Michael Andersen has the news:
Rahmani said last week (speaking only for himself) that TriMet’s staff members are making the case for surface lots instead of multi-level garages at several stations along the new rail line through Portland, Tigard, and Tualatin, except at the end of the line near Bridgeport Mall. Their theory is that transit funding is better spent elsewhere and the surface lots would preserve the option of adding housing later.
While this isn’t abandoning parking altogether, sticking with surface lots both saves money and, as they point out, makes development easier later. The article cites lots of King County Metro work indicating that park-and-rides are less efficient at creating riders than other programs.
I’ve heard numbers all over the place, but here they claim $52,000 per garage space and $18,000 per surface space, plus $1 per space per day to operate. And all that’s before taking into account the carbon impact.
Assuming 2 rides/weekday/space, and given ST’s 3.6% bond rate, my back-of-the envelope math suggests a cost per ride of about $6 for a garage space and about $2.30 for a surface one if we evaluate the investment over 30 years. Although that doesn’t take into account the land that, if developed, would otherwise generate ridership organically, it isn’t clearly worse than some other access options like the Via Shuttle, currently clocking in at $13 a ride. But nothing beats reliable feeder bus service, bike and pedestrian improvements, and especially dense development. The last, when market-rate, actually has a negative net cost, which is hard to beat.
Will the Eastgate parking garage become a white elephant once the South Bellevue Link Station opens?
Good question!
I think the increased parking capacity (about 1000 more spaces than previous ) at South Bellevue will be quickly absorbed by the middle of morning commute times. Some Eastgate riders will move there — but many will probably find the lot full and will return to Eastgate.
It’s important to remember that both Downtown Seattle and Downtown Bellevue have expensive parking. That likely means that spaces will fill up at South Bellevue quickly and early.
I’ve wondered if a SB-Eastgate high-frequency “remote parking/office district/Bellevue College” Metro shuttle route could be useful. I could see how two or three in-service vehicles could operate fairly frequently to the point that it’s time competitive with driving to South Bellevue and hoping/searching for a space.
The Bellevue Transit Master Plan appears to instead favor routes that go all the way to Downtown Bellevue from Eastgate. That longer route could attract more riders since it would be one seat to Downtown Bellevue — or repel riders because of frequency or reliability issues.
Where would the shuttle go?
Downtown Bellevue is only two miles from Eastgate, and is a much better transit terminus. And if we want all routes to go to Link stations, then it will have to be downtown Bellevue or South Bellevue.
So by some quick calculations, a reasonable route hitting the Factoria/Bellevue College/Eastgate areas to approx 161st Ave and Eastgate way would take ~9 minutes to get to the new South Bellevue station, but ~14 to get to Bellevue Transit center. The travel time on East Link between these two stations is approx 5 minutes.
Since it’s 50% less bus service hours to go to South Bellevue station you could get a 10-min frequency route there vs a 15-min frequency route to BTC. Thus your travel time trade offs are:
Option 1: Truncate at South Bellevue Station
To DT Bellevue: 5 minute wait for bus + 9 minute bus ride + 0.5 min walk to platform + 3 minute wait for train + 5 minute train ride
Total: 22.5 min
To DT Seattle: 5 minute wait for bus + 9 minute bus ride + 0.5 min walk to platform + 3 minute wait for train + 17 minute train ride
Total: 34.5 min
Option 2: Truncate at DT Bellevue Station
To DT Bellevue: 7.5 minute wait for bus + 14 minute bus ride
Total: 21.5 min
To DT Seattle: 7.5 minute wait for bus + 14 minute bus ride + 0.5 min walk to platform + 3 minute wait for train + 17 minute train ride
Total: 42 min
So in summary, for riders going to DT Bellevue such a direct option is 1 minute faster — but if the destination is DT Seattle then it’s 7.5 minutes slower. Given that DT Seattle is likely to be a stronger ridership generator it seems like an easy tradeoff to truncate at Sound Bellevue.
Technically, there is even a 3rd option – truncate at Mercer Island, but that’s a ton of out-of-direction travel for Bellevue (adds another 7 minutes) and only saves 3 minutes of DT Seattle – that seems like a bad idea too.
My guess is that buses that go along I-90 will stop at Eastgate, and truncate at Mercer Island. Buses from the south end of I-405 (e. g. Renton) would truncate at South Bellevue. The latter group includes local service (i. e. buses not the freeways) in areas like Eastgate and Factoria.
