Aerial view of NE 145th Street Station (Sound Transit)

Lynnwood Link, which we last saw in 30% design last November, has now reached 60% design. An open house for 145th and 185th Stations was held on May 24. Mountlake Terrace Station will have an open house June 28th, and Lynnwood Station sometime in the fall.  Travel times from Lynnwood are featured on the project page: 20 minutes to UW, 28 minutes to downtown, 60 minutes to Sea-Tac airport, and 60 minutes to Overlake Transit Center. The rest of this article will focus on 145th and 185th Stations.

ST has a new kind of online open house site at Each page has renderings above and a comment form below so you can refer to the information as you type. There’s a row of circles below the image; be sure to click all the circles to page through all the renderings. The comment period will be open through the Lynnwood open house. Unfortunately the site doesn’t have all the information that was on the slides and posters in the Shoreline open house. That should be motivation to attend future open houses.

145th Station still has the bus turnaround loop at 148th. My biggest concern is there’s only one lane into the station for both buses and cars. Both will turn left into the station and then on for a half-block before they separate, buses to the turnaround, cars to the garage, and other cars to a separate turnaround to drop people off. I’m concerned about cars getting in the way of buses there, and wondering if they need separate lanes. However, more lanes means more asphalt and ugliness.

Aerial view of NE 185th Street Station (Sound Transit)

185th Station has a bus turnaround too but it’s right next to 185th Street. The parking garage is on the other side of the freeway (the west side), which makes the station itself more compact. A passenger drop-off is just east of the bus turnaround, adjacent to 5th Avenue NE. All this makes 185th Station a better design than 145th. That’s good because it’s closer to Shoreline’s population center, but I wish 145th Station had a similar design too.

Mary Lucking’s artwork for 185th Station is magnificent: a bird and tree theme to represent the people in the area. People come home to their houses; birds come home to their trees. One might note that trees are multifamily, so it may be an (un)intentional allusion to the future apartments. For 145th Station, Buster Simpson has a water rivulet theme, showing symbolically how water flows from the roof down to Roland Bog and Thornton Creek.

The station names now have a list of finalists from previous public input. The board will make a final decision this summer. The finalists for 145th Station are “Jackson Park”, “South Shoreline”, and “Ridgecrest”. For 185th: “Shoreline” and “North Shoreline”. For Mountake Terrace: “Mountlake Terrace” and “Ballinger”. For Lynnwood: “Lynnwood Transit Center” and “Lynnwood”.  I prefer Ridgecrest, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood.

The city of Shoreline is planning a multi-use trail along the track from 205th to 145th. I wondered if it could be extended further south to Northgate. Between 145th and 125th the freeway comes right next to 5th Avenue so a trail would be in the sidewalk. A trail could remain on 5th down to Green Lake. But the official plan is only in Shoreline.

Lynnwood Link is planned to open in 2023. It depends on a $1.1 billion federal grant which is now uncertain because Trump’s budget request eliminated transit grants, but Congress has not yet written the 2018 budget so it’s unclear whether that will stand. Sound Transit has not said what it might do if the grant doesn’t come through.

Metro’s long-range plan has a large number of feeders. One Frequent route will connect 145th and 185th Stations to Mountlake terrace, Meridian Avenue, and Greenlake. 145th Station will have 522 BRT and Frequent routes to to Shoreline Community College; 35th Ave NE and U-Village, and in 2040 8th Ave NW and Magnolia. 185th Station will have Swift to Everett and Frequent routes to Richmond Beach, 15th Ave NE and UW Station; and Shoreline Community College, Ballinger Way, and Kenmore.

Lynnwood Link is particulart interesting because the area has so much potential with its intact street grid, close-in location, room for multifamily housing, a Link travel time competitive with ST Express, and two Link lines giving double frequency. If this area reaches even half its potential it will be a major asset in the region and people will be grateful it was done.

