Metro has revealed their preferred alignment for RapidRide K in Kirkland. The service will operate between Downtown and Totem Lake via NE 85th and 124th Ave NE on Rose Hill. In South Kirkland, it will follow 6th St and 108th Ave. The decision has implications for several other routes which will be moved or shortened.

Preferred alternative for RapidRide K in Kirkland (image: Metro)

The service, scheduled to open in 2025 will connect Totem Lake to Eastgate via downtown Kirkland and Bellevue.

Within Kirkland, there were two pairs of alternatives to consider. In North Kirkland, the 2016 Metro Connects long range plan would have routed the RapidRide along Market St (alternative A1). Metro instead has selected an alignment connecting downtown to the Stride BRT station on 85th, then to Totem Lake Transit Center via 124th Ave (alternative A2). The A2 alternative avoids overlap with Metro 255 service on Market St north of downtown Kirkland in the Metro Connects plan. That step would surely have been very unpopular with riders.

In South Kirkland, the preferred RapidRide alignment is on 6th St and 108th Ave (the B2 alternative). The B1 alternative would have had RapidRide follow the current 234/235 routing on Lake Washington Blvd. That means buses to Seattle and Bellevue are expected to swap corridors, with the 255 moving to Lake Washington Blvd, and the new Bellevue service moving off Lake Washington Blvd to 108th.

The preferred A2/B2 segments somewhat outperform the alternatives on other metrics. In each case, somewhat more destinations are served by RapidRide, and the A2 option in North Kirkland is markedly faster than the often congested Market St corridor. Ridership doesn’t appear very different. By connecting the 85th St BRT station, the A2 alignment resolves the debate how to get riders to that station from downtown. It remains to be seen whether Bellevue-bound riders won’t prefer simply to take a southbound RapidRide over a northbound RapidRide to a Bellevue-bound BRT.

Evaluation of Kirkland route alternatives (image: Metro)

In correspondence, Jeff Switzer of King County Metro emphasized “the only decision being made at this point is the RapidRide K Line alignment. We can anticipate changes to other routes [], but final decisions would be made as part of upcoming service restructures.” Even before RapidRide opens, there will be at least one other restructure of Eastside bus service associated with the Link extensions to Bellevue and Redmond in 2023 and 2024.

Beyond the 255, at least two new routes in Kirkland are likely to be affected. The Bellevue to Kirkland leg of the new Metro 250 becomes redundant with the introduction of RapidRide whichever corridor it follows. Switzer offered reassurance the truncated 250 would remain frequent however. “The 250 would continue to provide a valuable, frequent, all-day connection between Kirkland-Redmond. During NEMP outreach we heard overwhelming support for this from members in both communities. We agree that connecting these two important, growing markets is a priority for Metro as well.”

There are presumably implications for new route 239 with the choice of the A2 alignment for Rapid Ride. That route, to be introduced in March 2020, will connect Bothell via Totem Lake and Rose Hill to Kirkland. The segment between Kirkland and Totem Lake becomes redundant with Rapidride.

RapidRide K alternatives in context of nearby high capacity services (image: Metro)

There will be likely changes to the network in Bellevue too. RapidRide replaces a busy segment of route 271, but there will be extensive East Link and Redmond Link restructures to consider before then, perhaps revising much of the local Metro network.

One intriguing aspect of more frequent service to Bellevue is that Kirkland riders will have two pathways to light rail at UW and in Bellevue. Because the pathways have limited overlap, riders are likely to choose whichever is closest to their starting point as their route to Seattle. Jeff Switzer writes: “The proposed alignment for RapidRide K Line to travel on 108th Ave NE/6th St S and 85th St NE/124th Avenue NE would produce a win-win for riders. Both segments – B1 and B2 – become valuable corridors for transit to connect riders to high-speed, high-capacity light rail into Seattle – either at UW Station or to East Link at Bellevue Transit Center.”

A letter from the City of Kirkland details concerns about Metro 255 service post-RapidRide. It is after all the most popular service in Kirkland and there are mixed views among the travelling public about upcoming changes in March 2020 that will increase service on the route but also require a transfer at UW station for Seattle-bound riders.

