I know I have posted too many restructure suggestions, but I just want to see what you guys think of them. Plus, this could help Metro plan out the actual restructure. In addition to writing about Ballard Link, I will also briefly mention the 40 RapidRide plan.
Proposal
RapidRide D Line will be extended to run to Northgate like the current Route 40. Route 40 will terminate at the current D Line terminus at Carkeek Park. Also, routes 40 and 62 will swap routings between Fremont and Downtown. Route 40 will run via Dexter, and Route 62 will run via Westlake.
Route 61 will be restored, but will run to the South Ballard station instead of serving the old loop.
A new route will run via NW 65th St between Aurora and 36th Ave NW, then run to Golden Gardens via Seaview Ave NW. This route will be numbered 68.
If I remember correctly, the South Ballard station will be at 15th/Market. If this is the case, all buses running via Leary between Market and 15th will instead travel via Market and 15th to serve the station.
Maps
Route 68 Map: http://bit.ly/2qQfqKk
The Ballard station location is very much up in a air, this early in the process.
I’m a big fan of splitting the D line so it doesn’t cross the bridge, which allows for the Ballard station to be shifted a bit west and keep the 40 on Leary. D-North should be very reliable with BAT lanes pretty much the whole way along 15th/Holgate, while D-South becomes a high frequency local “shadow” route for Link.
Metro 2040 plan ties together D-South and the 8 into a single line that runs from Interbay to Madison park, which is an interesting idea.
Extending RapidRide D to Northgate may need to be accomplished way before the Ballard Link opens. Making it more attractive to get off the train at Northgate may be important so that passengers south of Northgate can have room to get on the train!
I’m not sure if today’s RapidRide D will survive after Ballard Link opens though. At the very least, it will need to be modified during the construction.
Other RapidRide possibilities:
– Extending it to Lake City and then end at the terminus of the Route 522 BRT at Lake City Way and 145th.
– Operating a BRT line only from Ballard to 145/Lake City Way via Northgate, so that it doesn’t have to cross the Ship Canal and endure drawbridge openings. Schedule adherence would be much better!
Finally, I think there is a reasonable chance that some slower-speed, driverless shuttles will be operating out of this station and serving a wider Ballard area. With this in mind, I wouldn’t think too far ahead on route restructuring.
The 40 will be converted to a RapidRide+ route as part of the Move Seattle process. It is corridor 6 discussed here: https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/. Once that happens, it isn’t clear to me that you need to extend the D. One possibility, though, would be to run it to NE 130th — when that station is built. That could then be extended all the way to Lake City. Getting to 130th is about the same distance as getting to Northgate.
But if it went to Lake City that would be a very long D. Maybe ending at the 145th station (as you suggested) is a better option. 145th is designed as a “dead end”, so ending there (even laying over there) could make a lot of sense. Then you could run a much shorter connector bus from Lake City to Bitter Lake. Start at 145th and Lake City Way, head south, turn on 125th, go by the station and end at 125th and Greenwood Avenue. That would be a very efficient bus (very fast, with lots of quality stops) making it prime for off board payment and even a little signal prioritization. As a connector bus, I think you can make the case that it should run frequently (at least 10 minute all day headways, if not better).
Of course that still means a two seat ride to Ballard from Lake City, which is why it might make sense to extend it to Ballard. That would mean some overlap (with either the D or 40) but might be justified. I would be worried it would then be “watered down” (not run frequently enough) in the central core, though, which is why I am a bit hesitant to recommend that. As with so many things, a lot depends on how much money we have to spend on service.
In any event, all of these changes will occur many years before Link gets to Ballard.
I agree the RR+40 and the D would overlap if they both served the Northgate transit center. Perhaps the 40 can serve the link station (as proposed in corridor 6), while the D simply continued along Northgate Way to Lake City? The D is then simply serving a different part of Northgate. The D is your good 1-seat ride between Lake City and Ballard (without the diversion tto the station), while the 40 is your good 1-seat ride from Northgate station to Ballard/NW Seattle.
Running the D to 145th is an interesting idea, but which route would you take to travel between 105th and 145th?
They won’t overlap if one goes via Holman Road and the other goes via 85th & Greenwood, and only one of them goes to Lake City. The southern one could also possibly serve Meridian Ave and let people take the pedestrian bridge to Link. There’s the college there and offices north of it.
