Page Two articles are from our reader community. Sign up for an account.

This is a proposal for improvements to the bus network following Lynnwood Link. I assume that the NE 130th station is included. Like previous posts, this is focused on improvements in Seattle. The only Shoreline routes I show are those that enter Seattle.

Many of the routes build on what I’ve proposed earlier. In general I’ve adopted my preferred routing, but at times I’ve favored the current routing. Buses that aren’t listed (such as those exclusively in Shoreline) would be more or less the same, or as listed in Metro’s Long Range Plan.

The design goals are similar to those mentioned in a previous post. The big difference is that one-seat rides to the UW are reduced; the farther you are from a destination, the more attractive a transfer to Link becomes. The station at 145th is largely treated like a transit center, as there are several buses that terminate there. 130th station, on the other hand, only serves buses that keep going. Hopefully the station entrances will straddle the street, allowing riders to transfer from the bus to the train without crossing the street.

Changes on State Route 522

The addition of BRT on SR 522 (Stride) also changes the dynamic in the area. It is wasteful to send lots of buses out to Bothell when Stride will provide fast, frequent service for most of the corridor. At the same time, 522 BRT will not serve Lake City. Service is needed there, which begs the question: Where should Lake City Way buses terminate? The most efficient location would be at 145th. In my proposal, I terminate two buses there. If all buses terminated there, however, it would require a transfer even if someone is trying to get a get a mile or two up the road. I try to strike a balance, by having some overlap. I considered having buses turn around in Lake Forest Park, but that would require adding layover space (or a live loop) in a mall parking lot. I just don’t see that happening. The logical turn-around spot is Kenmore, which has plenty of space for buses, and relatively high ridership. I chose the all-day 312 as the bus for Kenmore. Its segment in Seattle is much shorter than the 372 and I think the route has fairly consistent demand along the corridor.

Specific Routes

41 — This is a key bus route for the region. It would terminate where the D terminates, making the QFC on Holman Road a de facto transit center. I would expect this bus to be very frequent, not only because it would be popular, but because it would provide key connections. Buses that are used for transfers should err on the side of extra service. This one has a lot of connections. It not only connects to Link, but to the E, the 5, and just about every north-south bus in the region. Someone in Lake City, Bitter Lake, or anywhere along the route would have a fast two seat ride to just about everywhere. While it may be confusing to call this the “41”, I believe it deserves such a worthy moniker.

46 — This is a new bus that comes out of the long range plan. They propose something different (the 1010) that I don’t particularly like. I can see the appeal, though. A bus that goes up 15th NW, cuts over on 85th, then up to Northgate and on to Lake City would be popular. But I think it is fairly redundant. I also think the eastern tail to Lake City doesn’t get you much. Like so much of the long range plan, it largely dismisses the geographic advantages of a station at NE 130th. Someone in Ballard trying to get to Lake City would never drive through Northgate — they shouldn’t have to ride a bus through there either. But I do understand the importance of connecting Greenwood (and the rest of the 85th corridor) with Northgate. I considered just ending the bus at 32nd NW, where the 45 terminates. But I think there is value in having service along 32nd all day. I could see this running to 32nd every 15 minutes, while running to Market (down 32nd) every half hour (much like the 3 serves Madrona). Some of the buses could be extended to Lake City if the 75 proves insufficient, although I don’t consider that essential.

65 — This is the existing 65, extended up to 145th, and on to Shoreline Community College. The 65 runs a bit more often than I would expect (every ten minutes) but with this addition, I believe it is appropriate. This would be the main connection between the college and Link (or 522 BRT), so it should have no problem justifying that kind of frequency (if not a little bit better).

67 — As with the Northgate proposal, this replaces the 67 and (3)73. It is now extended to the 145th Station. With fairly fast travel along a relatively dense corridor and three connections to Link, I think this bus would be fairly frequent and popular.