If one considers the BRT as serving downtown, there will be three frequent buses on three distinct routes between downtown and Totem Lake in 2025. The long range plan did not envision running both 255 and RapidRide to Totem Lake. At a time when Metro has committed a lot of resources to Kirkland (the NEMP added more than 20,000 hours over 2018 levels), the city ought to be nervous whether there will be enough riders to maintain so much service. The city hopes more development in the southeast of Totem Lake will bolster RapidRide ridership.

33 Replies to “Metro selects a preferred alignment for RapidRide K”

  1. With there being a looming capacity crisis at Bellevue TC, I wonder how it would go over if the RapidRide K-Line stayed on 116th Ave NE, skipping BTC and relying more heavily on connections at Wilburtion Station? The western part of the 271 could be extended to Wilburton Station to compensate.

    It would inconvenience a lot of people, but it would greatly benefit through-riders, save a significant amount of service hours, and make a good grid north-south grid route.

    1. Won’t happen because the large employers and Bellevue Square are on the west side of the freeway. How would you explain to Microsoft and Amazon that RapidRide doesn’t come to the transit center when that was one of its primary goals?

      Also, you’d have to look at bus transfers. Since it continues to southeast Bellevue that eliminates one set of transfers but there’s also southwest Bellevue; e.g,, 240 (also planned for RapidRide), 241, 249, and whatever replaces the 550 on south Bellevue Way.

      1. There would be a big outcry and I don’t think it will ever happen, but I don’t think it’s crazy either. For one, I’ve seen a comment (not sure where to confirm) that once WSDOT extends NE 6th street to 116th Ave NE (across I-405), the B-line will switch to NE 6th and extend to Bellevue Square. This could be a meaningful crossing of two RapidRide lines in a very grid-line manner, and the B-line transfer would get you all the way to Bellevue Square, as opposed to the RR K as planned.

        A few of the other scenarios you mentioned are actually not a problem at all. The 240 already connects to the future RR K on Lake Hills Connector (and shares stops with the 271). It’s actually a better place to transfer than Bellevue TC if you’re going from westbound 271 to southbound 240.

        The 241 is covered because it through-routes with the 226, and the 226 goes to 116th Ave NE and Wilburton Station. All that would really need to do is to move the route switchover from BTC to Wilburtion Station. This covers part of the Bellevue Way SE puzzle.

        The 249 is trickier. It actually connects to RR K at S. Kirkland P&R, which I think may be enough, but isn’t ideal since it makes for an awkward transfer if you’re coming from the south on RR K rather than the north.

        I think the only big blockers left now are the I-405 BRT lines, which is a problem. But it seems amazing just how much of the transfers at BTC could be made at Wilburtion Station with almost no changes.

      2. As a regular rider of the 249, let me just say that the 249 routing is too convoluted and the frequency (not to mention the ridership!) too low, to be worth worrying about when deciding where other routes should go.

    2. I’m more surprised by the choice of NE 8th and NE4th to cross I-405. That puts this route going through two freeway interchanges in a short distance. These interchanges are often congested and have long signal cycles. That can really add delay and unreliability, and it’s really hard to create transit signal priority there.

      I would think that NE 10th or NE 12th could be more reliable as well as East Main.

      1. Or NE 6th when WSDOT extends it across I-405. It has an freeway interchange for ETL only, though probably a big improvement over a general purpose freeway interchange.

      2. In general that is why I think this route will not have great ridership. The E is extremely popular because it competes well with a car. At various points along the way, the route is pretty much exactly what you would do if you were in a car, headed downtown. You are far enough away from the freeway that cutting over doesn’t make sense (except in the far north).

        In this case, the bus goes right by the freeway, but doesn’t get on it. I’m not saying I would do anything different — I’m just saying that it means the bus will be relatively slow between Kirkland and Bellevue, which I assume will be the biggest set of riders. It seems to be deviating to pick up the most riders, instead of giving the riders farther away a faster trip to downtown Bellevue. That can backfire, as those farther away just abandon the bus. If I’m at Northwest University, headed to BCC, for example, then this is my bus. But I’m guessing anyone who has a car will just drive, because using the bus will be a lot slower. Anything involves transfers (e. g. to Issaquah) is out of the question.

      3. One other advantage of crossing at Main St is that those headed to Eastgate and Bellevue College from Link could exit at East Main Station (level station exit) and forgo having to use Downtown Bellevue Station (level change required). For those going to/ from Seattle, it would save about five minutes in travel.