53 Replies to “Lynnwood Link 60% Design”

  1. As I’ve mentioned for several years now and as you aptly reiterate, Mike, the 145th Street station (Jackson Park) is a horrible design for any city that’s trying to create a grid of frequent service. It works – sort of – and was obviously designed for the revised 522 and people northeast of the city limits, but those “frequent services to Shoreline College and 35th” can no longer be the crosstown route that makes sense. Instead we will either have two separate routes terminating at the station or a single route that adds 5 minutes+ to every trip turning off 145th and looping through the station before proceeding back to 145th. Otherwise you drop off on 145th and have that long lovely walk to the station. Thankfully the 130th Street station can still be designed in a fashion that allows for crosstown Lake City – Bitter Lake bus service to drop off right at the station for a seamless transfer. Without that station Lake City riders would be forced to backtrack to 145th and then loop three blocks into the station, or walk the three blocks if the bus continued along 145th.

    At least they seem to have gotten 185th right.

    1. The distance from 145th St to the actual station is about the same as it is from the Montlake bus stops to UW station, so it’s not an unprecedented level of bad bus-rail integration.

      1. Although, 145th requires people to walk 1,200′ though a freeway interchange and across a freeway onramp while UW Sta’s 800′ walk has a lovely overpass through essentially a park.

      2. Pat,

        So your thinking is that this bad design is ok because there are other bad designs that predate this one?

      3. husky,

        Not at all. I frequently transfer at UW station and I despise it. But given the large additional cost that would be incurred by messing with the highway interchange, this is tolerable. Per AJ’s comment below, there aren’t any crosstown routes on 145th that don’t terminate at the station in Metro’s LRP, so this might not even wind up being an issue.

      4. What it shows is that a station at a freeway exit is even worse than a station elsewhere along a freeway. 145th has entrance and exit ramps which make the pedestrian experience even more miserable. I grew up in Bellevue where 405 & NE 8th Street takes even longer to cross and is a desolate desert. The entrance ramp must have given too little space for a station at 145th, and moving the entrance ramp was the enormous expense ST wanted to avoid. 185th doesn’t have a freeway entrance — it’s at 175th — so it doesn’t have this anti-pedestrian factor. (Come to think of it, there was an alternative that replaced 145th station with 155th, which doesn’t have an entrance either….)

        No Metro routes go through on 145th but they will at 130th. The 75 is rerouted to 130th, Greenwood Ave, and Shoreline CC. That will connect the center of Lake City to Shoreline CC and the emerging urban villages at 130th & Aurora and 155th & Aurora. And if you’re at 145th & Lake City Way, the future 65 a block away will take you to the station, 155th, and Shoreline CC. Those going from Kenmore-ish to Shoreline CC or Aurora will have to transfer, but there may be few of them. And this 65 will take them to 155th & Aurora, which will be a more popular destination than 145th & Aurora because of the concentation of shopping and future apartments.

      5. Right, there’s not enough room for a station between 145th and the ramps, but it looks like there would be enough room if you had the elevated station platform span over 145th with stairs/elevators on both sides of the street, the way Angle Lake station or literally any CTA ‘L’ station does. Of course, the bus layover space and parking garage might have to stay where they are, but such a configuration would at least be an easier transfer for any pass-through routes. I wonder if they considered such a design at all.

      6. The track is below the overpass on the ground so the platforms have to be there. You’ll go down to the platforms like at Bellevue Station or the 23rd entrance to Judkins Park Station. Would your solution still fit with sunken platforms? The station infrastructure can extend over the overpass, but arching the track itself over the overpass to elevated platforms would be an enormous expense.

      7. Exactly right re the 130th station bus routes, Mike – and that’s a major factor why some of us fought so hard for it. 145th was no real solution for the (for N Seattle) dense neighborhood of Lake City or for Bitter Lake, both of which also have quite a bit of underdeveloped land to this day.

      8. >The track is below the overpass on the ground so the platforms have to be there.
        Isn’t it elevated in the section around 145th? The renderings and the Shoreline map at least would suggest that it is.