75 — This follows the current route, which is different than my proposal for changes after Northgate Link. It will be the only bus connecting Lake City with Northgate, but I  believe current frequency (about every 15 minutes) is adequate. There should be a big increase in transit traffic to Northgate from Lake City after Northgate Link, then a big reduction once the 130th station is built.

312 — As mentioned, this bus replaces the old 522. It would have more stops than the old 522, providing service along Lake City Way to Kenmore. It would provide a nice one seat connection to Roosevelt, as well as apartments along Lake City Way that I believe have always been underserved. Fifteen minute all-day service seems appropriate (similar to the 372).

372 — Now truncated at 145th.

346 — The 345/346/347/348 buses were the most challenging part of this project. At first glance I was just going to keep the 347 and 348 the same. It wouldn’t surprise me if Metro does this, since the 347 goes by three stations, and the 348 goes by two. However, I found that with a little work, I could save some service, which in turn would mean that each individual line could run more often. It also adds flexibility in the system (e. g. you can run one bus every 15 minutes, and the other every 20). The 346 matches a bus route on the long range plan, and works out nicely with the other changes.

347 — Provides fast service from Link to the hospital, coming from either direction. This also means that the detour to the hospital is acceptable, in my opinion. There aren’t going to be that many riders that take a bus past this point (they mostly connect from either end).

348 — This is unchanged. This will provide a very fast connection from Richmond Beach to Link (reducing travel time to various locations dramatically) and will be the only service connecting 15th/Pinehurst to Northgate. Right now it runs every half hour, but I could see this running every fifteen minutes.


As before, there are a couple areas where I think either option would be good. The variations are meant to be exclusive (e. g. I don’t expect both an all-day 28 and the 82 to exist). I prefer the first option in both cases.

40/345 Variations

The first option is simple. The 40 follows its current route (providing a connection from Northgate to the backside of North Seattle College) and the 345 no longer exists. Extra service would be put into the 347.

The second variation alters the 40 so that riders have a faster connection from Ballard to Northgate. Unfortunately, this means two buses serving Meridian (as they do now) and this is problematic. The service levels don’t quite match an ideal split, and it is always tricky timing things. Based on the long range plan, Metro isn’t eager to modify the 40 anyway, so I went with the simpler option.

82 or All Day 28

Both the 82 or all-day 28 extension are meant to provide service on 145th. It is not a major corridor, but there are enough apartments and businesses along there to justify some direct service to the 145th Station. Without it, riders would have to take a two seat ride to Link, which in all likelihood means a three seat ride (or more) to their destination. In both cases you double up service along Greenwood. Someone at 125th and Greenwood (or more likely, someone who has finished riding the 5) would have two options for getting to a Link station (allowing them to take whatever bus comes first).

The 82 is a simple coverage route that wouldn’t cost much to operate. I could see the bus being extended a bit into eastern Shoreline (NE 155th, NE 150th) to provide more coverage and connections.

The extended all day 28 is also an option. This is not an especially expensive connection, although Broadview is a fairly weak service area. As with the 3, I could see a truncated version (e. g. have the main 28 run every fifteen minutes, while the extended 28 runs every half hour).

20 Replies to “Seattle Bus Routes after Lynnwood Link”

  1. I’d like to see something done with the tail of the 5. This will be one of the few buses that still goes downtown even after Ballard Link opens, but the terminus at Shoreline Community College is a bit of a dead end. Community Transit plans to extend the Blue Line after Lynnwood Link opens to 185th Street Station. I’d like to see the 5 do this, as well.

    1. I considered sending a few buses over to Link stations (although not the 5). I even came up with a map ( On paper, this looks like a good plan. However, I think traffic as well as the drawbridges make this untenable. While the D looks like a fantastic bus, if it was the only bus on NE 130th, I think it would be extremely unreliable. I think you would have bus bunching, and long waits at the station just to get to Lake City. I think bending the 5 to serve a station (at 145th, presumably) would have the same problem. Shoreline Community College seems like a decent terminus. Having more connecting buses (like the new 41) would likely increase ridership on the northern section. Right now a trip from Lake City to the college (which is a pretty big community college) involves a lengthy detour to Northgate, followed by an infrequent (and also lengthy) bus ride. Instead it will be a straight shot on two frequent buses.