      4. I didn’t realize that 6th was going to be extended all the way across. That would be ideal. Fewer turns and mostly HOV only.

  2. So 64% of Totem Lake/Juanita riders go to Seattle and 13% to Bellevue per the City of Kirkland’s letter, and a 2013 survey showed Seattle to be the most popular destination. So Kirkland relates more to Seattle than Bellevue? Interesting.

    1. That’s transit riders. If you are traveling within East King, I’d imagine you are much more likely to drive. I had several coworkers in Kirkland that happily took the bus when they worked in downtown Seattle but preferred to drive when they worked in downtown Bellevue. In East King, parking is often free and driving is usually faster or at worse equal to transit speeds.

      1. Yes, and that’s a fairly typical commute travel pattern on the Eastside. The biggest overall travel flow is to Bellevue (& Overlake), but the transit share is much higher to Seattle. So Seattle dominates as a transit destination.

        A lot of longer range thinking on the Eastside is motivated by the expectation that Bellevue becomes much more of a transit destination too so that the transit travel map looks more like the overall travel map.

      2. Yeah dropping another 15,000 jobs into Bellevue should help. Parking in Bellevue during work hours is already expensive, but for most white collar worker the parking is free, so a policy change to encourage/require workers to feel the true cost of parking would go a long way towards encouraging transit ridership, particularly once some major Bellevue centric infrastructure comes online with East Link and 405 BRT.

  3. [The 239] segment between Kirkland and Totem Lake becomes redundant with Rapidride.

    Yeah, that seems like the odd one out. It will be interesting to see what Metro does. I could see several possibilities:

    1) Just live with the redundancy. Sometimes adding a redundant section is fine, but in this case, I don’t think so. The RapidRide will be frequent, and the 239 won’t. If they wanted to get tricky, they could try and time the 239 and 250 so that they run opposite each other, thus providing 15 minute service between downtown Kirkland and the NE 8th station. Then they could pair those two with the Rapid Ride (which, presumably will run every 15 minutes) thus providing 7.5 minute service. That sounds great, but tying all those buses together is problematic (for one thing, it makes it hard to improve one particular bus).

    2) Go the other way, doubling up the 255. This has much the same problem (a 30 minute bus mixing with a 15 minute bus).

    3) Just truncate at Totem Lake. I think I would lean towards this option. Right now it is supposed to run every half hour during the day, and hourly at night. If nothing else you could run it more often at night. Either that, or run it 20 minutes during the day. Either way it would be a significant improvement — worthy of the loss to through-riders. It would be a short bus, but the connections are pretty good.

    4) Run it on 116th, replacing part of the old 236 route. It is still redundant, but at least it adds some coverage. This would be my second choice.

    5) Send it somewhere else (either from the north or the south). I don’t see many good options here, but maybe someone has an idea.

    1. How about sending it to Redmond? Right now, at least, the only direct buses between Totem Lake and Redmond are peak only. I guess eventually there will be a Rapid Ride on NE85th, so transferring there won’t be so bad as today, but there is something to be said for giving UW Bothell a direct bus from Redmond.

      1. Great idea. Metro has a new DART route (930) connecting Redmond to Kingsgate shown on their map. This would replace that, quite nicely. Since this is a DART route, it is already borderline, making it appropriate for a coverage route. You even save a tiny amount in overlap (between the Kingsgate Park and Ride and Totem Lake Transit Center).

        I would also try and straighten out the bus routes around Totem Lake. Right now, the two routes (combined) do this: That is a lot of back and forth. If nothing else, I would simplify it just a bit, to this: That still gives you the front door connection to the I-405 buses along with other connections (and the Kingsgate Park and Ride). You lose a little bit of coverage (basically this:, but the new route would be faster. It would also directly connect the new Totem Lake apartment complex (likely the most densely populated place around for miles) to Redmond.

        This does a couple really nice things. It means you have another bus for riders looking to avoid this walk: You have a lot of people there trying to get to 405, and having three buses (the RapidRide, the 225 and the 239 ) is a great (this is a case where a bit of redundancy is good).

        Having the 225 and 239 run along the same initial route also means that you have two buses headed towards the B Line — if you miss one (e. g. the 225 towards Overlake) you can take the other, then transfer to the B. Or maybe you are planning on transferring to the B anyway, in which case if the two buses were timed, that would give you 15 minute frequency from the Totem Lake apartments to the B.