      9. I think Pat is right – 145th is elevated, and 185th is in a trench and the tracks cross below 185th. Mike’s comment doesn’t make sense if he’s talking about 145th (though his bus comments appear spot-on)

      10. “Isn’t it elevated in the section around 145th?”

        I may have misunderstood the changes.

        “Exactly right re the 130th station bus routes, Mike – and that’s a major factor why some of us fought so hard for it.”

        There’s two issues. One is getting to Link; the other is going from northeast Seattle to northwest Seattle (e.g., LCW to Aurora). The two groups have different needs. 145th Station will cater to those going to Link, with the bus stop right next to the platform. 130th will cater to through riders, and how well it will serve Link transfers is unknown until the station is designed and opens. My mind thinks of 2023 as “just six years to wait”, while beyond that is “the vague far future”.

      11. Nobody in central Lake City or Bitter Lake is going to use 145th as their access to Link just because a bus drops them off underneath the platform, taking 2-3 extra minutes to do so, instead of a through bus that drops them off directly above the platform with no detour as at 130th. The station at 130th is also closer and will not suffer from the psychological issue of “backtracking” to get to a Link station to catch the exact same train they would have caught at 130th. The only Lake City residents who will go to 145th are those living around 145th, maybe north of 137th or so…and that’s if the bus is more frequent for them than the one going through Lake City to 130th. Jackson Park station is for Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kenmore, and Bothell.

        I lived in that area for 45 years and can, with little exaggeration, count the number of times I used 145th on my fingers. Even headed north on I-5 it was always faster to go to 125th/130th then north on 5th to the on ramps at 145th. People just aren’t going to change their paths of travel when they’re able to choose either station. They’ll take 145th by necessity until 130th opens, and that only because ST won’t build them concurrently.

      12. I meant that those starting off near 145th and going to Link will be better off than those going through, while those starting from near 125th will have an easy time going through and an unknown time getting to Link.

        But the 65 plan will help some of those 145th through riders, by going from 35th & 145th to Aurora & 155th.

      13. The distance from 145th St to the actual station is about the same as it is from the Montlake bus stops to UW station, so it’s not an unprecedented level of bad bus-rail integration.

        Ha, that’s funny. I like it. 145th is poor, but we’ve done poor before.

        I’m looking at Metro’s LRP, and in 2025 & 2040 there are ZERO east-west routes on 145th that don’t terminate at 145th.

        Yeah, ha, the comedy continues. The largest transit authority — the one that carries the most people in the state — can’t possibly imagine a bus that goes along 145th without ending there. Hilarious.

        I think you guys have somehow channeled the Big Three automakers from the ’70s. Quality doesn’t matter, because we’ve done OK without it. There are no long term plans to produce someone decent — it’s too much bother.

        OK, let’s see what the Japanese — sorry — the Canadians, do:

        This is an above ground station in Vancouver, BC: There are ramps on both sides of the street. If you get off a bus, it is a pretty easy walk up to the platform. As it turns out, there is a bus, right in the screen shot. Nothing extraordinary, really; as mentioned, this is typical in Chicago (or any elevated line that intersects a major thoroughfare).

        It is silly to think that Metro’s long range plan (which, as they have said repeatedly is flexible, and not meant to be an iron glad blueprint for the future) could not be modified to accommodate realities on the ground. If the station happened to be designed properly, it is highly likely that you would eventually run a bus along State Route 523 (otherwise known as 145th) connecting SR 522 and SR 99. Never mind density (which is above average) it is all about geography. The logical end to an east-west 522 bus is not the freeway, but farther west (Greenwood Avenue). If the buses all end at the station, then making a connection from our most popular bus (the E) to places like Lake Forest Park, Kenmore and Bothell will involve a three seat ride.

        To not properly accommodate buses at 145th is like making a Margherita pizza with rotten tomatoes. The whole reason the station is there is to improve bus to rail transfers. We aren’t building a system with enough stations to replace the bus service. We should spend enough money to build the stations properly, so they enhance bus service, not hamper it.

