea that was floated on a recent podcast, 3 branches at both ends… Fremont, SLU/Queen Anne, U District going to Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue.
Metro’s LRP map has three ST express routes across 520. All terminate in the U-District, but they are coming from downtown Bellevue, downtown Kirkland, and downtown Redmond.
Metro, in turn, has zero RR routes but does have two express routes from Kirkland, one serving SLU via Eastlake and one serving UW.
Eastside to Fremont will probably always be a two seat ride, that just too long of a route to string across the lake IMO.
Route 4 is an important commuter bus to Swedish Cherry Hill, Swedish First Hill, Harborview, and Seattle U from Mount Baker, Judkins Park, and the Central Area. Making everyone take Link downtown and then buses or streetcar uphill will be a pain. That part is not getting out there and talking and riding with those of us that have that commute.
I do agree that downtown transfers can be tricky. A more direct way to go from Judkins Park to First Hill would be to take routes 8 or 48 and transfer to route 3. I decided that to compensate for the loss of Route 4, Judkins Park residents will instead have a frequent Route 3 to transfer to from routes 8 and 48.
Route 4 used to have more purpose before 2009 when Route 8 only traveled on MLK during the weekdays at a rather low frequency. But the current Route 8 is frequent, and it runs all 7 days a week. There is a plan to disconnect the Denny and MLK segments of Route 8, so maybe if the MLK segment gets downgraded to 20-minute frequency, Route 4 will have more purpose. I feel like it does not make sense for an infrequent route to duplicate two ultra-frequent routes.
The problem with the 4 is its extreme slowness between 23rd and downtown. If it just goes from Judkins Park to First Hill — perhaps with a new First Hill extension of some sort — maybe it wouldn’t look so godawful slow and redundant. It could turn up Broadway to Capitol Hill if there were any reason to.
The 4 is slow because it’s serving all those employers! Between both Swedish campuses, Harborview, and SeattleU, there are thousands of employees and students. The 4 serves the students and the working class employees of Pill Hill.
The 4 is slow because it travels on small Jefferson Street with lights and stops every couple blocks. Plus the James Street bottleneck which has got to go (get on with the Yesler trolley wire project!). Then it turns south on 23rd where few people use it (because they know to take the 27 or 7 or 14 for a less painful trip) and then turns and meanders still slowly to its terminus.