        Yep, that sounds like the best option.

      2. Your rationalization makes a lot of sense. I don’t go there so I don’t know anything other than what Google Earth shows, but the intersection of 132nd and 132nd seems WAY less busy than the businesses along 124th nearer the freeway would be for driving all-day ridership.

        It’s a tough area to serve.

  4. the city [Kirkland] ought to be nervous whether there will be enough riders to maintain so much service

    Yeah. Part of the problem is that even with all of these changes, things don’t look great. Better, sure; but I wouldn’t call them great. I think the big issue is that it is a very tough area to serve without spending a lot of money. East Link and 405 BRT will help, but not that much. Too often a rider has to choose between a slow surface bus, or making lots of transfers. For example, Juanita to downtown Seattle requires a slog south on the 255, then a transfer at the UW to Link. Juanita to downtown Bellevue means going the wrong direction (north) up to Totem Lake (followed by a transfer to the 405 BRT). Totem Lake to downtown Bellevue is good, but just about any trip to Seattle is a big pain. It will be a very long slog to the UW, and using East Link to get to downtown Seattle would probably take a while. First you have to get to the 405 bus stop, and for many, that is a long walk. The trip to downtown Bellevue won’t take long, but you still have another transfer and a train ride that will likely take at least 20 minutes. Keep in mind, these are for the major areas– it is worse if you are a mile or so outside those spots.

    Then you have Eastgate. It will be interesting to see what Metro does with all of the express buses. If you are headed to Seattle, then Mercer Island is ideal. The bus stays in the HOV lane, right to the train station. But if you are headed to downtown Bellevue, then ideally the bus goes right there. You can split the difference by going to South Bellevue, but that isn’t great for anyone.

    It would make a lot of sense to have a lot of buses that spend some time in the neighborhood, then get on the freeway. For example: — Provides coverage for the Juanita Drive area, while also providing a fast trip from Juanita to downtown Bellevue. It even works reasonably well from Kirkland to downtown Bellevue. Even so, you would probably have two versions — one that did the whole thing, and one that only went from Juanita to downtown Bellevue. — Fast ride from BCC to downtown Bellevue, allowing for a fast, frequent transfer at Eastgate for buses headed between Issaquah/Sammamish and Mercer Island. — UW Bothell to UW Seattle, with stops at all the freeway stations.

    But none of that is cheap, and none of it replaces much of anything. You still need buses that follow the surface streets. There isn’t that much truncation once Link gets to the East Side. I think enough buses like that and Kirkland could get “over the hump”; but until then I doubt there will be a bunch of new riders.

  5. I would prefer (4). I generally think that when a route (especially an infrequent coverage route) terminates at a transit center when there is an area lacking coverage within a few miles, it makes the most sense to extend it a few miles with a coverage “tail” (like the 180 in SE Auburn, the 246 in Clyde Hill, and the old 14 that ended in Summit, before that part was spun out into the 47).

    I thought the new all-day 930 would work for this, since residents on 116th street would have a two-seat ride to a wide range of eastside destinations. But the money needs to come from somewhere.

      1. Yeah, I understood (there is only one comment with bullet items). I think it is an interesting trade-off. It is common for buses to end at train stations — even ones that have basically nothing there. If you treat the 405 BRT like a train station, then ending a coverage route there makes some sense. Even now you have buses like the 345, 346, 347 and 348 that end at Northgate. If you squint, Northgate and Totem Lake look very similar (both have expresses to a downtown; both are malls (more or less) but with a fair amount of housing; both have some medical facilities).

        On the other hand, Totem Lake is a minor destination compared to Kirkland Transit Center. This is a coverage route, and it would make sense to add more coverage. A lot depends on the details — i. e. how much extra frequency are we talking about with a truncation. I guess I just have a hard time thinking anyone will ride a bus in the evening if it runs every hour — but then again, maybe only a handful will run the bus no matter how often it runs.

  6. If the 255 goes to Lake Washington Blvd., it will make South Kirkland P&R look like an even bigger detour, with the option available to just get on the freeway at Bellevue Way. The 255 snow route, in fact, does this, and it made up enough time to compensate for going 30 mph down the freeway in snow chains.