        Thankfully the 130th Street station can still be designed in a fashion that allows for crosstown Lake City – Bitter Lake bus service to drop off right at the station for a seamless transfer.

        Absolutely right. We obviously aren’t going to do things properly at 145th — which will hurt those to the north of Seattle. We are stuck with Northgate TC as a station, which is unfortunate, because it is very difficult to reach from every direction that will soon matter. The least we can do is build the station between those two properly.

    2. Similar to the Northgate station placement for any bus service going from or to Ballard and Lake City. Frustrating.

      1. Exactly. A competent design would have sited the station over Northgate Way with direct connections to through buses there (and it’s probably even closer to the mall). But, for the fact that there was an existing transit center south of the mall – most of which is being removed – that’s where the station was placed. This despite the fact that getting there by bus OR car from any direction other than the south – the least dense part of the area – is frustrating at most times and simply horrible over the two month period around the holidays. But hey, there was a big bus stop there, so let’s put the train station there!

      2. Yeah. I’d like to know what the cost or political hurdles were to move the station to the street. Would a land swap plus some city incentive to the mall owner been possible/enough to move it?

        Either way, the placement is hugely annoying. I’d rather get dropped off on Northgate way and walk to the station if that means faster cross town service.

      3. Scott/Squirt

        You could not site the station over Northgate Way at 1st Ave NE. You still have freeway onramps that impede pedestrians, you’d have to demo a chunk of the NW corner of Northgate property which is probably a non-starter, you’d have to demo a chunk of low income housing (also non-starter), and (frankly) NE Northgate Way at 1st is not wide enough to do what you want — provide e/w bus transfers to an elevated station and provide for e/w auto traffic at existing level and continue to allow unfettered ingress to the mall from the north and west.

        I would argue it’s not the station placement that is causing E/W transfers to suck. It’s actually the amount of traffic and inefficient signal timing along E/W corridors, and because we have no few E/W corridors.

      4. Scott, transit stations live or die on walk up traffic, not car-delivered riders. With the overpass to NSCC and the density along Meridan west of the freeway, 105th is more central to the future residential density at Northgate than Northgate Way.

      5. Richard, in our city bus-delivered people will also be central to our high-capacity transit system, and they have the exact same problem getting to 105th as cars do. The only reason I started driving to the TC when I used it is that the bus took nearly twice as long to get there (and I arrived early enough to get parking). It still sucked, either way.

        We’ll see about development on the far side of the freeway – the land around the station itself is mostly developed already so that’s where any future growth will have to come from (unlike at Northgate Way, where there is developable land on both sides of the freeway on the west side and north of it on the east – and a lot more development has already taken place along Northgate Way in the past 5 years than has even been thought of near the college). Note that the only development near 105th since the Thornton project is a hotel, not housing. The bridge is there to serve the college and any ancillary development – welcome though it may be – will be fairly minor without drastic re-zoning by the city. Most of that area is the school, wetland/park, and SF housing. There has been little to no multi-family permit activity on that side of the freeway even though the station and bridge are coming. The areas more easily developed on the west side of I-5 are, not coincidentally, actually closer to Northgate Way than 105th.