There should be a Ballard – Lake City route. David Lawson pointed out a few years ago that the 40/75 meeting point would be better in Lake City than Northgate. That way everyone living in or between them would have a one-seat ride, and only the much lower population from Sand Point would have to transfer.
@Mike – that’s basically what Metro’s 2040 plans does. In 2025 there’s a frequent route that’s Ballard to Northgate via 15th and 85th that continues to Lake City, and By 2040 that route is upgraded to RR while the D-line disappears.
So it sounds like Metro, instead of fiddling end the end of the D-line, wants to just leave the D-line as is and roll out this new route to serve the Ballard-Northgate-Lake City market.
That route is actually a very compelling template for a future Link extension, if the ST3 Ballard station is underground. Link stations at
– 65th & 15th
– Greenwood & 85th
– Aurora & 90th-ish
– Northgate TC
– Lake CIty
Of course, if the ST3 Ballard line is elevated, then the logical ST4 extension probably remains an elevated line along 15th-Holman-105th. But I digress.
A lot of people beat up on Metro for elevating 15th to RapidRide instead of Westlake-Fremont-24th. They did it because of the large blocks of future development on 15th, ignoring the existing density and village center around Ballard Ave. And also because of the precedent of the Monorail and presumed Link line. But as we’ve seen, old centers tend to grow into more vibrant and carless areas than new centers. Later Metro elevated the 40 to RapidRide too, tacitly admitting it had chosen the wrong corridor, but not downgrading 15th.
I prefer a route that remains on the curve from 15th to Holman Road to 105th, rather than turning abruptly from Holman Road to 85th and 24th. That feels just too grid-silly.
>> They won’t overlap if one goes via Holman Road and the other goes via 85th & Greenwood, and only one of them goes to Lake City.
Good point. So how about this: Extend the D to Northgate, using the current route of the 40 (more or less). That follows the curve you mentioned (15th to Holman to 105th).
Change the northern end of the 40. Instead of turning on 15th, and heading north, continue to Greenwood and then turn north. Continue north on Greenwood to either 130th or 145th. 130th makes sense if the station is there, and might even make sense if it isn’t (as the fastest way to Lake City). I like that a lot, actually. You give more people in the Greenwood area a one seat ride to Ballard, and both buses have fairly straight, logical routes (given the limitations of our geography). The two Ballard Rapid Ride runs do a nice little weave, crossing at 85th/15th and Greenwood/105th. There is overlap between regular bus service and RapidRide (along 85th with the 45 and along Greenwood with the 5) but I don’t see that as being the end of the world.
It would be a hard political lift to keep it away from Northgate. And that turn from Holman Road to Aurora is just as ugly as the other one. But I see your point that 130th is the fastest way to Lake City, and in this city of excessively slow east-west transit, an unusually fast route would be welcome.
That route is actually a very compelling template for a future Link extension, if the ST3 Ballard station is underground. Link stations at
– 65th & 15th
– Greenwood & 85th
– Aurora & 90th-ish
– Northgate TC
– Lake CIty
Unfortunately that would be very expensive. To get to the Northgate TC, you have to go under the freeway. You can’t go over, as you would have to immediately take a turn to avoid buildings on the other side. So now you’ve gone under, and connected the two lines via an elevator (the height difference is too big for escalators). Then you have to go underground for much of the way to Lake City. It all adds to be an expensive run, that suffers from a bad connection at Northgate TC. I’m not saying it won’t be built, but there are other, better values that should be built first. Ballard to the UW and the Metro 8 subway come to mind.
My guess is that the Ballard line will be extended to 85th, since that should be cheap (as elevated or surface). If it isn’t too expensive, you might be able to extend it the same way to Aurora.
It would be a hard political lift to keep it away from Northgate. And that turn from Holman Road to Aurora is just as ugly as the other one. But I see your point that 130th is the fastest way to Lake City, and in this city of excessively slow east-west transit, an unusually fast route would be welcome.
You would still have one bus to Northgate, while the other bus goes farther north (to the 145th station or Lake City). You wouldn’t turn on Aurora, but turn on Greenwood. That really isn’t ugly, but a straightforward turn to the north. So basically the north end of the new 40 would be like this (if it ended at 145th): https://goo.gl/maps/L3BBYJVJqc92, or like this (if it ended in Lake City): https://goo.gl/maps/kw8dRhZTjxp. While the new D would look like this: https://goo.gl/maps/bMYNa6o6o6m
That seems a lot more straightforward than what we have now. Both buses seem like they would have enough ridership to justify RapidRide type headways. Both the 15th and 24th Avenue corridors seem worthy, in my opinion. The 40 continues to connect Ballard with Fremont, but also picks up much of Greenwood and now has a fast connection to Link and/or Lake City. Getting from Northgate to Ballard is a bit faster, as the new D doesn’t go on 24th, but on 15th. Transferring between the two is easy, even though they don’t share any segments. About the only thing I don’t like is the redundancy with the 5, but I think that can’t be helped. There are limitations with our grid (Ballard sticks out to the west) and you are bound to double up somewhere).