      Extending Swift to 185th is different because Swift doesn’t have significant delays along its route, nor is 185th a major corridor that needs connecting. It is a very good idea that will allow north end riders to connect to Link while providing that extra connection as a bonus.

  2. The “46” is a line I would find immensely useful. It would get riders from the 85th st section of the 45 to Link much faster than the existing 45. The 45 seems to lose a lot of its efficiency in that Wallingford jog, and in the summer it gets mired in traffic in the Green Lake section. There’s not really an easy way to fix those sections aside from avoiding them. The “46” would avoid all of that.

    This should also be paired with red paint on 85th St all the way from Wallingford to 8th Ave NW. That stroad is hazardous to cross as a pedestrian. A PBL would also be nice, given that it’s the flattest E-W route in this part of the city.

  3. The 65 runs a bit more often than I would expect (every ten minutes) but with this addition, I believe it is appropriate.

    I live in the Ravenna/Wedgewood area, so I ride the 65 pretty often right now. In my experience, the frequency is currently justified. Aside from providing access to Link (via a transfer at UW station), a lot of students use it to get to/from UW, so it sees higher all-day ridership than you’d expect for a route that mostly traverses areas of the city that are fairly suburban in form.

    I’m not sure what sort of ridership I’d expect on the 65 when Northgate Link and Lynnwood Link open. If you’re in NE Seattle, and trying to get to Link, Roosevelt, 130th, and (possibly) Northgate Stations will likely be better transfers. Route 65 does provide direct access to a few popular destinatons that will not be directly served by Link- Lake City, Seattle Children’s Hospital, U Village, and the NE corner of UW’s campus.

    1. Yeah, the 65 performs well on the metrics. It is above average (for urban routes) at rush hour, and average the rest of the day. This is saying something, as the difference between urban and suburban routes (that Metro designates) is somewhat arbitrary.

      I agree with your other points, and do think it will be interesting to see what happens when Link gets farther north. There will be a lot fewer trips to catch Link, but with the other destinations, ridership should be decent. I think it is far more likely that other bus routes “catch up” to the 65 in terms of service, as opposed to it being reduced, especially since in the long run (assuming it does get extended up to 145th and the to Shoreline Community College) it could be a very popular bus.

  4. This looks pretty good overall. I love that 41. A great route that is short and connects so many things. It should run every 5 minutes.

    The 46 is neat, but about half of it is redundant with the 45. I think it would be better to have it cut over to 65 on Phinney Ave and serve the Phinney neighborhood with a good east-west connection on 65th. That would also make it more proper of a coverage route. And at 32 it could head up to Golden Gardens, preserving connections to the 45.

    You do make good points about the 312. Though I think it could be cut back further and still preserve general mobility. Ballinger Way seems like a good compromise point. Not only that, but the 312 could turn left on Ballinger and replace or through-route with the 331.

    This would save a bunch of money by eliminating a frequent tail and a 30-minute tail to Kenmore. This could go toward having the 331 route upgraded to 312 frequency, but that won’t be enough to pay for that. Another thing that could be done is that half of the 312s could go on to the 331 route, and the other half could go to Horizon View, following the peak-only 308 route, an area with only peak service currently.

    1. Yeah, I’m torn about the 46. As Jeremy mentioned, this may be significantly faster for getting to Link than slogging to Roosevelt (on the 45). It also shaves off a huge amount of time for getting to Northgate. Given the density in the area, you could justify a lot of frequency. On the other hand, as you mentioned, it is somewhat redundant. Something has to give. Is it better to have the 45 run every 8 minutes, or run the 45 and 46 every 15? If you are trying to get to Northgate or just to Link, and they are timed just right, then the latter is better. But if you are trying to get to Roosevelt or the U-District (and prefer a one seat ride) than the former sounds a lot better. I think having both runs (hopefully timed) is the way to go. Getting from Northgate to Greenwood should not involve a detour to Roosevelt, given the urban nature of the two stops. The coverage aspect of this is just a bonus.