      6. Jack, of course the argument for station location is academic now, but the walk through the Northgate Way/I-5 intersection right now – on/off ramps and all – while unpleasant is still better than say Bellevue at NE 8th/405. I’m not a fan for many reasons of siting a rail line adjacent to the freeway, but there we are. The low income housing is already slated for re-development and may already be permitted (I didn’t look, but it’s had the approval to go ahead for at least a year now), so that’s already a “starter.” Link, of course, is already going to be built there and as it is elevated (as would a station be), the issue is more of access to it. The northbound I-5 ramp would have to be moved north a bit more than likely but nothing on the west side would have to change – the station would be on the east side. I’d actually posit that it might even be possible to remove that on-ramp since there is another one two blocks to the south, which would remove interference with a bus lane. That on-ramp in effect only serves traffic from the east so even if it remains the traffic in the westbound lane turning north onto the on-ramp would be traveling the same direction as the bus with no cross-traffic to deal with. Right now all of the crosswalks are signalized except for a single lane at each corner – which should probably be signalized anyway – which is no different than crossing any other major intersection anywhere. There is potential room to the outside of the structural columns for another lane both directions, either as bus drop-offs with signalized re-entry, or moving the on/off ramp leadout lanes there (I’m not a traffic engineer so perhaps not – but a thorough study of both station locations could have given us those answers). Not sure why any of that would impact mall access from the north or west as the access points are nowhere near the intersection, and the ramps on the east side of the freeway at the western mall entrance don’t have to be moved – the line is already going to be constructed through there and they’re not being moved now.

        I believe that thinking outside the box, particularly if the money being spent on the pedestrian bridge were allocated to improving bus access to a station at Northgate Way (no bridge would be necessary with no station at 105th), and a reasonably-sized station were designed instead of the palatial edifices ST seems to favor, it could have been done. Of course, the point is moot now and we have what we have. Fortunately once the 130th St station is done, Lake City area residents can avoid the mall traffic completely unless they actually want to go there.

        I certainly agree that more could be done regarding signaling, and certainly your point about no E/W corridors is salient–but there is never going to be an E/W corridor at NE 105th and bus access to the station will be poor from the west side of I-5 forever there.

    3. That two-way entrance and exit with three two-way directions just a few feet from the signal is a disaster waiting to happen every single day! The people here appear to not understand basic traffic circulation. Who goes first? What happens if a car is blocking an bus?

      1. This site plan is oddly two-dimensional. A very simple fix — moving the drop-off traffic into the street level of garage, creating a longer, separated driveway for both getting into a combined garage and drop-off traffic lane, and another longer driveway exiting combined drop-off and parking garage traffic — would work so much better. There could then even be a right-turn-only exiting lane from the station garage

        With this layout, buses could even have an exiting signal phase.

      2. Believe me there were plenty of comments that I read about that issue during the 30% open house. Kind of makes you wonder why we bother.

  2. I don’t get this weird obsession with moving busses off of the cross street and into a time-consuming bus loop. It just adds time (which is ongoing cost in service hours for decades to come). The stations both have 2 entrances — if there was an entrance on the north side and south side of 145th/185th respectively you could easily have bus bays inline on those streets – thus allowing routes to continue past the station. I think it’s perfectly fine to build layover space off the main road for routes that happen to terminate at the station (since busses have to stop anyway, there’s no real impact to service hours). But it seems vastly superior to have the actual stops off the road.

    1. In previous design iterations and up to about 1.5 years ago, 145th Station (more realistic: 148th Station) was located farther south with major bus stops on 145th with a street-facing station entrance and underpass. However, building there meant costly impacts to WSDOT’s 145th interchange, so the station was moved north and this straight-through connection removed in favor of deviating buses off into a time-consuming loop. While good for routes terminating and originating at loops (such as ST’s future BRT or Swift at 185th), it’s bad for routes passing through.

      From 2013, see PDF page 11:

    2. The layover space works well if the station is the terminus for a major bus line. For example, 145th is the terminus for 522 BRT and 185th will likely be the terminus for SWIFT I. Of course, this makes it worse for routes not laying over at the station, but it appears ST thinks the majority of bus routes serving these stations will terminate at the station.

      I’m looking at Metro’s LRP, and in 2025 & 2040 there are ZERO east-west routes on 145th that don’t terminate at 145th. There are several turn on to 5th Ave from 145th, and several that terminate on 145th, but none that use 145th where the bus loop is a deviation from the route. So this use-case that everyone is concern about may never occur.

      1. It probably won’t occur because Sound Transit has made it so difficult. Any bus that comes close to that station will of course want to let people off very close to the platform, and that means making a detour. At that point, it might as well be split up.