“You would still have one bus to Northgate, while the other bus goes farther north (to the 145th station or Lake City).”
It will be a hard political lift to get even one of the routes away from Northgate because transit center and shopping mall. But I like the idea of going up to 130th or 145th, and we can advocate for it in the restructure.
Don’t feel bad about posting so many restructure ideas. I like these a lot, and that’s part of what page 2 is for.
A lot of this does depend on where Ballard station goes. I think the best places are either (both on 15th) halfway between Leary and Market (to include most of “downtown Ballard”), or on NW 65th street (for fast and frequent bus connections from the north and slightly south).
I think the 68 route idea is dead in the water unless it connects to a Link station. It’s probably good to extend it to Roosevelt station, and also to a (potentially) Market street Ballard station, and overlapping the 44 a bit to facilitate good transfers from Seaview/Golden Gardens. Otherwise it’s like the 78 but worse.
I think there might be a station at NW 65th St sometime later. Route 68 is supposed to connect Ballard residents to Golden Gardens on the west end, Phinney Ridge and Green Lake on the east end. Plus, it would also take some students to Ballard High School. I do agree that a connection to Roosevelt station would be nice, but I’m not sure if Metro would like to have it go around Green Lake.
When I first came up with the idea of Route 68, I had it run between Ballard and Sand Point via NW 65th and NE 65th. Then I realized that the route would be very unbalanced, with high ridership on the east side and low ridership on the west side. Then I thought maybe it could run via NE 75th instead. Later on I decided it should not have to go around Green Lake at all, and instead just provide a connection to the E Line.
I think it could replace the 62 on 65th, turn toward 45th on 25th Ave, then turn west to Golden Gardens. Then it could provide consistent corridor service on 65th and connect to two Link stations, the E-Line, and the 44. It would probably have fairly low to really low ridership along the whole route, so running it every 30 mins is probably prudent.
It would also be a well established “leisure bus,” since it goes to GG, Woodland Park Zoo, Green Lake, and Magnuson Park, so it would have more consistent and balanced demand during the summer especially.
The 61 could fill in the gap on 65th instead of being on 32nd ave all the way to 45th. That way everyone is still within 5 blocks of a bus that connects to Ballard Station and 44 RapidRide.
@AlexKven I did consider having Route 61 on NW 65th, but I would guess that Sunset Hill residents would want a direct connection to the South Ballard station, assuming it opens before any of the other Ballard stations.
“…assuming it opens before any of the other Ballard stations.”
The only planned Ballard Station is one that was approved in certainly the last ST measure in a good long while. And the going assumption is that the Ballard Station will be at 15th and Market, though moving it north or south would only have minor impact on restructure proposals.
But very few people are assuming multiple Ballard stations at this point. ST4 is minimum 8 years away, but likely a lot more because ST3 is so much bigger than ST2. And depending on the effects of the Trump and future administrations and various legislatures, one component of ST4 is likely to be rebuilding lost funding for ST3 projects, like ST3 did for the Federal Way portion of ST2 but on a larger scale (which does reduce the odds of it passing, as does the negative PR on ST3 as well).
Any measure that includes new Ballard stations is very unlikely to not include the full Ballard-UW line, which would merit a much larger restructure anyway. I think the most likely proposal is that Ballard-UW is not a spur, but the Ballard extension, meaning that Ballard would not be extended north.
Finally, sensibly assuming a 2028 ST4 vote, for a north Ballard station to happen simultaneously with south Ballard, it would have to happen 7 years after the vote. This is only remotely precedented by downtown Redmond (7 years) and Federal Way (8 years), and in both of these cases, Sound Transit has been doing studies on these extensions that was funded by the previous measure (ST2).
When I first came up with the idea of Route 68, I had it run between Ballard and Sand Point via NW 65th and NE 65th. Then I realized that the route would be very unbalanced, with high ridership on the east side and low ridership on the west side.