      I didn’t address service on 65th. I think there are practical problems, because of the narrow and steep section next to Phinney (although I could be wrong). Metro has something in their long range plan, so maybe it is possible. They cover 32nd as well as 65th. The combination of the first approach (having my “46” end at 85th and 32nd) along with the 1006 as described on the long range plan is a reasonable idea. If you are going that route though, I would modify it a little bit. I think it makes more sense to have the bus go all the way across on 65th, and then up (like so: Even though you lose coverage on 32nd, I think having a bus that makes it easy to get from one end of 65th to the other is worth it (right now folks generally have to walk).

      I still prefer the approach I outlined though. I like using the technique employed on the 3 (truncating half the 46 runs at 85th and 32nd) while adding a completely new bus that goes all the way across 65th. That would mean that the bus would end at 65th and 32nd (if a layover spot could be found) or the bus would head down (like so: Most of the apartments along 32nd (or close to it) are at 85th, 65th, and the area south of 65th, so adding a bit of redundancy there is probably ideal.

    2. As far as truncating the 312, I’m not sure how to do it around Ballinger Way. I mentioned an approach (using the mall) but I don’t think that would fly. I suppose you could loop around like so:, but there is no stop sign on Brookside, which means that left turn could be very hard (assuming you did the loop in a counter-clockwise direction). If you did the loop clockwise then it is a bit challenging since that first left (only Brookside) doesn’t have a signal. Meanwhile, you have to find layover space there somewhere. It just seems like a hassle that isn’t worth it, since Kenmore isn’t that much farther.

      I didn’t think about through routing to the 331. That is a good idea. I think again it gets down to how much service you want to give Kenmore. It might be overkill to have the 331, the 312 and 522 BRT all running to Kenmore, but the opposite would be worse, in my opinion. The 522 won’t run all that often, and I don’t think it makes sense to be that dependent on it.

      Kenmore is also a much bigger destination than Lake Forest Park. On the 522, Kenmore has about triple the ridership of Lake Forest Park. While it would be redundant to run the bus to Kenmore, it is one of those redundancies that probably pays for itself reasonably well. This section (out to Kenmore) is likely the most cost effective (ridership in Kenmore is higher than ridership in Bothell) so even random extra service is likely worth it. You not only have the riders trying to get from Lake City Way to Kenmore, but also riders that miss the 522 BRT but end up grabbing a 312. I think it is worth the extra cost.

      1. Oh, and the long range plan for the 331 looks like a good one. It swings by the 185th station, and serves 175th and then on to Shoreline Community College. I think this is a much better route than the current one (once Link comes to the area). Metro calls this route “frequent”, which means at least every 20 minutes, if not 15. This sounds reasonable, as it would be the only bus on 175th, as well as Ballinger Way (both of which would have connections to fast and frequent service). If push comes to shove, I think I could live with the route being every 20 minutes, while the 372 is 15 minutes, and both go to Kenmore. I would prefer this over connecting the two routes in Lake Forest Park, even if the combined bus ran every 15 minutes.

      2. The 331 replacement route (1215) looks good but also kinda weird. I think there’s a good argument to change the 331 to, after going up Ballinger Way, take a short hop on I-5 to Mountlake Terrace TC, since it’s so close already. 185 is pretty close as well (just a little bit farther), but the 1215 takes a weird circuitous route to get there.

        Having the 312 replace the 331 and turn left from SR 522 to Balllinger Way, then terminating in Mountlake Terrace seems kinda nice to me. It could then through-route with the 3006 to keep the current Aurora Village and proposed Shoreline CC connection.