        The logical western terminus for the 522 is Greenwood Avenue. That would connect to three additional corridors, one of which carries more than any other bus line. It would also connect to a lot more people. The density on that section is way more than the average for that line. It is a very small extension (about a mile and a half) yet would deliver a huge amount.

        Of course there are other ways to make that connection. But none of them would be as fast, or as efficient. Metro will muddle through, and provide something, it just won’t be nearly as good as it should be.

  3. “Lynnwood Link is planned to open in 2021.”

    I’m confused. The project page still says 2023.

  4. The 145th station layout is a horrible for buses, as many mention.

    My biggest concern is for drop off and pick up people. Unlike buses, when these people get near a station, they are much more likely to make choices that will be the path of least resistance.

    I foresee lots of people forgoing this silly, time-consuming cul-de-sac of a loop in favor of using 5th Avenue. I expect people will hop out of their cars — some on 5th, some on 148th and some even on 145th. Not only will there be safety and congestion issues around informal drop-off points, but there will be more pedestrians crossing streets around the station as a result of this design.

    ST must feel boxed in. These complaints about 145th were widely expressed in the last iteration but nothing changed. It’s going to take a more powerful interest to get ST to rethink this mess.

    The most we can do seems to be to give the station an award as the Worst ST Station in the future. Shame on ST!

  5. I wonder why they don’t just leave the P&R garage and bus layover space where they are (due to space constraints between I5 and 5th Ave), but simply move the station platform itself south by ~200′, so it straddles the I5 exit ramp?

    This way, there is still direct access from the P&R and bus layover space using the north stairs & elevators, but the south station entrance is much closer to 145th. This would greatly improve the walkshed of the station without needing to fiddle with the I5 offramp

    1. Here’s the comment I left:

      “There needs to be much better access to the station directly from 145th, for people accessing the station on foot & bike. Leave the garage & layover space as-is, but move the station farther south to straddle the I5 ramps so people can quickly access the station from 145th while maintaining direct access to the station from the garage & bus stops. Forcing people to cross the I5 ramps on foot really diminishes the walkshed of the station.

      Also more thought needs to go into how buses trying to get to the layover space don’t get caught in traffic getting on/off I5. Can 5th Ave have a bus lane between 145th and the I5-ramp? Widen 5th Ave towards the west (into the unused open space bounded by 145th St, 5th Ave, I5, and the ramps) to gain that extra ROW for bus lanes. “

      1. It should be standard for any station in the vicinity of a large arterial crossing to straddle the arterial, or at least have a grade separated overpass(or tunnel) extend from the platform or mezzanine to the opposite side. I’m sure costs and security are concerns, but if pedestrian station access is excrutiating ridership will suffer.
        Granted 145th is a bad example, since walk shed to the south is minimal, but 185th station needs an access from the south side of 185th. I’m sick of seeing 1/4 mile circles magically representing 15 minute walk sheds with no regard for the barriers.

      2. Here, the key walkshed is west of I5. Everyone walking to the station from west of I5 needs to use 145th, so getting the station closer to 145th extends the walkshed west of I5

      3. This is important. There should be a pedestrian overcrossing over I-5 at the station to keep pedestrians safely out of the interchange traffic on both sides of the interstate. Why spend hundreds of millions on a station but ignore this because it is considered too expensive?

      4. How much walk-up traffic is actually expected at 145th? With the golf course next door and primarily SFH nearby, it looks like the main source of ridership will be bus transfers.

      5. @Pat – Shoreline has a pretty robust upzone on the books for when the stations opens, so it should be somewhat more dense on the north side of 145th

  6. OK, let’s try to make lemonade. Let’s look for sugar. Several poor decisions were made. But they are final.

    ST2 Alignment lemon: Link would have been much better on SR-99 near transit compatible zoning between Northwest Hospital and Lynnwood TC with express bus service between Northgate and Everett via Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace.

    Station lemon: once the I-5 alignment was selected, NE 155th Street would have been a much better station location as it has no interchange are related traffic congestion.