  7. The one downside that no one is taking about is that a lot of people who live on 108th walk to a 255 stop in the morning. Moving the 255 to Lake Washington Blvd requires them to either walk down a set of *super* steep grades (you have to physically lean backwards) and then walk back up in the afternoons. Walking up that hill in the summer is one thing, but in the rain and dark, not very fun.

    The alternative is taking RR K and either transferring at SK P&R onto the 255 (if headed to UW or somewhere within a few stops of UW station), creating a three seat ride OR taking a significant detour to Bellevue and then across I5 on the Link. I can’t see the former being used by anything though.

    I’m not sure what other solutions there are (maybe a peak direction, 20 minute headway bus to UW), but as someone that lives on 108th, it feels like getting to Seattle is going to be a lot harder, or at the least, a lot more inefficient and inconvenienced.

    1. I don’t think I said this very well above, but one way 108th riders might have to get to Seattle would be RR K —> 255 —> Link (or just UW).

    2. There might be a reasonable case for just consolidating all South Kirkland bus service on 108th and not serving Lake Washington Blvd. at all. It avoids the need to mess with existing ridership on the 255, and ridership along Lake Washington Blvd. on the 234/235 is tiny. Most of the density in that area is north of 68th St., where the walk to 6th/108th isn’t that far.

      It would also avoid the problem that the right turn from State St. to Lakeview Dr. is too sharp for an articulated bus.

  8. Some thoughts:
    1) I don’t see a reason to commit to which pathway a bus route in 2025 will take, all the way back in 2020, especially with a major service change looming on the horizon in 2023. Let’s focus first on the post 2023 Eastside bus network, then worry about RapidRide once post eastlink demand patterns emerge. (We can still have frequent numbered bus routes, though).

    2) I’ve ridden the bus between downtown Kirkland and Eastgate several times, usually for hiking purposes, either to catch a carpool or a Trailhead Direct bus. Somewhat surprisingly, the existing transfer between the 240 and 234/235 is actually faster than the one seat ride on the 245 because the routing is considerably more direct. The proposed change would save some time by eliminating the transfer, but would still be slow. In the morning, when I’m more pressed for time, I would probably still end up riding Lyft/Uber instead of the bus.

    3) If this proposal is enacted, the 271 should just run from Bellevue TC to the U district, with a big increase in frequency to compensate for the smaller route. Such a move would be a general positive for the transit network. (Those riding all the way from U district to Bellevue College would get there faster riding Link to South Bellevue, followed by a brief hop on I-90 by some other bus route).

    4) I understand the reason why DT Bellevue is a must serve, but I also dislike the fact that everyone passing through it has to make all those turns and sit in all that traffic when a straight line road exists as an alternative.

    5) Is there any way to come up with a sensible transit network that has a bus going straight down State St./Lake Washington Blvd./Bellevue Way, all the way from Kirkland TC to South Bellevue P&R? This seems considerably more direct for most trips. Maybe the annoyances of 4) coming from the fact that the Kirkland/Bellevue bus is pivoting east, then west again. The problem is, how to maintain coverage on 116th, without having two separate Kirkland->Bellevue routes (perhaps a rerouting of the 249?)

    1. That would mean delaying the route until 2030. You can’t plan and implement RapidRide in just 1-2 years, especially both (if you’re holding up the alignment decision). The other routes will probably be decided 1-2 years ahead of opening as usual. Kirkland has stated a clear preference for RapidRide K to go to Totem Lake rather than Redmond. The decision of 108th vs Lake Wash Blvd, well, the street modifications and fiber-optic cable and station designs are all depending on it. The street modifications especially have to be done by Kirkland whenever its construction crews can schedule it, and that would be hard to fit into a 1-2 year window.

      South Kirkland P&R is probably inevitable, both due to “old thinking”, the affordable apartments there, and Link’s eventual terminus. In that case it’s better for RapidRide to be on 108th where we can hopefully argue to get the stations on the street rather than inside the P&R, and it would be much worse for the bus to wrap around from Lake Wash Blvd to the P&R and back south again to Bellevue. If we can get the K to street stations, maybe we can successfully get the 255 away from the P&R. The alternative, having the K on Lake Wash Blvd not serving the P&R, may be a hard sell now. It may be an easier sell later, but later is a long time away, and Kirkland has been waiting a long time for better service.