        I see your argument about having some overlapping service so it doesn’t take two buses to go two miles. But I think it’s turning into a slippery slope. Thinking through how to do this, I’d start with truncating all non-BRT buses at 145th street, which is harsh. Then decide to send one farther up to provide a good through-connection, for the reasons you outline. Then the question is where to terminate it. If it turns on Ballinger Way, then the logical argument is “you’re already so close to Kenmore, you’re going to stop it there?” And when you take that step, now you’re at the point where this frequent route runs more than 50% of the main part of 522 BRT, and serving a city far from 145th where you initially considered truncating it. And that extra distance would probably cause it to be run at 15 minute frequency instead of 10, or 20 minute frequency instead of 15.

        One thing that could be done to send it to Kenmore but differentiate it from the BRT line is to make it non-stop from NE 145th to Kenmore, and then swap the southern tails of the 312 and 372, then you have a nice UW partial express that connects Kenmore to UW campus in a fast way. Expressing it will only save 3 stops, but considering that the 312 won’t have off-board BRT payment, that could be significant.

      3. For what it is worth, Metro has even more overlap in their long range plan. They send the 372 out to Bothell, as a RapidRide. I think that is a huge overkill. I just don’t see that many people riding from Bothell/Kenmore to the UW, even if it is a one seat ride. It will be much faster to take the 522 and then take the train. The 522 will have a lot of bus lanes and BAT lanes. My guess is the 372 wouldn’t. To get those lanes you need to take parking, general purpose lanes, or spend big bucks to widen the street. Sound Transit is spending big bucks. I just don’t see Metro doing that for that route. I don’t think it would be the priority of Lake City riders, and it is hard to justify it for anyone else. There is very little that can be done in terms of removing parking or taking lanes. I just don’t see a major improvement in terms of speed that would make the 372 competitive with the 522/Link to get to the main destinations.

        There is also another factor to consider. Seattle is willing to spend more money on transit than the suburbs. If the suburban riders along the 522 corridor want to invest in something, my guess is they will spend more money on the 522 (not on buses like the 331). This means you have a mismatch in terms of funding, and probably ridership. Thus it is possible that combining the two routes would weaken the 312. A 312 that ends in Kenmore would run more often than a 312 that combines with the 331, because it would spend less time outside the city (in poorly performing areas).

        Of course that is a problem with extending any bus beyond the city limits, but the farther it goes, the more of a mismatch you have. Kenmore really isn’t that far (especially with bus lanes) and the stops there perform really well. About 10% of the northbound riders get on at Lake City Way. We don’t have stop-to-stop data, but given the higher ridership overall, I think it is a good guess that most of them are headed to Kenmore. They probably have very little interest in going to Lake Forest Park. So there is overlap, but overlap that is worth it in my opinion.

        As far as the stops go, that brings up an interesting issue. I would imagine the 522 will go on a stop diet. With fewer stops, you need some coverage. If you combined the two lines (had the 312 go up Ballinger Way) you would probably need some bus to cover that section. In other words, you are going from one extreme to the other (two regular buses, versus none between Lake Forest Park and Kenmore). Ideally the 312 would stop at Lake Forest Park, it is just that I don’t see a good way to do that, and ridership (at least on the 522) is really bad there. I could see the 312 making those coverage stops (as time consuming as they are) up to Lake Forest Park, then expressing to Kenmore. The 331 would then cover the regular stops between Kenmore and Lake Forest Park.

        Of course there is a time hit, but for most of the people, one that is worth it. The new norm in Seattle is running a bus every 15 minutes. My guess is you would have that, if not better for this bus. I think people would rather have a bus that goes from Lake City to Kenmore every 15 minutes, than a bus that ends at Lake Forest Park but runs every 10.

  5. Could route 76 be changed to use 75th instead of 65th? It would make the route more grid-like and avoid redundancy with the 62. It could still cut south to 65th at Roosevelt to connect to the Link station.