Huh? Did you mean that the other way around? 65th and 24th N. W. (a possible western terminus) is way more densely populated than most of the east side. Multifamily zoning extends south of 65th several blocks between 28th and 14th. There is another cluster of development at 32nd and 65th, making that a logical terminus (might as well). The areas that aren’t zoned multi-family have a lot of old multi-plexes. In contrast, 65th to the east is fairly low density, with big gaps even along 65th. https://jeffreylinn.carto.com/viz/681ff218-0a5d-11e6-8f50-0ea31932ec1d/embed_map
The only part of the western side that is low density is the extension down to Golden Gardens. That is the only part of that idea that doesn’t make sense. Well that and the fact that such a bus route on 65th may not be physically possible, as discussed elsewhere.
>> But very few people are assuming multiple Ballard stations at this point. ….
No, but it doesn’t hurt to look ahead. My guess is the 15th and Market station will be elevated or on the surface. Either way it would be fairly cheap to extend it to 85th (with a stop at 65th). The early plans for the surface option emphasized this (basically showing that while a train through Queen Anne would be nice, a train over the ship canal could go farther north).
>> Any measure that includes new Ballard stations is very unlikely to not include the full Ballard-UW line.
I agree. It doesn’t make sense to send this north without sending a train west. But they should be two separate lines. The Ballard to UW line should start at 32nd (not 15th) and go under the other line. Cut and cover over to 8th (followed by a tunnel) would probably be the cheapest way to do that (and ensure the tunnel isn’t too deep). Then you could extend the other bus route north. Getting to 85th should be cheap, but then it gets challenging. But 85th is a good terminus (lots of crossing bus routes there). Both the northern extension (to 85th) and the western extension (to 32nd) could be put off. The first thing to build is 15th and Market to the U-District; but it should be built so that it can be extended in both directions.
From a transit network standpoint, your new 68 makes sense right now. There is enough density to justify an east-west run in there. Not necessarily to Golden Gardens (that part actually doesn’t make sense) but definitely east of there. The bus would continue east, around the north end of Green Lake (using Linden, Winona and then East Green Lake Drive). That way it connects up to the express buses that use the Green Lake Park and Ride. In less than five years, it would mean a solid connection to Link. Now you have a nice grid in that part of town.
Unfortunately, it isn’t possible. That is why Metro has never had that route, nor have they considered it. 65th, east of Phinney Ridge, is just too steep. There is also a nasty little dogleg.
You might be able to serve 65th west of Phinney Ridge (it isn’t as steep) but that would mean making some sort of branch. Maybe you could have a bus that followed the 44 routing, then went north on Phinney, then took a left on 65th. That seems possible, although it doesn’t strike me as being a great bus route, just because of the turns and lack of connectivity.
As far as Golden Gardens goes, I think it is possible, but it would likely be a coverage run. Maybe something from Magnolia to Market in Ballard and then west to Seaview and then north. Hard to see how that is justified though. As it is, 32nd doesn’t have all day service, so the handful of businesses and boats on the way would have to wait until the street that actually has people living on it is served.
The only technical problem I can see is that east of 3rd Ave NW, NW 65th is rather narrow for two buses to pass each other. The newer buses using the BAE HybriDrive transmission can handle hills pretty well. If there is enough demand but too many technical problems with regular buses, Metro could use the DART vans on this route.
If the Seaview leg does not make sense, maybe Route 68 could go north on 32nd Ave NW. However, as I said earlier, this would only make sense if there is a Link station at NW 65th.
Yeah, Metro could use DART vans on that route. By the time Ballard Link is built, maybe we will have self driving buses. That way we could use vans there, running every five minutes. That could hold enough people (hopefully). If that happens, there are plenty of other routes that would make sense (like running on Manor Place in Magnolia, as discussed in the Magnolia thread).
The thing is, I don’t see the dynamic changing much, even when Ballard Link gets to 65th. Right now the D is the only all day bus service crossing the bridge. The 17 and the 18, while more direct to west Ballard, run so rarely that they are largely irrelevant. People have to work their way over to 15th right now, and when they do, they have a fairly fast, straight shot to downtown. Yet Metro still hasn’t bothered to run a bus on 65th, despite the obvious advantages from a grid perspective (and the booming growth in the area). The D is already serving most of the areas that Ballard Link will serve. The only stops that will be added are those closer to South Lake Union, but you will lose stops in Belltown, making it a wash. Obviously it will be faster and more reliable, but I don’t see the speed difference being that great. If Metro doesn’t run the bus now, I’m not sure if they will run it if Link gets there.