In general, it isn’t that the park and ride is less appealing, but that it has more competition. If you are headed to Seattle, driving to Eastlake would still mean taking a bus to a Link station. For many, it would be easier to take a different bus to Link (assuming there are a lot more of them). Likewise, to Bellevue, the park and ride has buses to Bellevue, but for many, a different bus (or a shuttle connection to Link) would be better. This is a far cry from what it is today, which is one of the faster, more frequent connections to downtown Seattle in the area.
Ultimately, I think the parking garage at South Bellevue, once the Link Station opens, is going to have to be paid. Otherwise, it’s going to completely fill up every weekday, and the spaces are inevitably going to go to those willing to wake up the earliest, rather than those with the fewest options for alternative bus service. For example, if parking is free, you’re going to see a lot of parking spaces taken up by people who live within a couple blocks of frequent feeder service, people who live a half mile away from Link itself (and are too lazy to walk half a mile). You’ll also see lots of people drive in from Sammamish and Issaquah, since, why bother driving to a bus to the train when you can just drive directly to the train.
As to what the bus network should look like…for starters, the existing Metro local routes (240, 271) work pretty well as is for connecting Eastgate to DT Bellevue. As to the expresses, assuming they’re already on the freeway coming from Issaquah, the path to least resistance is probably to stop at Eastgate Freeway Station and truncate to South Bellevue Station. It provides the existing transit hub and Bellevue College with quick access to Link, while also preventing the buses from getting stuck in I-405/DT Bellevue traffic.
I can also imagine some of the local route being re-jiggered to serve as more useful Link feeders. The existing bus network in Bellevue is a big mess, which mostly aims to prioritize coverage over frequency and directness. The 240 is especially bad, coming from the south, forcing you to endure an additional 20 minutes of bus riding to an out-of-the-way station from a point where South Bellevue Station is just a 5-minute drive away.
Ultimately, I think the parking garage at South Bellevue, once the Link Station opens, is going to have to be paid.
I see your point. I think the parking spots there will be very popular. But you could say the same thing about a lot of other park and ride lots, and Sound Transit hasn’t been willing to charge for them. It is hard to see why this lot is that different than so many others.
As to the expresses, assuming they’re already on the freeway coming from Issaquah, the path to least resistance is probably to stop at Eastgate Freeway Station and truncate to South Bellevue Station.
If they are already on I-90, I think it makes more sense to truncate in Mercer Island. It is all about the HOV lanes. The Eastgate stops are next to them. That means you serve that stop and get back on the freeway without every leaving the HOV lanes. The Mercer Island stops use them as well. In contrast, if you use the Eastgate stop and keep going, then you have to go over all sets of lanes to change into the far right lane. If Metro wants to split up service between those two stops (and I think they do) I think it makes more sense to send local and I-405 service to South Bellevue, and I-90 service to Mercer Island. Local service doesn’t use the freeway, and buses coming up from Renton would lose their HOV lane if they went to Mercer Island anyway (when turning from I-405 to I-90). But as I wrote, Eastgate has both “local”* and freeway service. SE 36th and Eastgate Way both have buses now, and I would expect them to continue to serve Eastgate, but instead just truncate at South Bellevue.
The existing bus network in Bellevue is a big mess, which mostly aims to prioritize coverage over frequency and directness.
I agree. I think it is very likely that it will be “straightened out” and simplified when Link gets here. That is usually a good time to do a restructure, because the frequency gains are huge, and help placate folks who miss the old routes. In some cases you can replace a long winding route with two straighter one and still afford to give them the old headways.
* OK, technically the buses have to get on the freeway to get from the Factoria/Eastgate area to South Bellevue (over the Slough). But they eventually enter the freeway in the right lane, and then immediately exit. There is no way to directly get into the I-90 HOV lane from the Richards Road entrance the way there is with the Eastgate freeway stop.
“If they are already on I-90, I think it makes more sense to truncate in Mercer Island.”
I can see the argument both ways. During rush hour, I think bus service that stays in the HOV lane to Mercer Island is essential. But, off-peak, getting to the right-hand exit ramp isn’t really a problem, and South Bellevue sort of splits the difference between Seattle vs. Bellevue, while Mercer Island adds a lot of time for getting to Bellevue in order to save a relatively small amount of time for getting to Seattle. There’s also the issue of layover space. Is Mercer Island going to allow Sound Transit to layover any buses there? My recollection was “no”.