    1. Yeah, sure, but there are drawbacks.

      A lot depends on how often the 62 runs. I’m assuming that the 62 won’t be that frequent (it is only 15 minutes right now). This particular section of 65th is where the people are. So doubling up service (even randomly) is a nice addition. There are lots of apartments as well as businesses along there. Someone in Wedgwood is way more likely to want to go to a restaurant or bar on 65th than 75th. 75th has very little, especially for an arterial. Between Roosevelt and 35th, the only area on 75th that isn’t single family homes is around 25th. Even that doesn’t have much (a few new townhouses and a small strip mall

      But then again, there isn’t that much on 65th between 25th and 35th (while 25th and 35th themselves have plenty). So I could see a compromise, like so: That does have better coverage, as well as better coverage for buses going to Roosevelt Station. If you are on 25th close to 75th, you would have a direct bus to the Roosevelt Station (instead of relying on the 372, which goes to the UW).

      From a grid perspective you do add something, but not a lot. If you are coming from the south, it doesn’t matter. If you are coming from the north, then a ride from the 372 to the 76 would be a bit quicker. That means if you are trying to get from Lake City Way to Wedgwood, you turn at 75th instead of 65th. But that only applies if you are south of 125th, since you would just take the 65 if you were north of there.

      Overall, I don’t think it is worth it. It doesn’t add enough, in my opinion, to justify the extra turns. Of course another option would be to just run straight across on 75th. That would actually mean fewer turns, but also less coverage. There are apartments along 35th, otherwise that would be a solid option. I think one of the big values of this line is that a fair number of apartment dwellers in Wedgwood would be able to have a fast ride to Link. If it just cut across on 75th, plenty of those folks would lose out. which again doesn’t seem worth it to me.

  6. I”m curious why you truncate the 372 at 145th. Isn’t Metro’s long range plan to upgrade the 372 to Rapid Ride status between UW-Seattle and UW-Bothell? I do see your point that 2 rapidride-level lines serving Bothell/Kenmore/Lake Forest Park does seem like overkill.

    Also, that left turn from LCW onto 145th is a nightmare. Which I suppose is why the 65 uses tiny 30th rather than LCW between 125th and 145th.

    Seems like the 65/67 and the 372 are fighting over resources. The 372 has higher ridership, so it is almost entirely accordion buses, and still fills up at rush hour. But the 65 isn’t unpopular, so it gets higher frequency to make up for being almost never an accordion bus (and because it’s through-routed with the popular 67)

    By the way, where can we see ridership by line and/or by stop? I remember Metro releasing a really informative packet when planning the U-Link restructure.

    1. I truncate the 372 basically because I figure having three (or four) buses heading out to Kenmore is overkill. One big difference between my proposal and Metro’s long range plan is the existence of an all day 312 (truncated in Roosevelt). As I mention in the post, this bus is justified given the stops along Lake City Way (that aren’t served by the 372), as well as the faster connection to Link for riders south of Lake City (and the connection from Lake City to Roosevelt). This also manages to help backfill service along 15th (you no longer need the old 73).

      The 372 becomes a lot less popular for long distance travel once Link gets to Lynnwood (and the 522 BRT gets here). From Kenmore to the UW, it makes a lot mores sense to take the 522 and take Link. For other trips involving Link (like downtown or Capitol Hill), it makes sense to go to other stations that are a lot closer and easier to get to (145th, 130th, Roosevelt, U-District). The 372 is still important, just less so.

      As for the left turn on 145th, there is already a left turn lane, and it is used by the 330. What is new is the turn-around spot, but I see that as being easy (just a series of right turns). The other logical turn-around spot for the 372 is where the 41 currently turns around, but that doesn’t allow you to connect to the 522. Having the 372 (and the 41) go as far as 145th means that it is efficient, while still retaining the key connections.

      As for the 65, it uses 30th for historical reasons. I see no reason to bother changing it. I suppose you could just go straight on 35th to Erikson Place, merge onto Lake City Way, and then turn left on 145th, but you could do that now. It might save you a little time, but you would upset a lot of people who live to the west of Lake City Way. The time to do that was when they bumped the frequency, and they figured it wasn’t worth the bother.