In contrast, consider the station at Roosevelt. You have the same sort of dynamic with regards to getting downtown. A bus is fast, driving is fast, and now Link will be fast. But you will also enable a very fast connection to the U-District and the south end of campus. This is much faster than before as the bus doesn’t travel on a freeway or a pseudo freeway like 15th between there. But the big winner is Capitol Hill. Getting from Roosevelt to Capitol Hill takes forever right now (by bus or car). It will be ridiculously quick once Link gets there.
Metro’s plan is a Frequent route on 32nd NW, Market St, 15th, 65th, Linden, 80th, Wallingford, to Northgate. It’s slightly more complicated than that but that’s what it serves. Regarding 65th between Greenwood and Aurora, Metro said at some point that it would require street improvements but was doable. The cost of those improvements is why it won’t contemplate it in the 2025 timeframe.
How about a route around the south end of Greenlake? It route would start at 32nd & 65th, and go east on 65th, south on Phinney, east on 50th, then some way up to 65th and Roosevelt Station. The most direct way would be on East Green Lake Way which would have a pretty view but it may be too far from the population. Otherwise it could follow the 62 or 26, since there’s no other way west of I-5. This would give more coverage to central Ballard and the Tangletown area. It wouldn’t connect with the E, but is that essential if it connects to the Blue and Red lines? And it would connect with the 5, which is almost the E.
At one point there was talk about extending the 5 to Aurora Village or 185th Station but it looks like Metro has dropped it. Maybe it should rethink that because it would allow the 5 and E to cross for those continuing north.
>> How about a route around the south end of Greenlake? It route would start at 32nd & 65th, and go east on 65th, south on Phinney, east on 50th …
At that point I think you would just want to go to the U-District. There used to be a bus on 50th (I forget the number) but they decided to consolidate. You could do the same, and simply keep going south until 45th. This would mean following the current 44 (essentially a split off from it). This could mean taking advantage of whatever improvements are made as part of the RapidRide+ projects (corridor 5 listed here –https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/). That means you connect up with the E just fine. Once past the Link station at Brooklyn, it could head north again, following the current 74 route. So basically something like this: https://goo.gl/maps/uJAj3RGfxFS2
It gets us closer to a grid than before. The main drawback is the back tracking. But the way that the buses converge north of Ballard, make this less of an issue. So, for example, if you are at Bitter Lake headed to 65th and 24th, you will get off at 105th and take the 40. If the E extends up that way, you would take it to 15th. But from the south this means getting off the bus later, which means a faster trip. As you mentioned, the connection wit the 5 means a nice connection from Greenwood to various parts of Ballard. Meanwhile, from the U-District you have a one seat ride to much of Phinney Ridge and another part of Ballard.
It also means less walking for some people The north-south lines are very well spaced, but without an east-west option, people sometimes have to walk a ways. If you could manage 15 minute headways, I think it would work out really well for a lot of people. There is a fair amount of density all long this route.
One of the major weaknesses of Ballard Link is the bus connectivity. Ballard to UW is much better. With Ballard to UW rail, not only do you have service to downtown that is just about as fast (while picking up the UW along the way) but you also have a very nice, very easy restructure. Just kill the 44. There is no need for a shadow — just end it, and put the service elsewhere. With the exception of the 26, you also don’t need to move any of the crossing bus routes. They already run by every station. The buses would run on the fast north-south lines, while the train would serve the slow east-west connection. Taking transit would often be faster than driving. Even in the middle of the day and even when the trip involves a transfer.
Alas, it isn’t to be. We will soon (OK, not soon, but eventually) have Ballard Link. There will be some restructuring to accommodate it, but it will do little to generate a nice grid, because it can’t. In that regard it is similar to what happened after Link cut through the Central Area: Very little. Because Capitol Hill Station — as good as it is — really doesn’t enable a good transit network. It is only one station, and is nowhere near the major corridors (23rd or Madison). But there will be some changes with Ballard Link. Here is how I see possible restructuring, from north to south.