      1. I’m still not really buying the 5 year timeframe. The 40 and 62 each started running less than one year after being planned. The fiber-optic cable may have been necessary back in 2000, when the RapidRide concept was first planned, but improvements in cellular technology have since made that part obsolete. For instance, there is no reason why, in the year 2025, a station requires a hardwired internet connection to accept Orca cards.

        The red buses and shelters are exactly the same, whether on this street or that. With modern technology, there is absolutely no reason why a RapidRide route can’t be chosen in late 2023 and open in 2025, with 2020 planning simply revolving around high level budgeting and choosing a general corridor.

        I agree that, in the real world, South Kirkland P&R is probably inevitable. But, my anecdotal experience says a Seattle bound route would be harder to move. The Seattle buses seem to get at least 1/3 of their ridership at the P&R, but almost nobody uses the P&R to go to Bellevue. Often, today’s 234/235 go in and out of South Kirkland P&R, picking up and dropping off no one.

        There’s also the fact that Bellevue Way is such and obvious straight line corridor for a Kirkland/Bellevue bus, whereas a Seattle bound bus needs 108th, at least during peak hours, to avoid traffic entering the freeway.

        Between the 234/235 becoming RapidRide, more frequency on the 255, and the 544, I’m also becoming concerned that buses getting stuck behind other buses is going to start to become a more regular occurrence. The P&R is simply not designed to handle the number of buses per hour that the long range plans aim to throw at it.

    2. I still wonder if some variant of the 556 ends up replacing the 271 at some point after East Link opens. Having RapidRide replace the busiest segment of the 271 outside U-District-Bellevue may make it all the more likely. The question is whether there’s a path that’s faster than the 271’s current Medina routing (and the probability that such a frequent 556 would be truncated at the U-District without continuing to Northgate).

      1. For Bellevue->UW, entering the freeway at 108th is faster peak hours, but off peak, skipping Medina doesn’t buy much time savings, and such a change would reduce the walkshed around Bellevue Square.

        As to the 556, continuing to Northgate post 2021 makes zero sense, as switching to Link at UW Station would be much faster than staying on the bus. My guess is we end up with an all-day 271 (Bellevue to U district only, with frequency boost), peak only 556 (Bellevue to U district only), and all day 554 (South Bellevue P&R to Issaquah only), supplemented by various peak only Metro routes from Eastgate/Issaquah to Mercer Island. The 555 will be discontinued.

  9. That means buses to Seattle and Bellevue are expected to swap corridors, with the 255 moving to Lake Washington Blvd, and the new Bellevue service moving off Lake Washington Blvd to 108th.

    Why? What is the reasoning behind that? Is the plan, then to truncate the 250 in Kirkland, so that it only goes between Kirkland TC and Redmond? If so, I guess that might make sense, as you would save a considerable amount of service time. But where would that service savings go? To pay for the RapidRide? If so, then there will be a lot of people who suddenly hate the RapidRide. Will it go into other service — if so, I’m not sure where you can find a better value.

    It seems to me that it makes sense to just keep the current (proposed) routing. It isn’t like the RapidRide will be super frequent. The A and B run every 15 minutes, and I would expect this to do the same. At that frequency, you gain ridership when adding more service. Have the new K run opposite the new 255, since they both would run every 15 minutes, giving you a combined 7.5 minute frequency. From that strip of Kirkland, you would have lots of good trips:

    1) Very frequent service to Totem Lake (either bus will do).
    2) Getting to downtown Kirkland is very frequent.
    3) You have a very frequent connection to the 250, heading to Redmond.
    4) Getting to Juanita is very frequent. If you miss the 255, you can catch the RapidRide and then transfer to the 230/231.
    5) Similarly, getting to Bellevue is very frequent. If you miss the RapidRide, then you can catch the 255, and then catch the 250 or 249.

    Basically this makes this strip of Kirkland — an area that Metro believes justifies a RapidRide line — one of the best areas for transit. At the same time, you still have good (15 minute) coverage for Lake Washington Boulevard.

    At the same time, you still have coverage for Lake Washington Boulevard.

    Doubling up service between South Kirkland and Bellevue gives you the same sort of benefit (e. g. very frequent connection to Bellevue). If you want to mix things up, then send the bus to the Spring District Station. That way, folks from the Spring District have a better connection to Kirkland, while giving folks along the corridor very frequent connections to Link.

Comments are closed.