      Here is the Metro System Evaluation from last year: I tend to focus on ridership per hour, as opposed to total ridership (since the latter is often the result of a very long bus line).

  7. It appears that the natural funneling orientation of major streets suggests that Roosevelt Station could be more important and Northgate Transit Center/Link could be less. The Northgate TC function and the destination itself will change as Link replaces the current express routes and the property’s regional retail presence is diminished. That’s all in addition to the lack of an east-west routing street at Northgate (buses must go several blocks north or south to go east-west).

    In contemplating network changes, do you (or anyone else) see a need to look more closely at how transfers should happen at Roosevelt Station?

    1. Yes, that is why I started this mess a while ago. Northgate is really not a great place for a transit center. Right now, its strength is its fast and frequent express to downtown (the 41). In a few years, it becomes just another place with a Link station. Roosevelt, on the other hand, is much easier to get to.

      I didn’t really address the specifics of transferring at Roosevelt, but I think they will be fine. There will be two entrances, both on 12th (one at 65th, one at 67th). I could see Metro putting in a bus stop on Roosevelt at 67th, and the city adding a crosswalk there. That way, a southbound rider could just cross Roosevelt to get to the station. Northbound, a rider would cross 12th at 65th (there already is a bus stop there). Westbound the transfer is ideal. Someone coming from Sand Point would use the existing stop (just west of 12th) and walk a few feet to the station (without crossing a street). Eastbound would be the worst, assuming they keep the bus stop where it is. It is very little walking, but you have to cross two streets. If Metro moved the stop west of 12th (in between Roosevelt and 12th) it would be better.

      The only bus that comes close to the Roosevelt Station but not right next to it is the 26. I don’t think it is worth detouring that bus, though. It is only a five minute walk, and the bus is really not designed as a feeder.

      1. The eastbound transfer is actually fine. The 65th/Roosevelt and 65th/12th stops have been consolidated into one stop in the middle of the block between Roosevelt and 12th, just like you suggest here. So you’d only need to cross one street if headed eastbound.

      2. Cool. Thanks Pat. Yeah, in general it is one of the better places for bus to train transfer.

  8. Worth mentioning is that the 145th Street turn-around idea is mine. Metro hasn’t hinted that they are interested in that, even though it would likely pay off right now. The 41 turns around at 130th (close to the Fred Meyer), as does the 372 on weekends. There are plenty of people who live between 130th and 145th who would benefit from moving the turnaround spot, but Metro obviously doesn’t feel like it is worth the hassle.

    Likewise, they don’t seem to be interested in a 145th Street turn around in the long run either. They have buses turn around at 130th, or going on to Bothell. With that in mind, I think it is worth considering what would happen if 41 and 372 turned around at 130th, while the 312 continuing to Kenmore. The big loss is in getting to Bothell. Riders going to Kenmore (or the north end of Lake City Way) would take the 312. But some riders — those using the new 41 or 372 — would have a three seat ride to Bothell. Those along Ravenna and 25th would be out of luck. So would folks trying to get from the UW or U-Village to Bothell. But many of those riders would prefer a two (or even three) seat ride involving Link and the BRT, as it might be faster anyway (for such a long distance). Similarly, a lot of 41 riders would have a three seat ride. But not everyone. Some riders could take the 348 or 67 north, then catch the 522 there. The largest group of people hurt would probably be those in the Bitter Lake/North Greenwood area who are headed to Bothell (or vice versa).

    This is significant. I can see why Metro wants to continue to send the 372 out to Bothell. I would be tempted to send the 312 out there, but I still wouldn’t. I just don’t think that Bothell is a big enough destination to warrant that much service, even if it means that some people are left with less than an ideal connection. More than anything, this shows the value of a 145th Street turnaround in the new system.

Comments are closed.