“The existing bus network in Bellevue is a big mess, which mostly aims to prioritize coverage over frequency and directness.”
What? It has gotten a lot better over the years, straightening out routes, connecting commercial districts to the transit center and to each other, adding crosstown service like the 245, and eliminating peak-only routes from single-family areas to downtown. Although some of the coverage is questionable, like the 271 going through Medina on the way to he U-District (should be a separate route) or the B detouring to 152nd, those are small. The remaining coverage service I wouldn’t cut. I used to live on the 226 near Northup Way and NE 8th, and on the 249 on north Bellevue Way, and went to office parks and computer shops on Northup Way, and I might have used the 245 from Factoria to Overlake Village if it had existed then.
The remaining coverage service I wouldn’t cut. I used to live
“The 240 is especially bad, coming from the south, forcing you to endure an additional 20 minutes of bus riding to an out-of-the-way station from a point where South Bellevue Station is just a 5-minute drive away.”
It used to do that for decades; it went from Factoria to I-90 to South Bellevue to 108th to Bellevue TC. It was changed because some Rentonites wanted a route to Bellevu College. I had no idea people from Renton went to Bellevue College! It seemed so far away. The 240 was always slow even without this detour. But if you look at the places of density between Renton and Bellevue, Factoria and Belleuve College are the only ones. And Richards Road between the college and Bellevue TC has gotten more housing and was underserved, and the Lake Hills Connector is like an express. As for South Bellevue, it will have Link in the future but it doesn’t now, so there’s not much reason to serve it. The route through South Bellevue was set when both Bellevue College and Factoria were much smaller and Richarrds Road was woodland and the P&R was the latest new thing. Even then the 240 took a horrible hour to get from Bellevue TC to Renton, so it’s not like routing it through South Bellevue would massively improve it. The best thing about the old routing was the view going south from South Bellevue on the highest freeway ramp, and blazing through that area to the Richards Road exit.
I might have used the 245 from
FactoriaEastgate to Overlake Village, coming from Somerset.The thing that will make South Bellevue Station parking more significant and unique is the size of the structure. It’s going to hold 1500 spaces. Compare that to the 500 spaces that were there before construction started and the current 447 at Mercer Island. The Eastgate garage is reported as 1614 spaces.
There really isn’t another major parking opportunity on Eastlink anywhere near this large. It will be a giant magnet for parking from all over the area — and the outer large parking facilities at Eastgate, Issaquah and Highlands will seem to become the fall-backs (because a new, additional transfer to Link will likely be required in the future).
“If they are already on I-90, I think it makes more sense to truncate in Mercer Island.”
I can see the argument both ways. During rush hour, I think bus service that stays in the HOV lane to Mercer Island is essential. But, off-peak, getting to the right-hand exit ramp isn’t really a problem, and South Bellevue sort of splits the difference between Seattle vs. Bellevue, while Mercer Island adds a lot of time for getting to Bellevue in order to save a relatively small amount of time for getting to Seattle.
I get your point, but Metro, for example, shows them all going to Mercer Island (in their long range plan). That is not set in stone, but it gives you an idea of what they are thinking. Metro only runs expresses during rush hour. The long range plan doesn’t specify, but I would imagine they would continue to let ST handle midday service.
I could see ST, therefore truncating the 554 at South Bellevue, to help riders to Bellevue, as you mentioned. One small problem with that is that folks who go from Mercer Island to Issaquah (or Eastgate) are losing that connection. There are a surprising number of people who take that trip (around 160 on a bus that carries around 4,000). There are more riders going from Bellevue to Issaquah (the 555/556 has around 300) but I think their hit is not as bad as it would be for folks on Mercer Island. Folks from Issaquah headed to Bellevue would spend an extra minute or two on the bus, and an extra five minutes on the train. But people in Mercer Island headed to Issaquah would have to make a transfer. Since many of the people arriving in Mercer Island have already made a transfer, I could see people complaining.
That’s one of the big disadvantages to truncating at South Bellevue. There is nothing there, nor does it connect to anything but Link. In contrast, if you want to go anywhere on Mercer Island — whether by foot, bus or taxi-cab — that is your stop. I suppose you could get from South Bellevue to Factoria or Eastgate, but if you are coming from Issaquah, you would just get off the bus at Eastgate to do that.
Of course it wouldn’t surprise me if ST just did both. Truncate the 556 at South Bellevue, and the 554 at Mercer Island. That would be consistent with the current routes. Right now the 556 is rush hour only, but that could change.