    Access lemon: ST will have a 500-stall garage taking space and slowing local transit.

    Service lemon: ST3 will attempt to place frequent BRT service on a congested arterial feeding a freeway interchange; they could access a different Link station via Lake City.

    Sugar: attempts to separate cars from buses and improve pedestrian access.

    1. All great points, eddiew. What we can do now is continue to push during design review for better direct access to 130th from the station there, and push the City for whatever improvements need to be made to the overpass and interchange there to make pedestrian and bus transfer access as easy and seamless as possible. I admit to not having a ton of hope trying to convince ST to do the right thing – they have seemingly been far less amenable to design changes than your typical building going through design review – but they, Metro, and the City have the opportunity to make that station a model for good station and grid-based transit design. I hope that they will do so and look forward to commenting further to all involved parties during the design process.

      All that said, I’m still glad that we will soon have the opportunity to use a rail line that will take north end residents to the U District, UW campus, and Capitol Hill far faster than we could have ever done so before, and to downtown with time certainty that has never existed with the 41 or by driving. It will be a 7-8 minute bus trip to the 130th St Station from Lake City, and 3-4 from Bitter Lake, and with a frequent crosstown route those neighborhoods will reap the immense benefit of being tied in directly to frequent, regional, high-capacity traffic. We just need to keep pushing for the best possible design solutions!

  7. Freeways are to pedestrians as dams are to fish. Transit service is for pedestrians.

  8. Don’t they usually mean Westlake when they say “downtown Seattle”? They can’t here because 20 minutes + 6 minutes (UW -> Westlake) = 26 minutes, not 28 minutes.

    1. Downtown means Westlake. Lynnwood to Westlake has always been quoted at 28 minutes. UW to Westlake was 8 minutes in planning to account for bus congestion in the DSTT but after opening it was observed to be 6 minutes. I can’t say how the 28 minutes and 6 minutes relate. The “Background” page in the online open house has station-to-station travel times, and guess what, they add up to 26 minutes.

      1. You said Lynnwood to UW is 20 minutes in the article you wrote, but you should have said Lynnwood to UDistrict.

      2. I just quoted the statistics verbatim, I didn’t second-guess them. The page says “Lynnwood to University of Washington: 20 minutes”. Interpret that as you will.

    2. I think one has to also add in the dwell time at UW Station into the travel time math. That’s going to push it to 27 minutes. I don’t think the extra minute is worth quibbling about.

      Besides, if the cars get too crowded by the time they reach UW, the station dwell times are going to be longer anyway. That will easily make the trip 28 minutes or possibly more at peak times.

  9. Don’t they usually mean Westlake when they say “downtown Seattle”? They can’t here because 20 minutes + 6 minutes (UW -> Westlake) = 26 minutes, not 28 minutes..

  10. Rather than fussing about percieved delays in connecting bus service, how about getting rid of all the crap around the stations (All the asphalt for busses and cars, the public gathering space, the huge parking garage) and build walkable, dense development? Walkable development always creates way more ridersihp than bus connections, and park and rides barely create any ridership. Until walkable development is built around the station, how about scrapping the whole darn thing. I think that no taxpayer money spent on transit is better than tons of taxpayer money spent on useless transit with park-and-rides that increases traffic around stations, encourages car use, and generates low ridership. Until Lynwood will be willing to allow dense, walkable development around the station area, I really think that the whole project is worth scrapping.

    1. Because the Lynwood station will be the primary transit node for all of SW Snohomish county?

    2. Because Lynnwood Station allows Truncating hundreds of buses ANF redeploying their hours to service within the county for the growing number of walkable developments that do exist? Because voters won’t tolerate not building huge ads parking garages?

    3. It takes 50 minutes to get from Lynnwood to Seattle regularly. Link, 28 minutes every time. 1 hour of saving time each peak hour.

      I am already looking at CT truncation and it looks like there could be up to 3 frequent transit routes with a few more buses on existing commuter routes.

Comments are closed.