When Ballard Link gets to 85th, it will connect up with the equivalent of the 45, which is a good thing. But unfortunately, even if you add a stop at 65th (and you should), running an east-west bus line from there is very difficult (as mentioned above — https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2017/05/25/ballard-restructure-after-ballard-link/#comment-777225). At Market you have the 44, but there is no good way to serve Phinney Ridge between 85th and 46th, unless you did something really weird, like have a bus backtrack to the station (https://goo.gl/maps/kB42rQeTNZL2). That seems unlikely, which means people will fave to spend a lot of time “going around” if they want to get to the station (and thus the places south of there). Interbay to Phinney Ridge, for example, will be a mess, despite a station at your origin and another station a mile west of your destination. Chance are, folks will just take a bus south, over the Fremont Bridge, then transfer to a 32 type bus west on Nickerson, as they do now.
Fremont will be in better shape. The 40 will be modified to cut over to 15th and Market. Getting from Fremont to Interbay will be much easier. But like folks on Phinney Ridge, getting to Lower Queen Anne (or downtown) will likely be unchanged. It just doesn’t make sense to head north, then back south. It would be much easier to just head south, then pick up a new Metro 8 which will go over Aurora between Denny and Mercer (once the SR 99 tunnel project is complete).
Magnolia will likely undergo major changes. One of the least densely populated part of the city will suddenly have very good transit. My guess is bus service focuses in at Interbay. This would give the people in the more densely populated areas (Interbay and East Magnolia) better service than those to the west, which is a nice improvement. From the east, I think again the focus is Interbay. I’ve made the case that the 31/32 should serve it, and with a station there, that would make even more sense. That means those buses either stop there, or continue and serve parts of Magnolia.
Western Queen Anne is challenging. Gilman is a possibility, but Dravus is too steep. So a bus like the one I mentioned before (the blue line on this map — https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DFY008e6EwXZGmk6LUoW0RgfeB4&usp=sharing) might work.
South of there, between Gilman and Mercer, we are just out of luck. You have a steep greenbelt on one side, and water on the other. You simply can’t build a grid there.
Lower Queen Anne will have bus service that will be largely unchanged. This is really the heart of the addition (the three southern stops). Buses from upper Queen Anne will cross the line, and head to Belltown (as they do now). Likewise with the Rapid Ride E. Those headed to the tunnel anyway (for south downtown) will get off there, while those headed to South Lake Union will likely walk or transfer to the new 8. while those headed to Belltown just stay on the bus.
That’s it, as I see it. I don’t see how the new train does much to create or enhance the grid, unfortunately. For that we have to wait for Ballard to UW and Metro 8.
Ballard LINK CANNOT be just one station at 15/Market. It needs to continue north on 15th to AT LEAST 85th. Getting over the Ship Channel is the heavy lifting. From their going north on 15 (a super-wide street) is easy. It doesn’t even need to be in a tunnel (though if it is, it can be cut and cover instead of bored). They can just take away the center of 15th like is done on MLK Jr. Way.
I agree. I think it is very likely that it goes as far as 85th. That is relatively cheap. It is after that when things get expensive. Holman Road might be too steep and connecting to the Northgate Station would be extremely expensive (you have to tunnel under the freeway). Projects like Metro 8 and Ballard to UW are much better values. But extending Ballard Link to 85th adds a lot for the money.
Not only that, but there needs to be a stop at 75th in addition to 65th. Half a mile is about as far as you can go without needing shadow bus service. If you have stops only at 65th and 85th, you need to continue a bus route down 15th. Add a stop at 65th, and you can redeploy those service hours elsewhere.
I meant add a stop at 75th, and you can move those service hours elsewhere.
Yeah, I agree. It makes sense to add a stop at 75th. Otherwise you are either asking people to walk a long ways (half mile) or running a shadow. While 75th is not an arterial, it is a fairly flat street, which makes it a good spot for bike share (if and when that happens). There isn’t much at 75th, but that could change. As it is, the area right on 15th will have growth, it is just a question of whether that will extend a few blocks like it does south of 65th. Either way it makes sense to add a stop, which would then allow you to terminate buses at 85th.
I think you can make a similar case for Leary. It is just about as far, and there are crossing buses now. The buses could be moved (to use Market instead) but that might slow them down and require some additional walking to get to some spots at Old Ballard, which will likely be very big very soon (there are some office buildings going in). The one advantage 75th has over 85th is that the stop slows fewer people down. A stop at 75th would make every trip to 85th a bit slower, but that is it. A stop at Leary makes every trip from downtown to Market (and 85th) slower. I’m not saying I wouldn’t add it — I would add both — but I think you can make a stronger case for 75th, because there really isn’t much of a trade-off.