Oh, I managed to find a reference to the layover question. Apparently (non-local) buses can layover on Mercer Island, but only in the evening. I think that is the only time they would layover (although I could see them laying over in the midday). In the morning, they would drop people off and turn around, with no attempt at timing the transfer. But in the evening, they might try to time the transfer from the train to the suburbs.
Hard to say, really. A lot depends on what sort of network Metro creates after East Link. Right now parking at Eastgate is very attractive. If you are headed to downtown Seattle or Bellevue, then you can park there, catch one bus, and be at your destination in a hurry. In a few years, it will be a lot less special. It might be easier to get to a different park and ride, or just walk to a bus stop. If you are going to downtown Seattle, it just adds another step (drive, bus, train instead of bus and train). A lot depends on not only the network, but whether there are other, smaller park and ride lots in the surrounding neighborhoods.
There is nothing terrible about park and ride lots. Quite often, in a lot of neighborhoods, they make sense. But they don’t scale, and building gigantic ones is usually a bad idea. It tends to be expensive, and you get less out of it. Lots of small park and ride lots, scattered around in neighborhoods, are usually cheaper to build (often you can use church lots) and usually leads to a better transit network. That means less driving and often less time spent parking or walking to a bus stop. Buses serving the lots usually pick up other riders along the way. The additional ridership gained by the park and ride users justify extra service, which means that riders who walk to the bus stop (many of whom can’t afford a car) actually get something out of the park and ride lot.
In contrast, a large park and ride lot only benefits those that drive, and only those that find a spot. The park and ride lot at Northgate is pretty useless to someone who doesn’t drive, or someone who walks to a bus stop. In contrast, the small park and ride lot here (https://goo.gl/maps/EV4g6SEX36Vhea4t6) may have helped with the ridership of the 41, which in turn lead to the virtuous cycle of better frequency and ridership. Many of those riders are just trying to get downtown, but a lot of them are taking advantage of getting from one neighborhood to the other (e. g. Lake City to Northgate). The small lot still provides a service for anyone in the neighborhood (especially someone who owns a car, but can’t walk very far) and a much better service than a huge park and ride lot at Northgate.
The same is probably true with many of the big lots we are building, or some we’ve already built (like Eastgate, mentioned above). Smaller lots and better feeder service could lead to a better transit network, which would benefit a lot more people for a lot less money.
I’d observe that park-and-rides are not all alike, and each should be scaled to the transit service being offered. Long Sounder trains need large lots to fill up the trains, for example. With Link or Max, it’s a function of the distance to the station and the distance to the ultimate destination.
There are many underutilized park-and-ride lots across the US. It’s often because of the frequency conundrum: low supply of riders means fewer demand for frequent buses — which then means even fewer riders wanting to wait there.
Another trend is that we are moving away from parking at stations to getting rides to and from stations. BART station studies a few years ago reported about as many drop-off riders as parking riders in their far East Bay stations. With on-demand apps, semi-motorized scooters and such and eventually low-speed driverless technologies, I can see the lots shifting in use. It may be that some long-term parking spaces may need to shift to pick-up spaces.
>> Long Sounder trains need large lots to fill up the trains, for example.
Yeah, but if it is expensive to build bigger lots, then you are better off running more frequent or different feeder buses. These buses, in turn, serve people that aren’t riding Sounder. The point is, extra money allocated for park and rides always has diminishing returns, whereas extra service is the opposite. Where it no longer makes sense to build a parking lot largely depends on the situation, but when you are building levels, chances are you have more than enough people in the area to justify better bus service.
Another potential source of distributed park and ride spots is strip malls with excessive parking (especially during the day on week days when most people are at work) that are located along frequent bus routes. It is pretty wasteful to see the lot half empty and “shopping for customers only/tow away/no park and ride” signs. Especially when then empty spots tend to be closest to the street, where the bus stops are! Seems like it would be cheaper to pay the lot owners a per month “rent” for some of those spots, in lieu of building more expensive garages or paving over more land for surface lots. Does any municipality or agency you know of have this option for property owners with excess parking beside frequent bus routes?
I thought density was good.
It is, however each park & ride location is unique. Therefore decisions such as surface lot vs garage need to be made on a case by case basis. Also not all surface lots are appropriate for transit village style development, although it’s best to evaluate every site for best usage.
Density of people and goods and services is good. Density of cars is bad. Very bad.